﻿Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, June 19th, 2014 at 12:11 AM
Title: Re: Poll on Faith in Sutras
Content:
pensum said:
I don't really understand the purpose of your question for, even within the traditional canon, many sutras themselves clearly state that they were not taught by the Buddha but by someone else, for example Āryasaṃvṛtiparamārthasatyanirdeśanāmamahāyānasūtra in which it is Manjushri who is specifically requested to give teachings. (It's a very worthwhile read by the way, and is available at http://read.84000.co/#!ReadingRoom/UT22084-060-008/12 )

Will said:
We also read that "through the blessing or empowerment of Buddha"  such & such bodhisattva spoke.  Thus "in some manner or form."

pensum said:
But this is why i picked that specific sutra for in it the retinue specifically requests the Buddha to call Manjushri so that they might see him. Buddha does nothing more than call Manjushri to join them, and refuses to ask or command Manjushri to teach. And then they ask to hear him not recount the teachings of Shakyamuni but rather those of Ratnaketu: Then the divine son Lord of Peace and Calm bowed to the Blessed One and said, with joined palms, “Blessed One, all of us would like to listen, so please ask Mañjuśrī Kumārabhuta to teach.”
The Blessed One replied, “Divine son, you yourself should make that request.”
So the divine son said, “Mañjuśrī, it would be wonderful if you could give us a Dharma teaching similar to what is taught in the buddha realm of the blessed one, the Thus-Gone Ratnaketu.”
And as pointed out above other sutras were composed or transcribed by others such as Huineng. So i, and it would appear others as well, find the wording of your poll question to be too vague.

Malcolm wrote:
The teaching of one buddha is the teaching of all.

The platform sutra is misnamed.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, June 18th, 2014 at 11:46 PM
Title: Re: Poll on Faith in Sutras
Content:
pensum said:
I don't really understand the purpose of your question for, even within the traditional canon, many sutras themselves clearly state that they were not taught by the Buddha but by someone else, for example Āryasaṃvṛtiparamārthasatyanirdeśanāmamahāyānasūtra in which it is Manjushri who is specifically requested to give teachings. (It's a very worthwhile read by the way, and is available at http://read.84000.co/#!ReadingRoom/UT22084-060-008/12 )

Malcolm wrote:
This is an example of the Buddha teaching through granting permission.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, June 18th, 2014 at 11:20 PM
Title: Re: Poll on Faith in Sutras
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
Come on Malcolm, everybody knows Huineng penned the original Platform Sutra.  Let's not kid ourselves.  Then it developed over a 500 year period.

Malcolm wrote:
The development of the platform sutra is not relevant to the discussion.

It is one thing to have Mahāyāna sutras that transcend time when taught in Akaniṣṭha by the Sambhogakāya to an emanated retinue -- quite another when they feature retinues like Śariputra (who passed a few months before the Buddha), and so on.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, June 18th, 2014 at 11:17 PM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
The Brahma Viharas are a Buddhist practice too, and the assurances were in regards to positive circumstances in this life too arising as a consequence of right ethics.

Malcolm wrote:
You are missing the point — they are not a transcendent practice, they do not transcend samsara, therefore, they do not eradicate suffering.

daverupa said:
Neither does mere Sila on it's own, nor mere guarding of the sense gates, yet these comprise essential steps along the Gradual Training. You expect far too much, given the context, while ignoring the rather dense Dhamma teaching they did receive, all things considered.

Malcolm wrote:
No, I am merely pointing out that people invest far more in the Kalamas account than is warranted, given its context. People constantly misuse this sutta, a minor text in every respect, lacking importance until it was seized upon in the 20th century as some putative confirmation of Buddhist agnosticism.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, June 18th, 2014 at 10:52 PM
Title: Re: Poll on Faith in Sutras
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
No.  The Platform Sutra comes to mind here.

Malcolm wrote:
No what?

Are you claiming that Śariputra transcends space and time?

The "Platform sutra" is not really called that. Not in the sense of the Indian usage of the term. The Chinese term "jing" has a broader usage.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, June 18th, 2014 at 10:37 PM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
The Brahma Viharas are a Buddhist practice too, and the assurances were in regards to positive circumstances in this life too arising as a consequence of right ethics.

Malcolm wrote:
You are missing the point — they are not a transcendent practice, they do not transcend samsara, therefore, they do not eradicate suffering.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, June 18th, 2014 at 10:26 PM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Since the very definition of suffering in Buddhism is predicated on endless birth in samsara, Buddhadharma as a path simply makes no sense absent that understanding.

Sherab Dorje said:
Anders said:  "for the sake of the fruits it can offer in this life alone."  Enlightenment is not the only fruit of Buddhist practice.  The "assurances" taught to the Kalamas demonstrate that quite clearly.

Malcolm wrote:
The Buddha did not teach the Kalamas a path -- he taught them the four Brahma Viharas and nothing else — which are common with Hinduism — resulting only in higher birth in samsara.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, June 18th, 2014 at 9:04 PM
Title: Re: Hello!
Content:
Ed1980 said:
Keen to completely avoid the NKT. I hope I’m in the right place!

Malcolm wrote:
Indeed you are...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, June 18th, 2014 at 8:42 PM
Title: Re: Poll on Faith in Sutras
Content:
Jikan said:
I voted "yes" because Buddha isn't limited by time & space.


Malcolm wrote:
Audiences, however, are...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, June 18th, 2014 at 8:37 PM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
Shamati said:
on the other hand I dont really understand why a materialist, who have no faith in spiritual existence or realities would want to cling to buddhism?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, this has puzzled me for years too. I have never understood it.

Anders said:
If I had to guess, I'd say it is because you seem not to appreciate that pursuing freedom from suffering could be worthwhile for the sake of the fruits it can offer in this life alone.

Malcolm wrote:
Since the very definition of suffering in Buddhism is predicated on endless birth in samsara, Buddhadharma as a path simply makes no sense absent that understanding.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, June 18th, 2014 at 8:30 PM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:


Dan74 said:
As for Western Zen, my teacher was very traditionally trained in Korea, and even there, lineage is not very important. Lineage, as we know, is not a guarantee.

Malcolm wrote:
That just illustrates an important difference between Zen and Vajrayāna — in Vajrayāna, lineage is everything.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, June 18th, 2014 at 8:20 PM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
How's this for a dilemma: If we accept the veracity of all Mahayana Sutra without applying (modernist text) critical analysis then what happens in the case of Sutra who's content contravenes some of the four seals.  Sutras that preach Atman theory, for example.  I give this example, as the question occurred to me during a discussion I was having in another thread.

- THIS IS NOT AN INVITATION TO START (yet another) DISCUSSION ON SELF vs NON-SELF (again) -

Malcolm wrote:
I have pointed out before that the four seals are not an adequate test for determining Buddhist vs. non-Buddhist for the simple reason that Pudgalavadins are clearly Buddhists who advocate a doctrine of self (the inexpressible person who is neither the same as nor different from the aggregates).


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, June 18th, 2014 at 7:36 PM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:


tobes said:
That's simply the argument given across 81 pages: that every scholar and most western practitioners uncritically accept the hegemonic view that the Mahayana sutras were later developments. In other words, when anyone reads sutras, they read them in that way.

Malcom's argument is that we need to overturn this hegemony.

The fact that there is a hegemony to be overturned clearly implies that we ought not take things at face value; we ought to find some other (more traditional) way of engaging.

Malcolm wrote:
Tobes, quit playing with words.

Otherwise, you are quite right, there is a lens through which every one introduced to Buddhism in the West reads Buddhism and that lens was originally polished in the late 19th century.

That lens consists primarily of the assumption that writing was unknown in India at the time of the Buddha and that all references to writing are proofs of post-Hellenic developments.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, June 18th, 2014 at 7:32 PM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:


Wayfarer said:
Perhaps a lot of what you say is actually context-dependent. It depends on the point you are trying to make, to those you are speaking to at the time. You adopt a certain position for argument's sake, and then pursue it.

Would that be a fair assessment?

Malcolm wrote:
No, I still stand by what I said then, and what I said yesterday. Even A108 is a Buddhist, just a Buddhist whose views of reality are not consistent with Buddhism. This does not mean I would ever deny these people access to as much of the teachings as they can stomach -- it also does not mean that I am willing to cut them slack when they start advocating changing the teachings to suit whatever biases and preconceptions about reality that they hold.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, June 18th, 2014 at 8:58 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:


tobes said:
By explicitly working on early Indian Prajnaparamita...

Malcolm wrote:
Your statement betrays you right here...

If Prajñāpāramita is the Buddha's teaching, how can there be "earlier" and "later"?

At this point the narrative is so embedded in our thinking, we don't even question it.

You also need to understand that I am pretty much confining myself to historical scholarship.

Sociology, anthropology and so on of Buddhist cultures are relatively new fields, and are often not undertaken by people with serious skills in Buddhist literature.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, June 18th, 2014 at 8:56 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
tobes said:
Now we have the admission, that although there might in fact be a large percentage of scholar-practitioners, all of them, somehow, disavow their Buddhist beliefs for a quasi materialism which implicitly informs all of their work.

Malcolm wrote:
Jesus Tobes, have you ever read any of the stuff that these people write?

dzogchungpa said:
You mean stuff like this: http://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/11125112?


Malcolm wrote:
Funny you mention that, she asked me a  number of questions about the text she was working on.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, June 18th, 2014 at 8:01 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
tobes said:
Now we have the admission, that although there might in fact be a large percentage of scholar-practitioners, all of them, somehow, disavow their Buddhist beliefs for a quasi materialism which implicitly informs all of their work.

Malcolm wrote:
Jesus Tobes, have you ever read any of the stuff that these people write?

They all adhere to the text critical method which is the consensus view of Buddhist textual evolution in the academy.

For example, our own dear and beloved Huifeng doesn't believe a single word of Mahāyāna was taught by the Buddha. Neither does Jeff aka Indrajala, and I dare say, neither do you. Forget about all these fancy rationals, dreams, visions, and so on. Basically, the simple fact is that most of us who follow Mahāyāna and Vajrayāna don't actually believe that the scriptures we purport to follow were indeed taught by the Buddha in any form at all.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, June 18th, 2014 at 7:09 AM
Title: Re: Interview with the Arahat
Content:
duckfiasco said:
But I suppose that's why I don't subscribe to the thousands of lifetimes to do anything worth a fart model of some schools.

Malcolm wrote:
That would be common Mahāyāna.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, June 18th, 2014 at 6:48 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
daverupa said:
For what it's worth, http://dhammaloka.org.au/files/pdf/authenticity.pdf covers a Buddhist Modernism that is pro-rebirth, involves practitioner-scholars, etc., so please note that so far this recent conversation is a rather one-sided characterization of what this sort of approach involves.

Malcolm wrote:
If you accept certain Western historic claims, it might be satisfying for some. But it is still very much a "Protestant Buddhism" with a "Scientific Buddha" at the heart of the quest.

Of course, according to them, I would fall in the denialist camp.

I would not characterize this as "modernism" but more like a different sort of fundamentalism. It is an attempt at setting down a scholastic, "Early Buddhist" fundamentalism.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, June 18th, 2014 at 5:48 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
Shamati said:
on the other hand I dont really understand why a materialist, who have no faith in spiritual existence or realities would want to cling to buddhism?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, this has puzzled me for years too. I have never understood it.

Mkoll said:
I would guess that it is the fear of death that we all share. Sometimes, people become more religious or spiritual later in life as old age, sickness, and death roll in. And who can say what changes of heart may take place in a materialist on their deathbed.


Malcolm wrote:
I guess, what I don't understand the most is people like Batchelor who clearly want to revise Dharma with rebirth out of it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, June 18th, 2014 at 4:58 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
Shamati said:
on the other hand I dont really understand why a materialist, who have no faith in spiritual existence or realities would want to cling to buddhism?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, this has puzzled me for years too. I have never understood it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, June 18th, 2014 at 1:33 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
I don't think that scholar-practitioners are taken very seriously.

mutsuk said:
I can assure you that Matthew Kapstein is taken very, very seriously in academic circles. However, I had no idea he was a practitioner and actually I suspect he is not. But his research work is definitely worth the reading.

Malcolm wrote:
Hi Mutsuk:

Kapstein is a brilliant guy, there is no doubt he is taken quite seriously. But as you know I am making a different point.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, June 17th, 2014 at 11:17 PM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:


TocharianB said:
Aren't Janet Gyatso and David Germano both scholar-practitioners?

Malcolm wrote:
They are both extremely knowledgeable in their fields. I am not aware that they are serious practitioners. They probably be offended if they were asked.

TocharianB said:
In my understanding, the majority of American scholars of Tibetan traditions in particular are devoted to Vajrayana, e.g.John Makransky, Matthew Kapstein, Jose Cabezón, Jeffrey Hopkins, Jakob Dalton, Anne Klein, Gregory Hillis.

Malcolm wrote:
I don't think that scholar-practitioners are taken very seriously.

TocharianB said:
The same cannot be said for scholars of Theravada and East Asian traditions, of course, but I'm a little confused why you're painting all of academia with the same brush, especially American scholars devoted to Tibetan Buddhism, who tend, in my limited experience, to be very engaged students of the dharma.  Is the new generation of scholars at UVa, who mostly haven't gotten around to publishing yet, more secular than generations past?

Malcolm wrote:
The requirements for the study of religion in all academic programs is the same — you must subordinate traditional narratives for the academic ones, or seek to explain the traditional narratives in otherizing terms.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, June 17th, 2014 at 10:08 PM
Title: Re: Dorje Drollo and Simhamukha
Content:
alpha said:
What is the difference between Dorje Drollo and Simhamukha in terms of actions and removing obstacles ?
It seems that in general the prefered choice for removing obstacles related to spirit possession, black magic, provocations is Simhamukha although as far as i know DD is much more powerful  but don't know in what way powerful ,so i've been told.

Malcolm wrote:
Drollo is meant for controlling the eight classes in general.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, June 17th, 2014 at 12:42 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
Dan74 said:
To my way of seeing, the trouble is not with too little faith but with too much corrosive doubt, the papanca borne of too much hair-splitting and intellectualising relative to practice. I've been fortunate to meet several practitioners to whom this entire debate would be completely irrelevant. Not because they are so adamant that the traditional accounts are exactly right, but because their strong practice root has rendered such hand-wringing entirely beside the point.

Malcolm wrote:
My main point is that the traditional accounts have been supplanted by a modern narrative of uncertainty. This can be beneficial to no one who practices these traditions.

In Western Zen, lineage is simply not as important as it is Vajrayāna.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, June 16th, 2014 at 11:14 PM
Title: Re: Historical Changes in Ritual Implements & Shrine Set-up
Content:
Jikan said:
On two occasions, I've been able to to see mid-19th century photographs of Tibetan Buddhist practitioners and some of their implements (one was on display years ago at the University of New Mexico, USA; the other at George Mason University, USA).  It seems to me that there have been some small but significant changes in the size and shape of some articles of practice, which seem to be increasingly standardized today.  For instance, the chodpas I've seen photographed in practice over a hundred years ago might have much smaller and differently-accoutred damaru than one might expect to see someone using today--or not.

I'm wondering if these changes reflect easier manufacturing processes today compared to pre-industrial Asia, or changes in attitude/expectation toward practice implements, or something else entirely--or if I'm completely off the reservation in my reading of these images.

Thanks.

Malcolm wrote:
There has been some modernization and stream-lining of practice articles since the 1970's. And in general, quality has declined.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, June 16th, 2014 at 1:01 PM
Title: Re: The Buddha from Babylon
Content:



plwk said:
The Lost History and Cosmic Vision of Siddhartha Gautama

After reading the excerpts from this http://www.buddhafrombabylon.com/, I have no idea on what to make out of it.
Maybe, those of you who have bought/read this book or the excerpts do?



Malcolm wrote:
I see, so this is reverse of the Lost Jesus in India trope, i.e. the Lost Buddha in the Middle-East.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, June 16th, 2014 at 11:33 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
daverupa said:
Saddha isn't harmed by history.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, if you are a Theravadin, and your "history" is written by people who prefer Pali terms to Sanskrit ones, of course not. You folks already have an agenda to discredit Mahāyāna.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, June 16th, 2014 at 11:30 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
Mkoll said:
Can you provide a reference? This thread is almost 80 pages long.


Malcolm wrote:
https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=16491&p=239338&hilit=sujato

Mkoll said:
I'm sorry but one quote from one scholar about one Buddhist school is hardly proof of your words: "Scholars have no idea where the eighteen schools came, and so on".

It would be presumptuous of me to expect you to go out of your way to provide more numerous and solid references for your claim.

Malcolm wrote:
It is not likely to happen. I have been reading academic Buddhist literature for the better part of three decades, I worked for a Buddhist book store at one time, and also Wisdom Pubs as their retail manager in 1990-1. I have maintained a familiarity with the latest and greatest of academic literature especially where it concerns Mahāyāna — when I tell you that it piles speculation on assumptions in absence of actual facts, I mean it. When I tell you that I have observed a number of interpretive fads amongst western scholars, I mean it. Even if there are closeted Buddhists in academia, they certainly cannot write books from the perspective of their faith. Instead, they must accommodate the western scholastic set of assumptions and prejudices about the history of Mahāyāna whether they buy them or not (but they largely seem to). The one thing it all boils down to is that according to the current state of knowledge of the origins of Mahāyāna and Vajrayāna, western scholars simply have no clear idea where these traditions are from and how they arose.

But we do. Why? Because we have clear accounts of the rise of these teachings; which teacher brought out which tantras (Nairatma, Hevajra; Saraha, Cakrasamvara, Garab Dorje, the Dzogchen Tantras, and so on). In general we consider that Nāgārjuna revealed Mahāyāna. And that is all a practitioner of these systems really needs to know.

Their approach does not lead to a living wisdom tradition that will never be obsolete. Their approach leads to dead knowledge in a book, soon obsolete.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, June 16th, 2014 at 5:51 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
Wayfarer said:
many more Buddhologists are now also practitioners.

Malcolm wrote:
Very few of those are Mahāyānist in any identifiable way — at most they are Mahāyāna "sympathetic".


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, June 16th, 2014 at 3:46 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
Kunzang said:
Malcolm,

Do you think your former self that more-or-less accepted the academic view of Mahayana origins would have been persuaded by the type of reasonings you're using now if someone had presented them to you?

Malcolm wrote:
I would have to admit that is all guesses, mostly conflicting.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, June 16th, 2014 at 2:59 AM
Title: Re: The Three Skyes
Content:
Nirvan said:
Hello brothers and sisters

Could some of you give here some explanations of the 3 Skyes (namkha sum - nam-mkha' gsum), important notion in the Dzogchen teachings ?

Thank you


Malcolm wrote:
It is something you need to receive directly from a qualified teacher.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, June 16th, 2014 at 2:34 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:


daverupa said:
So due to https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=16491&p=239338&hilit=sujato#p239338 you consider "almost everything we read by scholars etc." to be a supported claim? This has "taken care of it"?

Malcolm wrote:
This is merely a drop in the bucket of similar speculative confusion that I have encountered in people like Vallee -Pouissin, Davidson, Snellgrove, etc., et all. over the past 30 years or so. Like many people, I gained my first real introduction to Buddhism by taking a course at a college (with Malcolm David Eckel). He told me then he was glad he was a Christian, because Buddhism as a religion to follow never made any sense to him, despite is his interest in Madhyamaka.

Pretty much every suggestion of origin, or attempt to pin something down in Buddhist history is met with a chorus of confusion and counter claims.

I seriously considered becoming a Buddhologist, but after seeing how the work of people like Janet Gyatso, Hallisey, Van de Kuip, Germano, etc., turned out, and how destructive, or if you prefer, deconstructive the approach of the western academy towards Buddhadharma is, I have decided to eschew its conclusions as non-productive and sterile speculations. In other words, there will be no living tradition of Buddhadharma flowing out from Western Academia.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, June 16th, 2014 at 2:13 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Therefore, I have concluded that the traditional accounts are indeed more satisfying.

dzogchungpa said:
I don't find the traditional accounts even slightly satisfying.

Malcolm wrote:
They are that we have, unless, like western Academic scholars of the history of Buddhism, you make a (meager) living inventing and then selling new narratives.
The problem with Buddhadharma in the West is not too much faith, it is too little faith.
Not in my case.
Lack of faith is not obvious. But it definitely begins with deciding that traditional Buddhist narratives are just "myths", and dissatisfying ones at that.

BTW, I am not judging anyone personally — people are free to believe whatever they wish, AFAIC. But I have come to the conclusion that some approaches to the Dharma are more virtuous than others, so I am following my own advice in this respect. Everyone else is free to do as they please.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, June 16th, 2014 at 2:10 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
Mkoll said:
Can you provide a reference? This thread is almost 80 pages long.


Malcolm wrote:
https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=16491&p=239338&hilit=sujato


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, June 15th, 2014 at 9:19 PM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Given the fact that the whole edifice of the western historiography of Buddhism is consists of a house of cards

daverupa said:
This is yet to be demonstrated, even this many pages in.

Malcolm wrote:
Oh, I took care of that pages ago buy pointing out that Scholars have no idea where the eighteen schools came, and so on. Almost everything we read by scholars, unless it is grounded in some plastic fact like inscription, and so on, is entirely speculative fabrications, and at this point in my life, I find them less reasonable to take seriously on any level at all.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, June 15th, 2014 at 8:12 PM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The people most attached to views here are those who are committed to historiography of Buddhism as promulgated in the western academy, or their pet view of the brain, etc.

I have also come to understand that "Buddhist Modernism" arises out of this destructive analysis, the only thing "Buddhist" about it is its name, but like the Holy Roman Empire that was neither "holy", nor "Roman", nor an "empire", Buddhist modernism is neither "Buddhist" nor "modern" at all.

As for myself, I am not attached to any particular story — I have simply, and finally come to understand that western Academic scholarship on Buddhadharma is destructive to that Dharma, not merely for one reason, but for very many. Therefore, I have concluded that the traditional accounts are indeed more satisfying. They involve less clinging, less proliferation, are more inspiring, and generate more genuine faith. The problem with Buddhadharma in the West is not too much faith, it is too little faith.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, June 15th, 2014 at 8:00 PM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
treehuggingoctopus said:
e-Sangha-like questing for hardline orthodoxy, I wouldn't hesitate even a second..

Malcolm wrote:
E-Sangha was only hardline about one thing really — rebirth.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, June 15th, 2014 at 11:20 AM
Title: Re: A bunch of questions about empowerment, deities and prac
Content:
LolCat said:
Thank you for all the responses people, they were reaally helpful.


Malcolm wrote:
Recite refuge and bodhicitta. Then recite whatever mantras you have received, focusing on the sound.

Eventually, you will be able to find the correct sadhana and receive instruction. For now, it is excellent if you can maintain the stream of recitation daily.

LolCat said:
I think I do have the correct sadhana right now:
http://www.garchen.net/resources/Amitabha%20FINAL%20FINAL.pdf " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Would it be okay for me to continue this practice without a teacher?


Malcolm wrote:
Definitely. You do your best.

You will eventually find someone who can give you instruction, or you will find the book, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, June 15th, 2014 at 10:26 AM
Title: Re: A bunch of questions about empowerment, deities and prac
Content:
LolCat said:
Thank you for all the responses people, they were reaally helpful.


Malcolm wrote:
Recite refuge and bodhicitta. Then recite whatever mantras you have received, focusing on the sound.

Eventually, you will be able to find the correct sadhana and receive instruction. For now, it is excellent if you can maintain the stream of recitation daily.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, June 15th, 2014 at 10:25 AM
Title: Re: A bunch of questions about empowerment, deities and prac
Content:
Alfredo said:
6. Since mantras can be pronounced in different ways, depending on local phonology, and have evolved somewhat over time, this lends support to the suggestion that they are derived from particular cultures.

Malcolm wrote:
Mantras are the speech acts of awakened beings — they can be in any language. But they must have been pronounced first by a buddha for a given purpose.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, June 15th, 2014 at 10:23 AM
Title: Re: A bunch of questions about empowerment, deities and prac
Content:
Alfredo said:
11. No one really "gets" bodhicitta until they are enlightened!


Malcolm wrote:
This is not correct.

Compassion is the cause of bodhicitta, bodhicitta is the cause of buddhas.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, June 15th, 2014 at 10:21 AM
Title: Re: A bunch of questions about empowerment, deities and prac
Content:


LolCat said:
10. What is the difference between Metta and Boddhicitta?

Malcolm wrote:
Metta is love. [Mahāyāna] bodhicitta is the wish to attain complete buddhahood for the benefit all sentient beings.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, June 15th, 2014 at 7:43 AM
Title: Re: The practices of the base of santi maha sangha
Content:
thewhiterussia said:
Dear people,

According to the  instructions for the practices of the base level of santi maha sangha one day of practice corresponds to four thuns. Does anybody know how long is one thun supposed to be?

Many thanks


Malcolm wrote:
Traditionally, three hours, practically, two.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, June 15th, 2014 at 5:51 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
daverupa said:
own, which is utterly amazing to see repeated over and over here.

Malcolm wrote:
Given the fact that the whole edifice of the western historiography of Buddhism is consists of a house of cards, it is not surprising it is challenged over and over. What you have are a few phenomena caked in modern speculations which are utterly unsupported. This is case of the whole of Buddhist studies in the west. Not merely studies of Mahāyāna.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, June 14th, 2014 at 2:07 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
Sönam said:
Easy one ... Buddhist version does not reject evolution theory, it includes it in a more complete process.

pueraeternus said:
The Buddhist version of the origin of the human race is that we devolved from deva beings due to the three poisons, our bodies and mind becoming grosser and grosser, etc. This contradicts scientific evolution.

Malcolm wrote:
Not necessarily.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, June 14th, 2014 at 1:56 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
Sönam said:
[
Dzogchen view does not say that we come from deva ...

Malcolm wrote:
Norbu Rinpoche subscribes to the origin of humanity described by the Buddha. It is not in Dzogchen tantras, but it also does not contradict Dzogchen tantras.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, June 14th, 2014 at 1:42 AM
Title: Re: Dharma protectors and samaya
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
North American is Tsiu Marpo. Ocean is Marutse.

Karinos said:
Hi, and which one for Europe please? thanks

Malcolm wrote:
Pramoha


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, June 13th, 2014 at 4:31 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
And if a vidyādhara tells you that you should regard sutras as the actual words of the Buddha, or the termas as the actual words of Padmasambhava you will react how?

dzogchungpa said:
I'm curious, did Sakya Pandita think that one should regard termas as the actual words of Padmasambhava?

Malcolm wrote:
Sakya Pandita was skeptical of the nascent treasure tradition.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, June 13th, 2014 at 3:13 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
I see no contradiction in having faith in the transmission of a living rigdzin and at the same time recognizing the reality of the complexities of text transmission over centuries.

Malcolm wrote:
Even though your very notion of a vidyādhara is derived from a textual tradition in which you have no confidence?

gad rgyangs said:
my notion of vidhydhara is derived from sitting in front of ChNNR. I find all kinds of interesting things in sutras, I just dont think they fell out of the sky onto my roof.

Malcolm wrote:
And you know that ChNN is a vidyādhara exactly how? And if a vidyādhara tells you that you should regard sutras as the actual words of the Buddha, or the termas as the actual words of Padmasambhava you will react how?

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, June 13th, 2014 at 3:01 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
I see no contradiction in having faith in the transmission of a living rigdzin and at the same time recognizing the reality of the complexities of text transmission over centuries.

Malcolm wrote:
Even though your very notion of a vidyādhara is derived from a textual tradition in which you have no confidence?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, June 13th, 2014 at 2:18 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
This is what the Mahāyāna and Vajrayāna traditions clearly maintain. There is no reason for practitioners of these traditions not to simply accept these accounts, and every good reason to do so.

M

gad rgyangs said:
so, basically you reject the highly plausible text critical explanation in favor of fairytales, and provide no justification beyond "just because".

Malcolm wrote:
Your stance is not different, you accept the text critical explanation just because you cannot imagine anything else to be the case.

You basically do not have any faith in the tradition, which is fine — but then you are left holding a bunch of teachings in which you have no confidence nor reason to believe that they will do anything other than provide you with a few hours of entertainment. Otherwise, if you actually have confidence in the teachings, you cannot really say why you do apart from your own conceptual admiration of them since you certainly cannot believe they come from an awakened source. This is the inevitable consequence of accepting the text critical version of the history of Buddhist sūtras and tantras.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, June 13th, 2014 at 1:51 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
OK, so whats your alternative, fully demonstrable, explanation for the state of the texts?

Malcolm wrote:
They were taught by the Buddha, and then squirreled away by nāgās, devas, yakṣas, tenth stage bodhisattvas, etc., until they were again promulgated by Nāgārjuna.

M

gad rgyangs said:
and this is demonstrable how exactly?

Malcolm wrote:
This is what the Mahāyāna and Vajrayāna traditions clearly maintain. There is no reason for practitioners of these traditions not to simply accept these accounts, and every good reason to do so.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, June 13th, 2014 at 1:30 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
As it happens, I noticed the relationship between the 8000 & the 25000 on my own by comparing them. Yes, its that obvious, even to a non-specialist.

Malcolm wrote:
Sure, why not? They are both Prajñāpāramita sutras, the basis message is the same. Even some of the words are the same. In the Agamas/NIkayas there are countless places where the Buddha uses the same phrases over and over again. This does not mean that your contention that one is merely a padded out version of the other is supportable in anyway. It is merely your conjecture based upon your idea of sutra composition.

gad rgyangs said:
OK, so whats your alternative, fully demonstrable, explanation for the state of the texts?

Malcolm wrote:
They were taught by the Buddha, and then squirreled away by nāgās, devas, yakṣas, tenth stage bodhisattvas, etc., until they were again promulgated by Nāgārjuna.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, June 13th, 2014 at 12:48 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
As it happens, I noticed the relationship between the 8000 & the 25000 on my own by comparing them. Yes, its that obvious, even to a non-specialist.

Malcolm wrote:
Sure, why not? They are both Prajñāpāramita sutras, the basis message is the same. Even some of the words are the same. In the Agamas/NIkayas there are countless places where the Buddha uses the same phrases over and over again. This does not mean that your contention that one is merely a padded out version of the other is supportable in anyway. It is merely your conjecture based upon your idea of sutra composition.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, June 13th, 2014 at 12:12 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Malcolm, I'm assuming you've read all that. Yet, as little as 6 months ago you said:

Malcolm wrote:
No, of course not.

dzogchungpa said:
So, with all due respect, WTF?

Malcolm wrote:
With all due respect, I realized I was wrong.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, June 12th, 2014 at 11:55 PM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
its as plain as the nose on anyone's face. you're just being stubborn.

Malcolm wrote:
No, it is not as plain as the nose on anyone's face.

Let me ask you — the Śatasāhasrika-prajñāpāramitā is 12 volumes long. Have you actually read it? The Pañcaviṃśatisahasrika-prajñāpāramitā is three volumes long. Have you actually read it? Or are you just relying what some western scholar you read decided?

We talk about these texts as if we have infinite familiarity with them, utterly lacking any humility, when in reality most of us have barely read 0.01 percent of the sutras, let alone the tantras. And yet we confidently make proclamations about their authorship based on the latest western intellectual fads.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, June 12th, 2014 at 11:28 PM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
To answer Dante's question about whether the Buddha taught the PP in 100,000 lines, one day, 25 on a different day and so on -- it is not necessary to think this way.

gad rgyangs said:
i would hope not. a better way to think would be to acknowledge what even a cursory examination of the texts show: that the 25000 was created at least in part by taking the text of the 8000, breaking it apart, and inserting other material in between.

Malcolm wrote:
That is what some people think. But that is merely a supposition. There is no proof that this is the case.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, June 12th, 2014 at 10:55 PM
Title: Re: Critical thinking and Dharma
Content:
Andrew108 said:
If someone takes a path based on faith and belief then they shouldn't question liberation or someone else's claims to be liberated.

Malcolm wrote:
This is a total non-sequitar.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, June 12th, 2014 at 9:36 PM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:


tobes said:
But it seems we're slowly edging towards a position on hermeneutics which is really quite at odds with one of the most persistent themes in many Mahayana traditions (and indeed, many of those sutras ): the intractable gap between concepts/language and reality. And in doing so opening up a new position which seemingly holds that there are two types of concepts/language - one in which the intractable gap is generated, and the other in which language/concepts is reality.

Malcolm wrote:
The Buddhāvatamska states:

From one single melodious word of the victors,
all the infinite gates of Dharma arise.

And:

The tathāgatas fully attain the accomplishment of speech that is without center or periphery in order that all realms of sentient beings may understand it with a single tone

The gap between reality and language is a problem only for us. There is no such gap for Buddhas? Why? Because the Buddhas are free from concepts. So their acts of speech are similarly free from any conceptual restraint that would differentiate their content from describing reality just as it is.

To answer Dante's question about whether the Buddha taught the PP in 100,000 lines, one day, 25 on a different day and so on -- it is not necessary to think this way.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, June 12th, 2014 at 11:34 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
pueraeternus said:
Davidson relates:


Malcolm wrote:
One whom no one should really take seriously. He has a huge chip on his shoulder.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, June 12th, 2014 at 11:29 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
pueraeternus said:
I can't verify the veracity of your claim that the Yogini's Eye was mistranslated, since I don't read Tibetan. However, Haribhadra had a different idea. Davidson relates:

Malcolm wrote:
Not the whole thing, just that passage (as well as the title, which exists nowhere in the text). This is verifiable since Loppon Rinpoche brings up the issue again in Introduction to Dharma. Unfortunately, Jeff Schoening did not translate the whole of it, and the section which mentions the compilation at Vimalasambhava is absent from the translation of his at present, so you will have to be content with my meager effort presented already above (If I only give a citation of the Sanskrit title, without referring to another translator, you are to assume I translated it myself, usually on the spot from the text in question.)

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, June 12th, 2014 at 11:21 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
tobes said:
I agree that they have ignored this - but I don't see how satya-vacana is going to give you some essentialist or realist account of language. Why is it that now the finger pointing the moon is taken to be the moon?

Malcolm wrote:
The point is that their speech has blessings and power because of the truth of their realization. That realization is what lends "essence", if you want to call it that, to their speech. I have personally observed such speech acts on the part of realized teachers.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, June 12th, 2014 at 11:14 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:


pueraeternus said:
Of course. When I said "sutras don't have to be taught by the nirmanakaya Buddha", I was referring to the rupakaya of a Buddha in his earthly emanation. But the Sambhogakaya can emanate as many nirmanakayas as the situation needs.

Malcolm wrote:
But there is no tradition of this, so this is merely your fabrication and rational.


pueraeternus said:
Not for me. I am not limited that way.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, you just make up whatever suits your fancy.

pueraeternus said:
Allied to the mythology of the preaching of the dharma is the problem of the recitation of the Mahayana scriptures immediately after the demise of the Buddha. ...

Malcolm wrote:
Which Sapan resolves by point out that there is no contradiction between the two (compilation by Vajrapani and Ananda).

But the one thing all these masters have in common is that they, unlike you, understand that all these sūtras were spoken by the Buddha during his forty year teaching career, before his parinirvana.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, June 12th, 2014 at 11:08 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:


pueraeternus said:
Thanks. I forgot about this sutra. It seems the Buddha forgot about the Mahasamghikas and other sects when he cast his eye into the future? I wonder what reasons Malcolm will give here?

Malcolm wrote:
The Buddha has the capacity to know events, both specific and general, in the future. That is why he is termed "omniscient in the three times".

M

pueraeternus said:
But still he missed out 15 other sects? What about the Mahayana traditions?

Malcolm wrote:
You need to examine the dream of King Kṛkin (who lived during the dispensation of Buddha Kashyapa) which predicts the eighteen schools occurring during the dispensation of Śakyamuni Buddha.

Anyway, why are you arguing against Buddha's omniscience? Do you have a point? Do you not accept it? Do you think any phenomena within the three times is closed to a Buddha's eye? Are you merely trying to bust my balls?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, June 12th, 2014 at 11:03 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:


pueraeternus said:
Then is Sonam Tsemo wrong, erroneous? In his Entryway to the Dharma:

Malcolm wrote:
It is not very precise. For example, in the Bodhisattvacaryāvatāravivṛttipañjikā we see:

'..such as the Carvaka assertion of annihilation, the assertion of our own Vaibhaśikas that the conditioned and the unconditioned are mutually exclusive, the Samkhya assertion that all things are the same in the original nature as the three gunas, and also the Tīrthikas who advocate permanence..."

For the most part we see Indian masters differentiating the two terms. The single place where I see the term mu stegs pa applied to rgyang 'phan pas in the bstan 'gyur is the Āryalaṅkāvatāra-nāma-mahāyānasūtravṛttitathāgatahṛdayālaṃkāra. Otherwise, in hundreds of places the term mu stegs pa (tīrthika) is applied to eternalists and the term rgyang 'phan pa (carvaka) strictly applies to nihilists.

However, it is true that as catch-all term, Tibetans tend to lump all non-buddhists under the heading mu stegs pa. But it is not an accurate description.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, June 12th, 2014 at 1:25 AM
Title: Re: Critical thinking and Dharma
Content:


underthetree said:
My difficulty is with manipulating history, conceptually, to make things hang together.

Malcolm wrote:
That is essentially what one is doing when one invents visionary encounters, dreams and visions to account for Mahāyāna sutras which have no basis in any traditional account.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, June 11th, 2014 at 11:18 PM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
Tirthika (Skt. tīrthika; Tib. མུ་སྟེགས་པ་, mutegpa; Wyl. mu stegs pa) — a proponent of non-Buddhist views.
From http://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Tirthika

According to this definiton by Mipham Rinpoche Carvaka are tirthika: The tirthikas' views embody the gross, simplistic view of eternalism, considering that phenomena are not momentary and the simplistic view of nihilism, the belief that although phenomena are caused, they themselves do not generate their own effects—there are no past nor future lives—or that actions will not give rise to karmic results.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, but not according to Padmasambhava's man nag lta ba phreng ba, Candrakirti's Madhyamakāvatara and bhaṣyam, the Tarkajvala of Bhavya, the Pramāṇavarttika of Dharmakirti and so on.

So either the translation is incorrect, or Mipham is mistaken.

Guru Rinpoche lists four types of non- buddhists phyal ba, rgyang 'phen pa (carvaka), mur thug pa, and mu stegs pa. The last, used for eternalists, is well known to translate the term "tīrthika" i.e. forders of the crossing, referring to their belief in rebirth.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, June 11th, 2014 at 9:34 PM
Title: Re: Critical thinking and Dharma
Content:


underthetree said:
This is my difficulty with the whole thing. I find it extremely hard to believe the above scenario.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, because you are limiting the Buddha's capacity with your conceptual mind.

underthetree said:
Conversely, I have no trouble at all believing in that the Mahayana was taught by Lord Buddha as mind-treasure, as revelations.

Malcolm wrote:
This is a fiction modern Mahāyānists have invented. But this not the tradition we have. The tradition we actually have is that Mahāyāna was recovered as an earth treasure by Ārya Nāgārjuna.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, June 11th, 2014 at 9:30 PM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
Karma Dorje said:
Do you mean Cārvāka?  Tīrthika typically refers to Jains though it came to include Hindus as well, i.e. those that do not accept the words of the Buddha.

Sherab Dorje said:
Carvaka are Tirthika too since they subscribe to the nihilist position.

Malcolm wrote:
Greg:

Carvakas are not tīrthikas [mu stegs pa]. Tīrthikas are eternalists; carvakas are nihilists.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, June 11th, 2014 at 9:22 PM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
pueraeternus said:
But the Lotus Sutra of this world would certainly be taught by a different Buddhua, at a different, time, place and retinue. And since you said that the conditions does not have to be same, etc, then it is quite clear that the Hevajra in this world was taught after the 4 tenet schools have arisen, since that would be the appropriate condition for the tantra to actually mention the 4 schools. Hence we have internal evidence that the Hevajra was really taught later, via visions, illusory bodies, etc.p[./quote]

This is not evidence for that. One, it was taught to Virupa by a human women in person, the Nirmanakāya Nairatmya, not in a dream. Secondly, it was taught by the Buddha in the morning of his awakening when he conquered the four māras. Further, the longest version of it was taught eons ago by Mahāvajradhara.

Since Buddhas are indeed omniscient concerning the three times, there is also no contradiction that the Buddha could teach on the four tenets before they arose. And since the retinue the Buddha taught the Hevajra too on the morning of his awakening is not specified apart from Vajragarbha and the net of dākinīs, we can also assume they understood what the Buddha was teaching about in the two sectioned version of the Hevajra tantra.


Malcolm wrote:
So there is no contradiction at all in the same sūtra or tantra being taught in a different manner, with different topics when taught to different people in different epochs.
Of course - proof that sutras don't have to be taught by the nirmanakaya Buddha, can be taught later, etc.
When a sūtra or tantra is taught to an ordinary human being, it needs to be taught by a Nirmanakāya, as we see from account of Virupa's awakening. Virupa was not yet even a first stage bodhisattva when he met Nairatmya, so he could not possibly have perceived her in any other form than the one she presents to him as a two armed, one faced human being.

I am not saying that such persons reject the sutras and tantras are taught by the Buddha. Let me repeat myself again, since you are obviously deaf to this: the sutras and tantras are indeed taught by the Buddha, but the Buddha is not limited to his nirmanakaya form 2500 years ago in India.
Sure, but when a sutra says "When the Buddha was residing in Vaisali attended by Śariputra, etc." we are to understand it happened within the 80 year span of the Buddha and not in some vision.

Because of his all-pervasiveness and supreme skillfulness, he can manifest in the mindstream of sentient beings teaching in various forms and methods, even after his rupakaya entered parinirvana. In this, I would say that my position on this is stronger than yours, since I am not constrained by historical facts.
But you are so constrained by the historical references to various places and events mentioned in many Mahāyāna sutras. I am specifically referring to sūtras that say things like "When the Bhagavan was residing at Vulture Peak or Vaisali, etc."

The second thing constraining you is that there is no Indian tradition at all which suggests what you suggest, i.e. that Mahāyāna sutras were produced piecemeal in visions by later yogins. This is just a modern rational invented by you latter-day Mahāyānists who have basically accepted the idea that Mahāyāna was not actually taught by the nirmanakāya Śakyamuni Buddha. Why do you use this rational? It is because you fundamentally accept the account of the appearance of Mahāyāna as it is presented by western scholars from the time of Max Müller onward.
But back to your question - it seems that personages such as Sonam Tsemo, Kongtrul, and other illuminaries can argue and disagree with each other on the finer points of the origin stories of sutra, but this never hindered them from high attainments.
As I pointed out to you, exhaustively, there really is no such disagreement. Sonam Tsemo, Sapan, Buton, Kongtrul and others have basically provided more or less the same account over the years.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, June 11th, 2014 at 8:54 PM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
Two points about this. 1. There's basically universal agreement that in any Buddhist tradition, language does not objectively reflect or refer to reality. Thus the problematic of language games runs deep through Buddhism, and often becomes a very central and prominent soteriological/philosophical issue. Surely you would not dispute this.
If this were really true, then how do you deal with acts of true speech? For example, in the Śatasāhasrikāprajñāpāramitābṛhaṭṭīkā we find:

"When an irreversible bodhisattva sees a city on fire, he says "May the fire be pacified". When the fire is pacified through the blessings of true words, you can know that one as being irreversible."

The only way to get outside of this is to either cease using language (which I suggested, and in some respects is a plausible yogic response) or to run with some alternative theory of language/meaning ala Panini, which would be very antithetical to any orthodox Buddhist view.

I think that thus far Western analysis of classical Buddhist attitudes towards language have ignored the role of satya-vacana.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, June 11th, 2014 at 8:24 PM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:


pueraeternus said:
Thanks. I forgot about this sutra. It seems the Buddha forgot about the Mahasamghikas and other sects when he cast his eye into the future? I wonder what reasons Malcolm will give here?

Malcolm wrote:
The Buddha has the capacity to know events, both specific and general, in the future. That is why he is termed "omniscient in the three times".

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, June 11th, 2014 at 8:17 PM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:


pueraeternus said:
He does. In the Yogini's Eye, he says: Some scholars say that the Mahayana Sutras were compiled in the southern region called Vimalasambhava in a gathering of 900 million bodhisattvas. However, this is in great error as [this gathering] never took place.

Malcolm wrote:
No, Verril has translated this passage incorrectly. I give the correct translation above, which is confirmed in another one of his works, which I also produced. "Yogini's Eye" is Verril's title for the General Presentation of The Divisions of Tantra. The passage is "...de'ang skyon chen po ni med do", "also a great error that is not", the error is asserting 90 million, rather than one. Here is my rendering again:

"When some masters say that the Mahāyāna sūtras were compiled after ninety million bodhisattvas gathered in the southern direction at Vimalasambhāva although there is no great fault in that position,

Further proof of my reading is that Sakya Pandita, Sonam Tsemo's nephew states in his Great History of Dharma:
"It is reputed that "One million bodhisattvas gathered at the southern royal palace, Vimalasambhava, where Mañjuśī compiled the sūtras, Vajrapani compiled Abhidharma, and Ajita Maitreya compiled the Vinaya in the language of Mahāyāna."

He then describes how statments in the sutras which describe both Vajrapani and Ānanda as the compiler of the teachings are not in contradiction. Later Buton, Rinchen Drup gives this account, then Kongtrul.

If Sapan thought it completely wrong, he would have rejected it outright — as we have plenty of examples of his doing so. Sonam Tsemo presents it in two different works which I produce above. The point is that this account is generally an accepted in Tibet from an early period.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, June 11th, 2014 at 5:48 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
underthetree said:
I've always just taken the texts at face value.

Malcolm wrote:
Continue to do so...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, June 11th, 2014 at 5:46 AM
Title: Re: Dharma protectors and samaya
Content:
Konchog1 said:
Isn't Tsui Marpo a Tibetan spirit subdued by Padmasambhava? Why and how is he the protector of North America? Since when?

Malcolm wrote:
Since never, it was my error in assuming that Yava Rukshi was a name for Tsi'u Marpo.


Konchog1 said:
And while we're at it: If there are Tsen, Mamos, Gyalpo etc. all over the world, why the focus on Dakinis in Tantra? If they have to be female spirits why not Mamos or Yakshinis? PM me if you don't want to derail the thread further.

Malcolm wrote:
There are two kinds of dakinis, wisdom and worldly. The focus is on Wisdom...

Konchog1 said:
Why isn't the focus on . . . wisdom Mamos instead?

Malcolm wrote:
There is — Palden Lhamo, Ekajati, Mazor Gyalmo, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, June 11th, 2014 at 5:45 AM
Title: Re: Critical thinking and Dharma
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
Malcolm I would be interested to hear your opinion on the Lotus Sutra: faithful record of a teaching of the historical Buddha, or much later composition by one or more "samsaric beings"?


Malcolm wrote:
It's a record of the Buddha's teaching.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, June 11th, 2014 at 4:58 AM
Title: Re: Dharma protectors and samaya
Content:
Konchog1 said:
Isn't Tsui Marpo a Tibetan spirit subdued by Padmasambhava? Why and how is he the protector of North America? Since when?

Malcolm wrote:
Since never, it was my error in assuming that Yava Rukshi was a name for Tsi'u Marpo.


Konchog1 said:
And while we're at it: If there are Tsen, Mamos, Gyalpo etc. all over the world, why the focus on Dakinis in Tantra? If they have to be female spirits why not Mamos or Yakshinis? PM me if you don't want to derail the thread further.

Malcolm wrote:
There are two kinds of dakinis, wisdom and worldly. The focus is on Wisdom...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, June 11th, 2014 at 4:09 AM
Title: Re: Critical thinking and Dharma
Content:
Jikan said:
Are you claiming that the Buddha Dharma is an invention of samsaric beings and, therefore, leads only to continued entanglement in affliction, shel?

Malcolm wrote:
It seems to be a bit of trend around here....


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, June 11th, 2014 at 3:55 AM
Title: Re: Critical thinking and Dharma
Content:
shel said:
Lets not forget that the teaching has limits, and indeed, was forged within human limits.

Malcolm wrote:
The teaching has no limits other than the total liberation of migrating beings.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, June 11th, 2014 at 12:44 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
smcj said:
...this modernist attitude is harmful to one's practice.
I respectfully disagree. I have the "modernist attitude" you are objecting to, and my practice is quite healthy--at least insofar as my faith and confidence goes.

Malcolm wrote:
I thought so too, then I examined my mind [once again, for the n-millionth time] and my attitudes towards the teachings...and I discovered two things — 1) the modernist suppositions I was entertaining really have no support at all 2) and therefore, they are pure prapañca 3) and thus I resolved to abandon them.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, June 10th, 2014 at 11:47 PM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
underthetree said:
I'm genuinely (and respectfully) curious, Malcolm: what exactly caused this volte-face?

Malcolm wrote:
I realized, as I explained above, that this modernist attitude is harmful to one's practice.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, June 10th, 2014 at 11:27 PM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
One cannot maintain that the sūtras are "satya-vacana", truthful speech, while maintaining that their origins are lies.

underthetree said:
'Lies' is an awfully strong statement. I would guess that, for many centuries, what you call lies have merely been accepted as literary conceits. There is a vast difference.

Malcolm wrote:
I really cannot remember any master referring to the origin story of Mahāyāna a "literary conceit". This is a modern concept about the origin of Mahāyāna. A literary conceit is nevertheless a pretense, and thus a falsehood. Hardly what one would call "satya-vacana".


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, June 10th, 2014 at 11:20 PM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
pueraeternus said:
The ancient Mahayana masters have contrasting opinions on what is correct or erroneous. Even the fanciful story about 900 million bodhisattvas compiling the Mahayana sutras in Vimalasambhava was not accepted by every master (eg. Jamgon Kongtrul).

Malcolm wrote:
Kongtrul accepts this.

pueraeternus said:
Sorry - it should be Sonam Tsemo, one of the five founding masters of the Shakya. So as we can see, even when such masters don't see eye to eye on origin stories, their progression in the dharma was not hindered.

Malcolm wrote:
He does not exactly reject it; he reports it in his Introduction to Dharma:
"The Mahāyāna, so some assert, was complied by ten million bodhisattvas at Vimalasvabhava in the south. Some advocate other means. Some [say] it is the same as the manner of the śravakas [your position]."
And in his General Presentation of the Divisions of Tantra he says:
"When some masters say that the Mahāyāna sūtras were compiled after ninety million bodhisattvas gathered in the southern direction at Vimalasambhāva although there is no great fault in that position, but both Secret Mantra and the uncommon Mahāyāna were compiled by Vajrapāni. As it is explained in the Prajñāpāramitā Treatise Commentary by master Vasubandhu through Ārya Maitreya’s request to the bodhisattva Vajrapāni [55/b] “…this prajñāpāramitā heard by me is promised to the retinue.” Although one cannot reject compilation in different locations, it also cannot be proven."
In general, however, we can understand that Sonam Tsemo does not have your idea, which is that Mahāyāna was not actually taught by the Buddha at all.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, June 10th, 2014 at 11:02 PM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Malcolm, please. When you posted this:
https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=14929&p=202388#p202381
was your attitude premised on the idea that lineage just simply does not matter?
Was it a reflection of the materialism in our culture?

Malcolm wrote:
To the former question, no.
To the latter question, yes.

dzogchungpa said:
Were the blessings you had received insufficient?

Malcolm wrote:
Not exactly — the blessings I have cultivated were not sufficient.

I have since decided the whole approach to Dharma represented in that post written six months ago, opinions held for many years, since the early 90's, were frankly held up on baseless suppositions derived from my early Buddhist studies.

One cannot maintain that the sūtras are "satya-vacana", truthful speech, while maintaining that their origins are lies.

These present statements function to remedy in some small way my past error.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, June 10th, 2014 at 10:55 PM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Further, there is no contradiction at all, since when this tantra was revealed to Mahasiddha Virupa by the nirmanakāya ḍākinī, Nairatmya, it was in a time and a place where the four tenet systems had arisen. It is not the case that sūtras and tantras are engraved on golden plates somewhere and that their words are somehow eternal. As has been pointed out to you already,

pueraeternus said:
Oh, so Nairatmya would alter the contents of the tantra to suit Virupa's understanding? This would make the whole origin stories irrelevant and unnecessary.

Malcolm wrote:
No, it does not make the origin stories irrelevant nor unnecessary. For example, when the Saddharmapundarika sutra was taught, the Buddha states that it was taught in the very distant past by a Buddha called Candrasūryapradīpa. But I don't think we need to assume that the words are identical in every respect, nor was the assembly the same, nor were the conditions the same, and so on. He adds:

Immeasurable buddhas in the present and future
Will also teach this Dharma
With various skillful means.

Indicating that the Saddharmapundarika sutra will be taught in the future by many Buddhas.

So there is no contradiction at all in the same sūtra or tantra being taught in a different manner, with different topics when taught to different people in different epochs.

For example, the main point of the Hevajra tantra is that it presents the method of realizing the continuum of Vajradhara in the form of Hevajra, not that it mentions the four tenet systems, as well as the four divisions of tantra.


"the single vajra word is heard differently by beings of different capacities".
The meaning of the words can mean differently or have deeper layers to those of greater capacity, but the words would still be the same.
No, actually, that is the point. When citation this is taken from explains that one words is heard as different words by different people. It is called the "array of speech".


Many have advanced in their practice of tantra, even when they disagree with the varying origin stories of this sutra or that tantra.
Like who? Can you name even one modern person who has "advanced in their practice" even though they reject the sutras and tantras were actually taught by the Buddha?

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, June 10th, 2014 at 8:14 PM
Title: Re: Dharma protectors and samaya
Content:


orgyen jigmed said:
But when I have very recently posed  the same question to CNN whether the Tsen Yava Rukshi,  Tsiu Marpo and Jagpa Melen are the same deity with a different name, he simply said: "No, not the same even though they all belong to the same powerful class of Tsen..." he then continued: " see, I am not you and you are not me!"

Malcolm wrote:
Interesting, I never asked him, I merely assumed. Thanks for clearing that up.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, June 10th, 2014 at 8:12 PM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
What classic intellectual nonsense.

tobes said:
What classic avoidance of the issue.


Malcolm wrote:
Satya-vacana, "truthful speech" has nothing to do with language games. Even the idea of language games can only be predicated in an age where speech has become largely deceptive and false.

It used to be the case that speech had more power, when less people lied, and actually engaged in the practice of satya-vacana.

These days people have such little regard for satya-vacana that they don't care whether the scriptures they follow are examples of satya-vacana or not.

What a pity.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, June 10th, 2014 at 8:06 PM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
pueraeternus said:
The ancient Mahayana masters have contrasting opinions on what is correct or erroneous. Even the fanciful story about 900 million bodhisattvas compiling the Mahayana sutras in Vimalasambhava was not accepted by every master (eg. Jamgon Kongtrul).

Malcolm wrote:
Kongtrul accepts this.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, June 10th, 2014 at 8:03 PM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Honestly, I don't see why you couldn't. You only have to have confidence that the practice is effective, and that could be based on many things. Are you saying that, e.g., if I don't take the stories about the origins of the Mahyana sutras literally I can't practice wholeheartedly? Frankly, I would find that ridiculous.

Malcolm wrote:
This kind of attitude is premised on the idea that lineage just simply does not matter, all that matters is techniques. It is very much a reflection of the materialism in our culture.

But this attitude is not conducive the entry of blessings, I am afraid, which is necessary for realization.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, June 10th, 2014 at 7:40 PM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:


pueraeternus said:
Tradition claims that Shakyamuni taught Hevajra during his earthly time (to subdue the four maras), but in the subjugating chapter, he said that one should study the Vaibhasika, then Sautrantika, then Yogacara and then Madhyamaka. These schools didn't exist at all 2500 years ago, and would have made absolutely no sense to who ever was taught the tantra back then. This is just an example of the many anarchronisms that are all over the place, especially in the later Mahayana tracts.

Malcolm wrote:
The source of this idea comes from the Śrī-vajramālābhidhānamahāyogatantra-sarvatantrahṛdaya-rahasyavibhaṅga by Paṇḍita Alaṃkakalaśa. After listing the various deva realms and so on where each of the five classes of tantra were taught he states:

After that, for the purpose of subduing the four māras, the large great tantra of Śrī Hevajra and explanatory tantra of the short one were taught here in Magadha in this Jambudvipa.

This does not mean it was taught to an ordinary assembly, as we can see, since the this pandita clearly states the compilers of the tantras are either Vajrapani or Mañjuśri, and because the petitioner of the Hevajra is Vajragarbha, a tenth stage bodhisattva. At the time of the taming of the four Māras, there was no ordinary Sangha at all.

Further, there is no contradiction at all, since when this tantra was revealed to Mahasiddha Virupa by the nirmanakāya ḍākinī, Nairatmya, it was in a time and a place where the four tenet systems had arisen. It is not the case that sūtras and tantras are engraved on golden plates somewhere and that their words are somehow eternal. As has been pointed out to you already, "the single vajra word is heard differently by beings of different capacities".

Tantras like Cakrasamvara were never taught to a bhikṣu sangha nor by Śakyamuni, but only in the 24 places, where they are still taught by the Nirmanakāya in the form of Cakrasamvara, just as Guru Rinpoche, Śakyamuni's emanation, is still teaching the rakṣasas in Camara on Zangdog Palri.

pueraeternus said:
...how can we rely definitely on traditional origin stories and claim that it has any influence on one's dharmic progression?

Malcolm wrote:
Well, because in fact the tantras themselves maintain it is so, as the Union of the Tantra of the Sun and Moon states:

If the history is not explained, 
there will be the fault of lack of confidence 
in this discourse of the definitive secret meaning.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, June 10th, 2014 at 9:19 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
when you watch a movie, do the characters in the movie need to attain liberation from Samsara?

Malcolm wrote:
In the movie they do.

gad rgyangs said:
but there's no one "in" the movie. its just flickering colors and shapes on the screen.

when you meet beings in a dream, do they need to attain liberation from samsara?

Malcolm wrote:
In the dream they do.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, June 10th, 2014 at 9:18 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
tobes said:
But if one can enter the language game of the text

Malcolm wrote:
Language games are the problem.

tobes said:
Then you should refrain from reading, writing and speaking.

{Insert massively over quoted Wittgenstein phrase >>>“Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.”}


Malcolm wrote:
What classic intellectual nonsense.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, June 10th, 2014 at 9:02 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
tobes said:
But if one can enter the language game of the text

Malcolm wrote:
Language games are the problem.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, June 10th, 2014 at 9:00 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
As far as most Buddhism is concerned, human life has no meaning except as an opportunity to study Buddhism.

Malcolm wrote:
Correction, human life has no meaning apart from the chance to attain liberation from samsara. Samsara is the limitation, not Dharma.

gad rgyangs said:
when you watch a movie, do the characters in the movie need to attain liberation from Samsara?

Malcolm wrote:
In the movie they do.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, June 10th, 2014 at 7:51 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
As far as most Buddhism is concerned, human life has no meaning except as an opportunity to study Buddhism.

Malcolm wrote:
Correction, human life has no meaning apart from the chance to attain liberation from samsara. Samsara is the limitation, not Dharma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, June 10th, 2014 at 7:48 AM
Title: Re: Dharma protectors and samaya
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
Yeah, Traktung Khepa or Traktung Yeshe Dorje, from Michigan. He's considered to be a tulku of Do Khyentse Yeshe Dorje per Thinley Norbu Rinpoche.

Malcolm wrote:
No, per himself. His association with DTR was very subsequent to his proclamation of his own tulkuship. I have observed the development of Kirkpatrick's self-mythology for 20 years on the internet. The DTR relationship is rather late.

But this is off-topic, and if people choose to believe Kirkpatrick's claims about himself, that is their business and none of mine.

dzogchungpa said:
I take it you don't recommend him then?

Malcolm wrote:
I recommend that when anyone decides to make a Dharma connection with someone, they take some time to investigate the person they wish to make a connection with.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, June 10th, 2014 at 7:46 AM
Title: Re: Dharma protectors and samaya
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
Yeah, Traktung Khepa or Traktung Yeshe Dorje, from Michigan. He's considered to be a tulku of Do Khyentse Yeshe Dorje per Thinley Norbu Rinpoche.

Malcolm wrote:
No, per himself. His association with DTR was very subsequent to his proclamation of his own tulkuship. I have observed the development of Kirkpatrick's self-mythology for more than 20 years on the internet. The DTR relationship is rather late.

dzogchungpa said:
Is he worth checking out? Who is he supposed to be the tulku of?

Malcolm wrote:
He proclaimed himself a tulku of Do Khyentse Yeshe Dorje. He and his wife originally appeared on the internet as "Khepa and Acala".

And one of the reasons Khepa has never had an interest in meeting with Tibetan teachers is because it‟s very important in terms of our work in this time and place that we not take on some of the unnecessary cultural trappings of Tibetan Buddhism. We‟re American Buddhists.
Khepa: We are American Tantric Buddhists. We are not Tibetan Tantric Buddhists. So there was a long period where I decided I did not want any contact with any other teachings. I wanted to teach purely what was given to me through Terma and through vision. Now it‟s been eight years, and our community is very well established. So now I‟m entering a completely different phase where I‟m actually quite interested in meeting and talking with Ngakpa Chogyam, who‟s Scottish, but he teaches a very traditional Tibetan line of Dharma transmission.
http://crazywisdom.net/assets/khepa-and-acala-interview.pdf " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I have no idea if he is "worth checking out". He has a nice farm. His wife likes to write and record Buddhist devotional folk music. He pissed off a guy name Namkha Rinpoche who then went on to develop a large Sangha in Europe. They used to be associated with the Aro people. He eventually studied with Dungsey Thrinley Norbu. He claims to be a terton.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, June 10th, 2014 at 7:30 AM
Title: Re: Dharma protectors and samaya
Content:
Konchog1 said:
That's the problem with prophecy. What does red face mean? It's not red skin. Red face.

Black face means a person is angry, so red face could mean a country of lustful people. Or something else entirely.

Malcolm wrote:
It very clearly means Tibetans; since they used to smear their faces with red pigment.

At any rate, for more than a thousand years educated Tibetans have understood the term གདོང་དམར་ཅན, "red faced" to refer to themselves. Why? Because the Kaṃsadeśavyākaraṇa explicitly refers to Tibetans as "the red-faced" ones.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, June 10th, 2014 at 7:26 AM
Title: Re: Dharma protectors and samaya
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
Yeah, Traktung Khepa or Traktung Yeshe Dorje, from Michigan. He's considered to be a tulku of Do Khyentse Yeshe Dorje per Thinley Norbu Rinpoche.

Malcolm wrote:
No, per himself. His association with DTR was very subsequent to his proclamation of his own tulkuship. I have observed the development of Kirkpatrick's self-mythology for 20 years on the internet. The DTR relationship is rather late.

But this is off-topic, and if people choose to believe Kirkpatrick's claims about himself, that is their business and none of mine.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, June 10th, 2014 at 7:25 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
maybe we can learn from all of them, since no one perspective can capture the whole of the nature of reality and the meaning of life."?

Malcolm wrote:
Well, you and I part ways here — as far as I am concerned, Buddhadharma offers the only complete solution to the problem of suffering; the rest are palliative at best.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, June 10th, 2014 at 5:56 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Quite honestly, I can't take this story as a literal account of historical events and furthermore, I can't believe that the author(s) of this text did either. In all seriousness, do you?

Malcolm wrote:
Why not? I have observed my teacher involved in personal interactions with Guru Rinpoche. I did not perceive Guru Rinpoche, but he certainly did. When you read the autobiographies of Dudjom Lingpa, Thangthog Gyalpo, etc., they have multiple experiences that ordinary people like us do not have.

I regard the Mahāyāna sutras to be the record of those teachings taught directly by the Buddha to people whose vision was much more expansive than ours.

dzogchungpa said:
I thought you were saying that the events described in the Mahayana sutras were ones that ordinary people could see. Is that not your position?

Malcolm wrote:
No, what I said was that the Nirmanakāya is the only buddhakāya that ordinary people can see. I never said that all of his deeds were able to be witnessed by everyone. We have the example Sunakṣatra, who, while able to see the Buddha's radiance, was convinced the Buddha was an ordinary human being, with no special powers at all, no special insight.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, June 10th, 2014 at 5:52 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:


Lazy_eye said:
One prong is that it's faddish and speculative.
The second prong is that it's harmful to a practitioner's conviction.

You've also made it clear that it's this second concern which is the primary motivation for your new stance against scholarship. You used to find the scholarship worthy of consideration, and you even agreed with some of its findings, but now you reject it because you saw it has a pernicious undermining effect on belief in the validity of the Mahayana dharma.

So I am wondering what your response would be if somebody presented scholarship that was not speculative, but nevertheless weakened your conviction. Would you still reject it on those grounds? Or would you change your beliefs, for instance by abandoning Mahayana in favor of the sravaka path?

And along the same lines, if there are practitioners here who do not think the historical Buddha taught what is in the Mahayana sutras, would you advise them to become sravakas?

Malcolm wrote:
I don't have a stance against scholarship -- that is a gross mischaracterization.

What I oppose are the biases and demonstrably unsupported assumptions which underlie the construction of a fabricated history which the Buddhological academy has been constructing and still is constructing for Mahāyāna for more than 100 years. And the traces that it has created are very strong, and present obstacles to many people's practice.

The only honest thing they can say is this: X text appears in Chinese here, here and here; and in Tibetan here; and in some Central Asian fragments we think date to here. And that is all, nothing more.

Those are the empirical facts, the only "truth" they can muster.

I understand the fascination with mysteries and puzzles, but in reality, there is almost nothing of use in western historical Buddhist writing that is of any benefit to practicing Mahāyāna Buddhists.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, June 10th, 2014 at 4:35 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Quite honestly, I can't take this story as a literal account of historical events and furthermore, I can't believe that the author(s) of this text did either. In all seriousness, do you?

Malcolm wrote:
Why not? I have observed my teacher involved in personal interactions with Guru Rinpoche. I did not perceive Guru Rinpoche, but he certainly did. When you read the autobiographies of Dudjom Lingpa, Thangthog Gyalpo, etc., they have multiple experiences that ordinary people like us do not have.

I regard the Mahāyāna sutras to be the record of those teachings taught directly by the Buddha to people whose vision was much more expansive than ours.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, June 10th, 2014 at 4:26 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:


Lazy_eye said:
The alleged "speculativeness" of Western scholarship is something of a red herring in this discussion, it seems to me. Would you welcome the scholarship of Nattier, Schopen and so on if it was demonstrably non-speculative?

Malcolm wrote:
Sure, but it isn't.

Lazy_eye said:
But if it was, you would welcome it? What would you do then about the problem of doubt, which you cited earlier as being your main motive for rejecting the current scholarly consensus about the provenance of Mahayana sutras?

Malcolm wrote:
There would not be doubt.

As I have pointed out, the current scholarly consensus is based on speculations and assumptions. And there isn't really even a consensus, it is more like a series of one intellectual fad after another.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, June 10th, 2014 at 1:57 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:


Lazy_eye said:
The alleged "speculativeness" of Western scholarship is something of a red herring in this discussion, it seems to me. Would you welcome the scholarship of Nattier, Schopen and so on if it was demonstrably non-speculative?

Malcolm wrote:
Sure, but it isn't.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, June 10th, 2014 at 1:23 AM
Title: Re: Dharma protectors and samaya
Content:
tingdzin said:
Dear Reibeam,

This quote (about horses on wheels and red men ) has been discussed both here (I think) and on the previous incarnation of this website. It is probably bogus. To my knowledge, no one has ever been able to find a Tibetan source for it. If you know of one, please tell us.


Malcolm wrote:
The most likely source for it is a prediction which shows up first in Loppon Sonam Tsemo's Chos la 'jug pa'i sgo byed:
"The Vimalaprabhaparipṛcchā states that 2500 years after the parnirvana of the teacher, the sublime Dharma will spread in the land of the red faced ones.
There are three related texts which must be read to understand this more clearly, the Vimalaprabhaparipṛcchā-sūtra and the Arhatsaṃghavardhanavyākaraṇa and the Kaṃsadeśavyākaraṇa.

It seems that the notion of 2500 years is a mistake.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, June 9th, 2014 at 11:24 PM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Both Ārya Nāgārjuna and Maitreya Bodhisattva both insist that Mahāyāna is indeed was spoken by the Buddha himself.

daverupa said:
Speculative, ad infinitum apparently.

I wonder just how much history you'll call speculative; only those parts that infringe on Mahayana narratives? Or are there other areas?

Malcolm wrote:
A lot of history is speculative, the further back you go, the more speculative it becomes.

But people even radically disagree about the events of 25 years, or even 10.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, June 9th, 2014 at 11:05 PM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:


underthetree said:
What worries me about the need to accept the Mahayana sutras as spoken by the Buddha himself is that it seems to undermine, quite radically, both the sangha and the dharma.

Malcolm wrote:
How could it? Both Ārya Nāgārjuna and Maitreya Bodhisattva both insist that Mahāyāna is indeed was spoken by the Buddha himself.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, June 9th, 2014 at 9:59 PM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:


daverupa said:
I want to emphasize again, however, that we must not ignore textual stratification; the Nikayas, while early and containing even earlier material, are relatively late organizations of material; the previous ninefold system can still be discerned here and there, aside from being explicitly described in the Nikayas themselves.

Malcolm wrote:
Speculative.

daverupa said:
Part of these processes of developmental editorial efforts includes e.g. deva-realms increasing, the single reference to Metteya in the DN, and so forth. Clear stratification, etc.

Malcolm wrote:
Speculative.

daverupa said:
...a very clear understanding of how the Dharma has spread since the Buddha's parinirvana.
This is at odds with the prevailing academic consensus, which would need to be argued against, rather than simply counter-asserting Para-H-{M/I}.

Malcolm wrote:
Consensus does not equal knowledge. I am arguing against "the prevailing academic consensus" by pointing out that it is built on a tissue of speculation and conflicting hypothesis (which generally seemed to pulled out of thin air).

daverupa said:
Hardly true at all. The Agamas and Nikayas reflect their contemporary milieux...in ways the Mahayana texts simply do not reflect the historical Buddha.

Malcolm wrote:
Again, speculative. You have no possible way of knowing this.

daverupa said:
If one criticizes Mahāyāna as being a late production, inevitably one will be lead down the path of destroying the Dharma in general. One can't start at Mahāyāna, then stop at Abhidhamma. One can't start at Abhidhamma, but stop at the Dīgha Nikāya and so on. In the end, since the focus of text criticism is strictly forensic, once the autopsy is over, there is very little left of a corpse to bury.
Slippery slope fallacy. How utterly disappointing to hear from you.

Malcolm wrote:
But we see this at work already.

daverupa said:
Buddhology is of no use ... Further, I have seen more than one former practitioner travel down the road of Buddhology/Tibetology, etc., and completely lose their faith and interest in practice altogether. Why? Because they begin to prioritize what they learn in the academy over what they have learned from their gurus, and their spiritual development comes to a grinding halt.
If you're using the Dharma as a yardstick, you're right. But the Dhamma is still practicable - in every sense of that word - at the end of the process you describe, a practice based on the historical Buddha. It's simply a clear & necessary result given modern academic work on the matter.

Malcolm wrote:
Your "historical Buddha" will not survive academic forensic study, and neither will your "Dhamma".


daverupa said:
Ultimately, calling modern historical techniques and results into question can be perfectly reasonable, but asserting religious texts' alternatives as wholly superior is to make a claim without any evidence, and it does indeed look like fundamentalist pushback.

Malcolm wrote:
And therefore, you propose that erecting the authority of ordinary persons over the authority of āryas is the solution. However, this is the root of the problem, and if Buddhists begin to accept this sort of authority, Buddhadharma will be destroyed.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, June 9th, 2014 at 9:20 PM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
valid knowledge about the very tradition that one is practicing?

Malcolm wrote:
Which sort of "valid" knowledge are we talking about? My point about western scholarship of the origins of Mahāyāna is that it is constructed on speculations and suppositions which amount to nothing more than the mess of prapañca we see illustrated in Sujato's review of the different theories of the origins of Mulsavastivada school shows.

For example, when you have such a mess of theories, where is the "valid" knowledge therein contained.

Schopen's work, for example, is interesting because he chooses to focus on material evidence of Buddhism in India. Fine, but when he starts speculating, as he does throughout his books, and saying things like "the Buddha is made to predict..." and so on, we have left the grounds of confirmed evidence and entered the realm of hypothesizing.

My point is that Buddhists are not going to learn more about Buddhism by reading the speculative fantasies by which Buddhologists and Tibetologists earn their meager salaries. They are merely going to fill their head with the prapañca of conflicting theories and intellectual fashions.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, June 9th, 2014 at 11:30 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:


pueraeternus said:
The evidence is found once we examine and internal and external circumstances (no record of Mahayana teachings until much later, anachronisms, etc), which we have been discussing for the last 10-20 pages.

Malcolm wrote:
You have not presented a single piece of evidence to back your claims, so convinced you are of the modern academic story of the origins of Mahāyāna.

And we would agree. That's not the point, however. There is no statement within these Mahāyāna sutras that we are to regard them as being the teachings from the Sambhogakāya, since that only happens in Akaniṣtha Gandavyuha anyway.
The Sambhogakaya is capable of emanating illusory nirmanakaya bodies.
Indeed, who show up in space and time and can be seen by those who are not on the bodhisattva stages. Bu there are not infinite supreme nirmanakāyas like Śakyamuni, there is but one at a time in a given world system. But in general, Mahāyāna sutras are not taught in Akaniṣṭha Gandavyuha.
In other, words, when a Mahāyāna sutra begins with "Thus have I head, the Bhagavan was dwelling Vaisali, etc., we are to understand that these are the words of Śakyamuni Buddha, located in a historical time and place.
We don't have to - and it is still buddhavacana since those teachings conform to the four seals, etc.
We are to have such understanding; if your understanding fails you because you have bought into Buddhist modernism, I am sorry but that is your problem. It's a pity that it causes you to invalidate the very texts you claim to follow.

The sutras and tantras themselves indicate when they were taught and where. In general, the tantras are not the Nirmanakāya's teachings at all.
Really? So what does Tibetan Buddhism say about who taught the anuttaratantras, such as Hevajra?
It depends on the tantra. Some where retaught by Ṡ́akyamuni, most are not.
Oh I see. So a generally-accepted emanation of Avalokiteshvara (among Tibetan Buddhists) says something that doesn't gel with the traditional story, and he gets no pass as well?
From some, yes; from others, no. DTR's real point is that the conventional deluded perception of ordinary persons is not authoritative. This also applies to academic opinions about the genesis of Mahāyāna, etc. Unfortunately, the opinions you have presented us are predicated precisely on the perspective of unawakened secular persons with impure vision.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, June 9th, 2014 at 9:52 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
Wayfarer said:
You do realize you're preaching fundamentalism?

Malcolm wrote:
What I am actually doing is opposing the new secular "Buddhist" orthodoxy.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, June 9th, 2014 at 9:00 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:


daverupa said:
I don't mean to be harsh with this term 'magic'; perhaps 'metaphysical history' will suit you, in that pleas are made to metaphysical realities...



Malcolm wrote:
You will find this throughout Buddhadharma.

daverupa said:
In any event, this simply needs to be distinguished, and it means that you must hold a view contrary to the linked academic discussion I've already provided. It may not be strictly ahistorical, but it is certainly parahistorical.

Malcolm wrote:
It is neither. The view I am elucidating is a specific historical view, grounded in a very clear understanding of how the Dharma has spread since the Buddha's parinirvana.


daverupa said:
...unfortunately, the same procedural approaches which describe Mormon accuracy in their claims also describe Mahayana accuracy in its claims.

Malcolm wrote:
This applies to the Agamas, the Pali Canon and so on as well.

daverupa said:
It really does boil down to this baseline, as far as I can tell. Worth the threadcount, at least, for succinctness in the future.

Malcolm wrote:
If one criticizes Mahāyāna as being a late production, inevitably one will be lead down the path of destroying the Dharma in general. One can't start at Mahāyāna, then stop at Abhidhamma. One can't start at Abhidhamma, but stop at the Dīgha Nikāya and so on. In the end, since the focus of text criticism is strictly forensic, once the autopsy is over, there is very little left of a corpse to bury.

In short, Buddhology is of no use to practitioners at all. It does not provide us with a solid sense of history; it does the opposite; it does not provide us with tradition, it does the opposite; it is not grounded in wisdom, but rather the rank conceptuality of ordinary people who are for the most part NOT practitioners and have no interest in transforming their lives with the Dharma. Further, I have seen more than one former practitioner travel down the road of Buddhology/Tibetology, etc., and completely lose their faith and interest in practice altogether. Why? Because they begin to prioritize what they learn in the academy over what they have learned from their gurus, and their spiritual development comes to a grinding halt.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, June 9th, 2014 at 5:57 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
daverupa said:
Malcolm, you write for magic and for secrets, and against history. It's simply descriptive to say so.

Malcolm wrote:
It is an inaccurate descriptive.

I don't write "against" history. None of the theories that western academics have produced are anything more than speculations and suppositions.

I am writing for a different history, you know, then one we actually received from our tradition.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, June 9th, 2014 at 4:23 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
Pero said:
Yes well, how important is Mount Meru to one's spirituality?

anjali said:
From a tantric point of view, "Mt. Meru" is very important for one's spiritual practices. Because of my yogic background prior to coming to Buddhism, I've always taken Mount Meru to symbolically represent the spinal sushumna nadi, central axis of the body.

Malcolm wrote:
The central axis of the body is the aorta. Not the spine.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, June 9th, 2014 at 4:22 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Bodhisattva Maitreya...
magic
Ārya Āsanga was a third stage bodhisattva and received teachings in person from Maitreya Bodhisattva, nothing magical about it at all.
...the Buddha taught Mahāyāna at the same time he was also teaching Śravakayāna.
historically invisible
On the contrary, we have the evidence of the existence of the Mahāyāna sūtras themselves. There isn't a single bit of proof that they were composed later. None. Zero. Zilch.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, June 9th, 2014 at 3:40 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
Pero said:
Yes well, how important is Mount Meru to one's spirituality?

Malcolm wrote:
If you are doing mandala offerings, it is very important:

The ground is anointed with scented water and strewn with flowers,
adorned with Meru, the four continents, the sun and the moon;
by perceiving this as a buddhafield and offering it,
may all migrating beings enjoy a pure field.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, June 9th, 2014 at 2:58 AM
Title: Re: Abandoning Buddhism, What Now?
Content:
Adi said:
but frankly it seems a waste everyone's time.

Adi


Malcolm wrote:
Mostly A108's, but it is his choice.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, June 9th, 2014 at 2:57 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
daverupa said:
Either the Buddha taught Mahayana in magic ways, taught it in historically invisible ways, or didn't teach it.

Malcolm wrote:
We reject all three.

Bodhisattva Maitreya clearly teaches that the Buddha taught Mahāyāna at the same time he was also teaching Śravakayāna.

This is not magic, nor is it historically invisible.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, June 9th, 2014 at 1:00 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Here is a beautiful example of just what a useless waste of time Western writing on Buddhist history can become:

The uncertainty around this school has fuelled a number of hypotheses. Frauwallner’s theory is that the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya was the disciplinary code of an early Buddhist community based in Mathura, which was quite independent as a monastic community from the Sarvāstivādins of Kaśmir (although of course this does not mean that they were different in terms of doctrine). Lamotte, against Frauwallner, asserts that the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya was a late Kaśmīr compilation made to complete the Sarvāstivādin Vinaya.2 Warder suggests that the Mūlasarvāstivādins were a later development of the Sarvāstivāda, whose main innovations were literary, the compilation of the large Vinaya and the Saddharmasmṛtyupasthāna Sūtra,3 which kept the early doctrines but brought the style up to date with contemporary literary tastes.4 Enomoto pulls the rug out from all these theories by asserting that Sarvāstivādin and Mūlasarvāstivādin are really the same. Meanwhile, Willemen, Dessein, and Cox have developed the theory that the Sautrantikas, a branch or tendency within the Sarvāstivādin group of schools, emerged in Gandhāra and Bactria around 200 ce. Although they were the earlier group, they temporarily lost ground to the Kaśmīr Vaibhāśika school due to the political influence of Kaṇiṣka. In later years the Sautrantikas became known as the Mūlasarvāstivādins and regained their earlier ascendancy.5 I have elsewhere given my reasons for disagreeing with the theories of Enomoto and Willemen et al.6 Neither Warder nor Lamotte give enough evidence to back up their theories.
[Sects & Sectarianism, Sujato]

Don't get me wrong here, of course this book is well written and has a lot of interesting information, but passages like the above clearly illustrate the absurdity of much of what has been written by "Buddhologists".


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, June 9th, 2014 at 12:15 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
I'm curious, what do non-western Buddhist scholars say about the rise of Mahayana these days?

Malcolm wrote:
Look in Kongtrul, Dudjom, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, June 9th, 2014 at 12:14 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:


pueraeternus said:
I have shown that there is a problem with traditional presentations on this issue, using scriptural basis (i.e. the traditional presentation is not supported when we look at the scriptures), so I am not merely "making things up".

Malcolm wrote:
You have not shown this at all.


pueraeternus said:
This is because you and your camp thinks that anything that is transmitted via visions, dream transmissions, etc are pious forgeries.

Malcolm wrote:
There is no problem with teachings received in dreams and visions, etc. There is simply no record of Mahāyāna sūtras being received in this way. To make this claim is a claim made in absence of any evidence whatsoever.


pueraeternus said:
"Words of the Buddha" does not have to be from the lips of the nirmanakaya Buddha 2500 years ago.

Malcolm wrote:
And we would agree. That's not the point, however. There is no statement within these Mahāyāna sutras that we are to regard them as being the teachings from the Sambhogakāya, since that only happens in Akaniṣtha Gandavyuha anyway. In other, words, when a Mahāyāna sutra begins with "Thus have I head, the Bhagavan was dwelling Vaisali, etc., we are to understand that these are the words of Śakyamuni Buddha, located in a historical time and place.



pueraeternus said:
Oh yes - these contradictions are especially problematic if you think that the nirmanakaya Buddha said all of these contradictory things during his lifetime. It makes a lot more sense to consider that the late tantras were revealed much later when the socio-political ground has changed so much that new teachings needed to be given to suit the times, excessive brahmanical-influenced obsession on purity needed to be countered by antinomian praxis, etc. And this can be resolved by not editing any sutra or tantra, but by merely not forcefully locking them into a specific time of origin that makes no sense whatsoever.

Malcolm wrote:
The sutras and tantras themselves indicate when they were taught and where. In general, the tantras are not the Nirmanakāya's teachings at all.

What is under discussion here is not Buddhist tantras such as the Sarvatathāgatatattvasamgraha, which are taught constantly throughout the three times.


pueraeternus said:
In fact, I showed that confusion does indeed arise when we take the traditional account uncritically.

Malcolm wrote:
You have indeed shared your confusion.

pueraeternus said:
Then the Dalai Lama must be a terrible person to inflate his self-importance and diminish trust in tradition when he said that he no longer believes in Meru Cosmology.

Malcolm wrote:
HHDL said that he rejected Vasubandhu's presentation of Meru Cosmology. However, Dunsey Thinly Norbu spares no words in condemning the materialist, indeed, what he calls nihilist, perspective which informs the rejection of the Buddha's teachings on this score.


M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, June 8th, 2014 at 11:40 PM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
tobes said:
The entire field of Mahāyāna studies in Western academia takes a forensic approach to the whole thing. It is all completely predicated on the notion that Mahāyāna sūtras could not have possibly been taught by the Buddha. I should have thought this was obvious to everyone.
There simply isn't that level of consensus; and the philological scientism which is so disparaged here has been under unceasing critique for decades.

Malcolm wrote:
Who are you kidding, Tobes?

There is not one Western Buddhist scholar in the academy that I can think of who has ever once defended any traditional account of the rise of Mahāyāna, save perhaps Robert Thurman.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, June 8th, 2014 at 4:13 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Since the academic view of Mahāyāna is that it was not taught by the Buddha, I would say it is singular, narrow, grounded in a materialist paradigm of history, "scientific" (what a laugh), modernist, self-interested (publish or die), and definitely not sympathetic.

dzogchungpa said:
Didn't you used to share that view? Was your view, then, narrow, etc.?
Somehow, that wasn't the impression I got.

Malcolm wrote:
I used to use the same kinds unfounded rationalizations we see PE use — i.e. that the Mahāyāna sūtras came from visions, dreams, and so on.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, June 7th, 2014 at 8:23 PM
Title: Re: Abandoning Buddhism, What Now?
Content:
Andrew108 said:
You know that the buddhist tradition is heterodox.

Malcolm wrote:
"Heterodox" if you are a Hindu, perhaps.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, June 7th, 2014 at 7:56 PM
Title: Re: Abandoning Buddhism, What Now?
Content:
Andrew108 said:
Sometimes he says he has no need for faith othertimes he says it's essential.


Malcolm wrote:
I don't have need for faith, but that is because I have unshakable faith in the view based on my study and practice. Those who do not have that, well, they need faith to continue. It is very important. The Ratnālokasūtra states:
Like a mother giving birth, faith goes before,
produces and increases all qualities,
removes fears and crosses rivers;
faith shows the way to the city of bliss…
But I would say that it is the my faith in the Buddha's teaching, even where I did not fully understand it, that allowed me to grow in my understanding of the Dharma.

So yes, sometimes I say I don't need faith, that means "blind faith".

But lack of faith is damaging to one's practice, since faith is defined as "clarity about an object". Lack of clarity about the teachings, lack of clarity about one's practice, all of this comes about from the "lack of clarity" we term "lack of faith".


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, June 7th, 2014 at 7:48 PM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:


tobes said:
There is a reason why this has been fundamentally ignored for 20 pages: it serves the dialectic well to consider "the academic view" as a singular, narrow, materialist, scientific, modernist, self-interested, anti-Buddhist perspective.

Malcolm wrote:
Since the academic view of Mahāyāna is that it was not taught by the Buddha, I would say it is singular, narrow, grounded in a materialist paradigm of history, "scientific" (what a laugh), modernist, self-interested (publish or die), and definitely not sympathetic.


tobes said:
That way, something can be posited which is a viable alternative - "the real, authentic, faith filled, guru sealed" perspective.

Malcolm wrote:
Textual forensics do nothing to assist people's practice.

To the extent that people learn how to read classical Chinese, Tibetan and so on, in universities (though often not that well), then Buddhist studies programs in Western academia have some purpose.

tobes said:
What is has to do with the truth and reality of contemporary Buddhist scholarship is a vastly different matter!

Malcolm wrote:
The only thing useful in contemporary Buddhist scholarship is the production of translations. That's about it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, June 7th, 2014 at 7:41 PM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:


pueraeternus said:
In a very unsatisfactory way. And you didn't address my earlier remarks about the apparent ineptitude of the countless arya-bodhisattvas. How do you reconcile that?

Malcolm wrote:
This has also been adequately addressed.

pueraeternus said:
False accusation.

Malcolm wrote:
It is the inescapable consequence of your position that the Nirmanakāya did not teach Mahāyāna.


pueraeternus said:
I already said many times the Buddha did preach the Mahayana sutras, but not in his earthly lifetime and only later when people are ripe to receive the deep training and higher teachings, via visions, illusory bodies, dream transmissions, etc.

Malcolm wrote:
So you speculate, but have no actual evidence of.

pueraeternus said:
You have demonstrated nothing viz a viz Maitreya's quote, only that it contradicted what was said in the Samdhinirmocana.

Malcolm wrote:
Maitreya does not contradict the Saṃdhinirmocana at all.

pueraeternus said:
My whole point in this is that taking your fundamentalist view will only expose us to the kind of criticism we don't want to face, since the wide variance demonstrated in the vast Mahayana canon accumulated over the millennia cannot fit into a "the flesh and blood Buddha said all of these during his 80 year lifespan" basis.

Malcolm wrote:
My whole point is that rejecting Maitreya's position that Mahāyāna was taught during the lifetime of the Buddha exposes us to the present criticism that we already suffer, which is that Mahāyāna was not taught during the Buddha's lifetime and therefore it is not valid Buddhavacana.


pueraeternus said:
Be lucky that it is me pointing out these glaring contradictions, not someone who have absolutely no faith in the Mahayana dharma or out to destroy us.

Malcolm wrote:
You have not pointed out any contradictions — you have invented some fantasies, that's all.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, June 7th, 2014 at 7:26 PM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
Wayfarer said:
DJKR doesn't seem to think that the western academic approach is necessarily harmful to Mahayana, and I have to say that I agree with him.
I do too. I think the wholesale rejection of "Western academic Buddhism" is mistaken (and I am as staunch a critic of "materialism" as anyone). If any academic has a "materialist agenda" it is really not that hard to detect, but to write off the entire field of academic Buddhist studies is another thing altogether.

Malcolm wrote:
The entire field of Mahāyāna studies in Western academia takes a forensic approach to the whole thing. It is all completely predicated on the notion that Mahāyāna sūtras could not have possibly been taught by the Buddha. I should have thought this was obvious to everyone.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, June 7th, 2014 at 9:44 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
pueraeternus said:
Nevertheless, there were teachings superior to this, for this also gave rise to criticism, needed interpretation, and became an object of controversy. So the Blessed One, with an explicit intention, turned the wheel a third time for the sake of the followers of all vehicles....

Malcolm wrote:
This reading is not correct.

pueraeternus said:
Why were there no known champions of the second and third turning until much later when Nagarjuna and Asanga appeared in the scene?

Malcolm wrote:
This qualm has been addressed.


pueraeternus said:
Oh no - I am not discrediting the Mahayana.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, actually you are, even though that is not your intention. How? By agreeing with the objections to Mahāyāna posed by its opponents. I.e., by agreeing that Mahāyāna arose later, you are explicitly agreeing that it was not taught by the Buddha. No matter what your excuses are, opponents to Mahāyāna will insist on seeing it this way. In order to rebut this contention, Maitreya states that Mahāyāna arose at the same time as Śravakayāna, as I have already demonstrated.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, June 7th, 2014 at 6:04 AM
Title: Re: Dharma protectors and samaya
Content:
Reibeam said:
Instead of making a new thread, maybe one of you on this thread knows. I have read the DC books and listened to a number of retreats that speak of Guardians and am left with one question. In relation to ones of specific parts of the world in the Medium TUN book chNNr gives very little description for Oceania and North America and says those people living in that area should find out the details about the specific Guardian in their own country. Where do I look and who do I ask to find out more about the North American one? i read a short article in the Mirror, but that is all i can find. Please PM me if that is more appropriate. Thanks!

Malcolm wrote:
North American is Tsiu Marpo. Ocean is Marutse.


Reibeam said:
So the name in the TUN book is just another name for Tsiu Marpo?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, June 7th, 2014 at 3:33 AM
Title: Re: Dharma protectors and samaya
Content:
Reibeam said:
Instead of making a new thread, maybe one of you on this thread knows. I have read the DC books and listened to a number of retreats that speak of Guardians and am left with one question. In relation to ones of specific parts of the world in the Medium TUN book chNNr gives very little description for Oceania and North America and says those people living in that area should find out the details about the specific Guardian in their own country. Where do I look and who do I ask to find out more about the North American one? i read a short article in the Mirror, but that is all i can find. Please PM me if that is more appropriate. Thanks!

Malcolm wrote:
North American is Tsiu Marpo. Ocean is Marutse.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, June 7th, 2014 at 2:20 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
Clarence said:
I might have missed it, but what brought about your change of opinion? I know you have done many 180's but I wonder what caused this particular one?

Malcolm wrote:
The recognition that doubting the word of the Buddha, even on a subtle level, causes negative traces.

dzogchungpa said:
Feel free to ignore this, but in all seriousness, I would like to hear more about this recognition. Did you have some kind of epiphany, or was it more of an intellectual thing or what?

Malcolm wrote:
I recognized that with this perspective comes a subtle lack of faith which is not good for one's practice. Lack of faith is one of the six afflicted mental factors that accompanies all afflicted minds in samsara. So it was a recognition of my own state of mind. I understood that if this affects me, then it affects others.

All non-virtuous actions come from afflictions. I understood that by maintaining the view that Mahāyāna sutras were products of later authors, not the Buddha, there was no way to avoid the contamination of subtle traces of lack of faith in the Buddha's teachings. These subtle traces cause obstacles in one's practice and life. Of course, if one is not a Mahāyāni, then there is no problem. But if one has taken bodhisattva vows, and so on, lack of complete confidence in the origin of Mahāyāna sutras is destructive to those vows.

Further, the whole western academic edifice around the diffusion of Mahāyāna is contaminated by a materialist world view. It is a house of cards built on suppositions and speculations.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, June 6th, 2014 at 10:33 PM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
Clarence said:
I might have missed it, but what brought about your change of opinion? I know you have done many 180's but I wonder what caused this particular one?

Malcolm wrote:
The recognition that doubting the word of the Buddha, even on a subtle level, causes negative traces.

Clarence said:
Thanks. That makes sense but how do you then deal with some of the contradictions in the teachings themselves? Or is that all explained through the vehicles and the qualifications of the students?


Malcolm wrote:
The Sandhivyākarana-tantra states:...the pleasing single vajra word
becomes many different [words]
from the perspective of the mentalities of the trainees.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, June 6th, 2014 at 8:40 PM
Title: Re: Apocryphal Treatment for Conze’s Heart Problems, JOCBS
Content:
plwk said:
Utilizing Nattier’s theory of the text’s history...
It's better to forget such nonsense. It won't help anyone understand anything about the Dharma. People like Nattier should not be regarded as authorities on any level.
If some further elucidation on this is possible, for the sake of us who are unfamiliar, the reason(s) for this statement?
Utilizing Nattier’s theory of the text’s history...

Malcolm wrote:
It means that there is absolutely not a shred of evidence that Nattier's theory is correct. And it is useless for practitioners.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, June 6th, 2014 at 8:32 PM
Title: Re: Abandoning Buddhism, What Now?
Content:
Minjeay said:
How many books did it take to make you realize this?

Malcolm wrote:
None at all.

Minjeay said:
Hundreds of wars and fights outside seem to contradict you, though.

Malcolm wrote:
They confirm merely that selfishness is also innate to human beings and that we struggle with these two competing impulses in our psyches.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, June 6th, 2014 at 8:30 PM
Title: Re: Abandoning Buddhism, What Now?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
I don't think that great kindness and compassion is the sole province of Buddhists. I am perfectly convinced that great kindness and compassion is innate to human beings.

dharmagoat said:
As is enlightened mind?


Malcolm wrote:
All sentient beings have the capacity to wake up. Whether they actually meet the Dharma and do so, on the other hand, is something else entirely.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, June 6th, 2014 at 11:49 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:


pueraeternus said:
Oh yes it does, my quote earlier abundantly confirms.

Malcolm wrote:
It really does not not.

pueraeternus said:
The commentarial tradition then failed to notice that the Samdhinirmocana sutra stated.

Malcolm wrote:
Don't be silly.


pueraeternus said:
Again more nonsense - Paramarthasamudgata spoke of how the three turnings were done sequentially and said this 3rd turning was "the most marvellous and wonderful that ever occurred in the world. It has no superior nor did it contain any implicit meaning nor occasion any controversy", and then asked what merit would be accrued should this sutra be believed, copied, disseminated, etc. Buddha (in effect) said the merit is incalculable. This is quite obvious the entire exchange, and even the entire sutra was ascertained by the Buddha himself.

Malcolm wrote:
It does not prove your contention on any level.

pueraeternus said:
it is quite obvious now "simultaneous" does not mean the vehicles are taught at the same time on this planet.

Malcolm wrote:
Of course it does. Only someone who is completely blind could "see" otherwise.

pueraeternus said:
Oh yes it does - don't be obstinate.

Malcolm wrote:
No, it really does not.


pueraeternus said:
Ludicrous - the Buddha was referring to the "essential non-existence of things" - he was making a point and reference to the ultimate. Of course there is the second turning at that time, since that is the first time the Buddha taught the prajnaparamita. However, since even the 2nd turning was provisional and subject to controversy, the Buddha turned the wheel a 3rd time.

Malcolm wrote:
Not because the second turning was provisional in fact, but because it needed to be reaffirmed as definitive.

pueraeternus said:
This is really common sense (again), if they were really tasked to preserve the Mahayana canon, they would have done it immediately after the parinirvana.

Malcolm wrote:
This objection has been addressed several times. Long and short, the Mahayāna was of no interest to the śravakas, so they did not preserve it.

pueraeternus said:
How can Bhayva blame them then?

Malcolm wrote:
He doesn't — he simply recognizes that śrāvakas had no interest in preserving Mahāyāna.

pueraeternus said:
Oh - perhaps they are deficient in their faith in the Buddha's words? Or perhaps they are really just apologists and tried to shore up support for their chosen vocation, hence the selective focus? You said that we should take each Mahayana sutra as the word of the flesh and blood Buddha.

Malcolm wrote:
For  a Mahāyanist, I find it odd that you so strenuously argue to discredit it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, June 6th, 2014 at 11:38 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
pueraeternus said:
So why do you take the word of a 10th level Bodhisattva over the word of the Supreme Buddha of our eon?

Malcolm wrote:
Because you have proven incapable of demonstrating any of your understanding is actually validated on the basis of what the texts actually say.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, June 6th, 2014 at 10:57 AM
Title: Re: Apocryphal Treatment for Conze’s Heart Problems, JOCBS
Content:
Huifeng said:
Utilizing Nattier’s theory of the text’s history...

Malcolm wrote:
It's better to forget such nonsense. It won't help anyone understand anything about the Dharma. People like Nattier should not be regarded as authorities on any level.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, June 6th, 2014 at 10:56 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
Clarence said:
I might have missed it, but what brought about your change of opinion? I know you have done many 180's but I wonder what caused this particular one?

Malcolm wrote:
The recognition that doubting the word of the Buddha, even on a subtle level, causes negative traces.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, June 6th, 2014 at 10:54 AM
Title: Re: Abandoning Buddhism, What Now?
Content:
dharmagoat said:
But Dharma is required to develop the capacity for great kindness and compassion, which makes us considerably more able to help.

Malcolm wrote:
No, not at all. I don't think that great kindness and compassion is the sole province of Buddhists. I am perfectly convinced that great kindness and compassion is innate to human beings.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, June 6th, 2014 at 9:57 AM
Title: Re: Abandoning Buddhism, What Now?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
[quote="dharmagoat"]
Even if this were so, we do not kill beings to ease their suffering*, we care for them as much as we are able.[quote]

Sure, but Dharma isn't required for that. Simple kindness is sufficient.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, June 6th, 2014 at 9:21 AM
Title: Re: Abandoning Buddhism, What Now?
Content:
dharmagoat said:
No-one needs to rule out the possibility of buddhahood in a single lifetime, no matter what the odds.

Malcolm wrote:
There is no need for Buddhas or Buddhahood at all, if there is only one lifetime.

Anders said:
You are skipping steps here.

Malcolm wrote:
Not at all. If there is only one life, the suffering of all beings ends with death.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, June 6th, 2014 at 6:16 AM
Title: Re: Abandoning Buddhism, What Now?
Content:
dharmagoat said:
No-one needs to rule out the possibility of buddhahood in a single lifetime, no matter what the odds.

Malcolm wrote:
There is no need for Buddhas or Buddhahood at all, if there is only one lifetime.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, June 6th, 2014 at 6:15 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
Pero said:
I'm sorry but it's a bit funny you've started to insist on accepting the traditional accounts on sutras while you deny traditional accounts of tantras.

Malcolm wrote:
No, I am including those too. kama, terma, etc.

Pero said:
So you no longer think that the 17 upadesha tantras of Dzogchen and the rest were written by someone in the 11th (?) century?

Malcolm wrote:
No, they are termas, of course, but I see no reason not to accept the traditional narrative of their concealment and  rediscovery.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, June 6th, 2014 at 3:14 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The Tarkajvala states:

Not long after the Bhagavan's parinirvana, the śravakas were totally attached to the teaching for themselves. For that purpose, when the compilers compiled whatever they were able, since they could not retain the Mahāyāna discourses, they did not gather them at all. The nāgās and so on who rejoiced in the Sugata, gathered them all and were requested to keep them in the nāgā world, the deva world, etc. From there, because they were retained, the one predicted by the Buddha, Ārya Nāgārjuna, gathered them and spread them very widely in the the human world.

dzogchungpa said:
Does it say how Nagarjuna "gathered" them?

Malcolm wrote:
Nope, but you might say that Nāgarjuna is the first terton.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, June 6th, 2014 at 2:51 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:


pueraeternus said:
There is no doubt that the three turnings are as the Samdhinirmocana sutra states, as it specifies 3 different times, each vehicle higher than the previous. The sites of the first 2 turnings are common knowledge. The third one not sure, but certainly timewise, it is later than the 2nd turning. This is crystal clear from the sutra.

Malcolm wrote:
No, it doesn't. Not at all.

pueraeternus said:
This shows that your assertion on what Maitreya meant when he said "simultaneous" as incorrect.

Malcolm wrote:
No, it is very clearly stated in the commentarial literature what "simultaneous" means, it means that when he was in Śravasti, he taught both Śravakayāna and Mahāyāna, when he was Kapilavastu, he taught both, and so on.


pueraeternus said:
Why is it not reasonable? The Buddha ascertained that it is the case,

Malcolm wrote:
The Buddha did no such thing. He did not even speak the passage, Paramarthasamudgata did.

pueraeternus said:
and I have showed that if we don't assume the Mahayana sutras are spoken by the flesh and blood Buddha, that he delivered those teachings post-parinirvana, etc, then we have no problems.

Malcolm wrote:
Apart from the problem the very statement "simultaneous" is meant to rebut.

pueraeternus said:
The Samdhinirmocana citation I provided early does state different locations and times.

Malcolm wrote:
No, in fact it does not.

pueraeternus said:
And the fact that the 3rd wheel was turned because the 2nd wheel suffered "controversy", is another fact that shows that the 3rd was turned later than the 2nd.

Malcolm wrote:
No, this is not a warranted conclusion. In order to establish this, you would have be to able to say for certain whether this sūtra was taught after the Prajñāpāramita, but as there is absolutely no difference in the statement of the text concerning the content of the second and third turning, your contention cannot be verified at all.

For example, in the 25,000 PP, the Buddha replies to Subhuti's declaration that the Buddha had turned a second wheel of Dharma:
Subhuti, because of the essential non-existence of things, this is also not a second turning of the wheel, it is also not the first turning of the wheel.

pueraeternus said:
A bunch of arhats preserved the Sravaka canon much better, maintaining the transmission immediately after the parinirvana.

Malcolm wrote:
As did Āryabodhisattvas. All these questions have been previously addressed. Further, the Buddha predicted obstacles for Mahāyāna in the 25,000 and elsewhere: "Subhuti, many obstacles will arise for this Prajñāpāramita..." and so on.

pueraeternus said:
Contrast this with bodhisattvas, who are supposed to be vastly superior in every way, having the Mahayana canon in such piecemeal fashion and all over the place?

Malcolm wrote:
The Tarkajvala states:

Not long after the Bhagavan's parinirvana, the śravakas were totally attached to the teaching for themselves. For that purpose, when the compilers compiled whatever they were able, since they could not retain the Mahāyāna discourses, they did not gather them at all. The nāgās and so on who rejoiced in the Sugata, gathered them all and were requested to keep them in the nāgā world, the deva world, etc. From there, because they were retained, the one predicted by the Buddha, Ārya Nāgārjuna, gathered them and spread them very widely in the the human world.

In fact, the whole "three turnings" thing is so unimportant to Indians, there is no a single Indian commentarial voice on the issue. There exists solely a Korean commentary and a Tibetan commentary in the bstan 'gyur that deals with the issue at all. As we have seen, the Korean commentary attempts to define a temporal sequence, the Tibetan commentary does not make any such attempt.

On the other hand, there are many voices which deal with Maitreya Bodhisattvas statement that Śrāvakayāna and Mahāyāna arose together.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, June 6th, 2014 at 1:07 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
mañjughoṣamaṇi said:
How are you approaching the history of the rgyud bzhi, nowadays?

Malcolm wrote:
An edited terma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, June 6th, 2014 at 12:53 AM
Title: Re: when and where ? Chöd wang and lung
Content:


Happy Thunderbolt said:
I think you might be misinterpreting Tulku Dakpa.

Malcolm wrote:
There is no specific dwang for this practice. It only needs a lung.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, June 6th, 2014 at 12:52 AM
Title: Re: Abandoning Buddhism, What Now?
Content:
Andrew108 said:
materialism is always changing in response to new proofs. It's not a completed project.

Malcolm wrote:
It's also not based on wisdom, but rather, concepts.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, June 6th, 2014 at 12:45 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
Pero said:
I'm sorry but it's a bit funny you've started to insist on accepting the traditional accounts on sutras while you deny traditional accounts of tantras.

Malcolm wrote:
No, I am including those too. kama, terma, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, June 5th, 2014 at 11:19 PM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
daverupa said:
and this is why Mahayana requires a position contra Buddhist Modernism with it's textual criticism, etc.

Malcolm wrote:
I do not say that text criticism was immoral, what I said was that if one accepts the text critical version of Buddhist history and one is a Mahāyāni, then one necessarily accepts that the texts one is following are not authentic. That is an immoral position for a Mahāyānist to take.

This is obviously a problem for Indian Mahāyānists because they again and again voice the sentiment that Mahāyāna sūtras need to be accepted as historical Buddhavacana, i.e. that they come from the time with the Buddha had not passed into parinirvana.

I think it is simply more practical for practicing Mahāyānis to accept the classical Indian Mahāyāna position about the authorship of the sūtras. We then avoid all the complications of later and earlier sutras, blah, blah, blah.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, June 5th, 2014 at 8:35 PM
Title: Re: Abandoning Buddhism, What Now?
Content:
Berry said:
"You are wrong, I am right". ..."I like this, I don't like that" .... we tend to express these opinions a lot on the internet!

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, that's what we do on the internet.

As well as pictures, videos, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, June 5th, 2014 at 8:31 PM
Title: Re: Abandoning Buddhism, What Now?
Content:
dharmagoat said:
As you point out, religious labels count for very little. While I no longer identify as a Buddhist, I still consider the bodhisatva ideal to be the highest aspiration.

Malcolm wrote:
One lifetime is a little short to accomplish this goal.

dharmagoat said:
But not necessarily too short, and I intend to die trying. Although it is most likely that not all beings are going to find enlightenment in one human lifetime.

Then again, is the goal really necessary? Can one be motivated by the aspiration without being fixed on the goal?

Malcolm, you make an important point. I need to think more on this.

Malcolm wrote:
Bodhicitta is the aspiration to attain buddhahood for the benefit of all sentient beings. If there is no rebirth, it is rather pointless as an aspiration no?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, June 5th, 2014 at 8:22 PM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:


pueraeternus said:
Maitreya can't have meant that the 2 vehicles was taught at the same time, because in the Samdhinirnocana, it is explicitly mentioned that the dharma wheel was turned 3 separate times - first at Benares the four noble truths, then the Buddha later turned it a second time proclaiming alaksanadharmacakra (Madhyamaka) for the Bodhisattvas, then finally because even the second turning was provisional, he turned the wheel the third time for the ultimate teaching (Yogacara). So you see, even the Buddha himself segregated the 3 sets of teachings into 3 distinct temporal periods.

Malcolm wrote:
While it is certainly true that many people have understood it this way, for example, the Korean master Wan tshig (sorry, did not dig up his actual Korean name): Indeed that Dharma of the Buddha is profound, nevertheless because there are many methods of guidance and ways of introducing it, not only one, the Sovereign of the Dharma taught three Dharma wheels. Among those the first the demonstration of cycling in the forests where wild animals roam who constantly perish and the causes and results of nirvana to those who are to enter into the Śrāvakayāna. This is called “The Dharmawheel of the four truths”. Second, is teaching the Ārya-prajñāpāramita to sixteen gatherings at Vulture Peak and so on to those who are to enter the Bodhisattvayāna. This is called the Dharmawheel of characteristiclessness. The third is the teaching of the Saṃdhinirmocana and so on to those in the pure buddhafields such as Padmagarbha, and the impure ones to those are to enter all vehicles called the “Mahāyāna of the definitive meaning”.
This is not completely certain. There is no record in any other sutra or commentary of where these sites may be. In any case, even if we accept Wan tshig's statement at face value, it still means that the Mahāyāna arose at the same time as the Śravakayāna because it was taught during the lifetime of the Buddha.

Moreover, there is no certain statement in the citation itself that this is the case. In his General Division of Tantras, Loppon Sonam Tsemo responds to the above assertion:
If it is true those three Dharmawheels were turned for different inclinations, to claim “…they were turned in stages in different countries’” is not reasonable. If it is asked how it is not reasonable, it is because scripture and reason are contradicted, the objections of the srāvakas will not be rejected, the Sugata will come under criticism and so on. Because there will be many such faults, it is not reasonable.
He ultimately answers this qualm with the citation from the Sutralaṃkara:
Not predicted earlier, arising at the same time.

As the Sandhivyākarana-tantra too states:

Non-conceptual, undisturbed,
...the pleasing single vajra word
becomes many different [words]
from the perspective of the mentalities of the trainees.

A single statement of the Bhagavan’s will appear as many different Dharmas to many different trainees at the same time. That also does not contradict the citation of the Samdhinirmocana-sūtra explained above. Although that citation does state different Dharmas, it does not state different locations or different times. Since that is so, teaching different Dharmas to trainees with one statement made at the same time is called “the array of speech,” and demonstrating many different bodies in different locations at the same time are the beneficial deeds with an array of bodies.

pueraeternus said:
Since logically if the these turnings were done during the Buddha's earthly time, then we would have seen the movements started during his lifetime.

Malcolm wrote:
Not necessarily, since the Mahāyāna was not collated by the Śravakas, but rather by the Mahābodhisattvas as indicated in such sūtras as the Tathāgatācintyaguhyanirdeśa.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, June 5th, 2014 at 9:49 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
pueraeternus said:
If trying to make sense of things is pure speculation, then I am guilty as charged.

Malcolm wrote:
What it is means is that you are indulging in pure fantasy, at this point.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, June 5th, 2014 at 9:48 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:


pueraeternus said:
Nonsense. The Samdhinirmocana's teaching on alayavijnana (sarvabijaka), trisvabhava and the three turnings (especially the very important chapter 7) are hallmarks of Yogacara.

Malcolm wrote:
In the passage in question, no mention is made of the ālayavijñāna, trisvabhava, etc. Read it again, closely.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, June 5th, 2014 at 9:47 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
pueraeternus said:
"Because it is self-evident;"

Malcolm wrote:
The term "self_evident" occurs nowhere in the text itself or the commentarial glosses.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, June 5th, 2014 at 9:45 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
pueraeternus said:
So you see, even the Buddha himself segregated the 3 sets of teachings into 3 distinct temporal periods.

Malcolm wrote:
Actually, the Saṃdhinirmocana does not state that. Read it again — closely this time.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, June 5th, 2014 at 5:02 AM
Title: Re: Abandoning Buddhism, What Now?
Content:
dharmagoat said:
As you point out, religious labels count for very little. While I no longer identify as a Buddhist, I still consider the bodhisatva ideal to be the highest aspiration.

Malcolm wrote:
One lifetime is a little short to accomplish this goal.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, June 4th, 2014 at 10:39 PM
Title: Re: Abandoning Buddhism, What Now?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Love and compassion are not unique to Buddhism.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, June 4th, 2014 at 10:15 PM
Title: Re: Practicing Together and lungs
Content:
Reibeam said:
Hello All,

Question about group practice:

If a number people were planning to get together and do chNNr's Green Tara practice and everyone but two people had received introductory transmission and the Green Tara lung from chNNr, but had done Tara pracices before from other teachers would it be okay for them to participate in a group practice setting and do chNNr's  Green Tara practice?

Both of these folks are intending on receiving transmission from chNNr eventually. I don't want to discourage them from coming to an event, but although it is a peaceful practice (obviously no action mantras during this gathering) It requires a lung so I am not sure what to do other than do another Tara practice that everyone has authorization for.

Thanks in advance for any advice,

R

Malcolm wrote:
You will get various answers, but if people are interested, let them come.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, June 4th, 2014 at 9:44 PM
Title: Re: Is Nirvana Worth It?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
But this contradicts the very sutra he is citing

Astus said:
Maybe not. As your quote says: "there is the appearance of many kinds of reflected images in the circle of a mirror".

Malcolm wrote:
The point is that none of those images are happening in the mirror.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, June 4th, 2014 at 8:54 PM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:


Anders said:
What Maitreya is basically saying is that your insistence on accepting the literal historicity of the Mahayana sutras is not in fact necessary for the Mahayana to be valid.

Malcolm wrote:
No, that is not what he is saying. What he is saying is that whoever wins the result is a Buddha, and whatever he or she explains will be Buddhavacana. Municandra explains:
That being the case, the Mahāyāna is proven to be the word of the Buddha. If it is asked how, the person who comprehends the stages, the perfections and the meaning of no arising and cessation, that person is called "a buddha". Since all the words that person explains are the word of a buddha, Mahāyāna is proven to be the word of the Buddha.
This statement should not be taken as an argument for the ahistoricity of Mahāyāna, because that is not the intent. What it is in fact is a criteria for establishing the authority of the Guru. Maitreya first established that Mahāyāna is historical as I show above.

He also proves that without Mahāyāna there would be no Śravakayāna, since without the bodhisattva path there would be no Buddha. Municandra continues:
If there is no Mahāyāna, there will be no Śravakayāna. If it is asked why, if Mahāyāna does not exist, the path of accomplishing Buddhahood, the accomplishment of Buddhahood will not exist. If Buddhahood was not accomplished, then also since the Hīnayāna will not be explained, then this Hīnayāna that appears like that also will not be the word of the Buddha.
The eight points that Maitreya illustrates are to be take together as a whole argument, i.e. Mahāyāna is the word of the Buddha because 1) it was not predicted to be false 2) because it arose at the same time as the Śravakayāna 3) because it is outside the range of intellectuals and because it not perceived in texts of tīrthikas 4) because it is proven 5) because it exists 6) because it does not not-exist 7) because it is a remedy for the afflictions and 8) because the words are not to be taken literally (i.e. they require interpretation).

We have to accept the historicity of the Mahāyāna because we have the example of the Buddha! That is the whole point of these eight reasons.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, June 4th, 2014 at 11:56 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
He means it is contemporary with and not later than the Śrāvakayāna, which is the Śrāvaka contention about Mahāyāna.

pueraeternus said:
He may have meant that the Mahayana is still preached nonetheless...

Malcolm wrote:
May have meant? No, Maitreya meant that Mahāyāna was taught at the same time as Śravakayāna — the commentarial voice on this is univocal.

pueraeternus said:
He also said that even if the Mahayana sutras were taught by  someone besides Shakyamuni, it is still buddhavacana, since the eternal truth is self-evident.

Malcolm wrote:
This is a different issue altogether.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, June 4th, 2014 at 11:54 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
pueraeternus said:
And if the flesh and blood Buddha really did preach the second and third turnings, why would anyone even contest that the Yogacara teachings are the epitome of his dharma? He said so himself in the Samdhinirmocana...

Malcolm wrote:
The Buddha did not say any such thing in the Saṃdhinirmocana. What Paramarthasaṃudgata states is that the essencelessness, non-arising, non-cessation and so on is the definitive teachings for all vehicles, but not one word about Yogacara, etc. In other words, in this sūtra, the Buddha reaffirms the second turning as the definitive statement of his teaching. This renders it definitive.


pueraeternus said:
He planned to reveal the later phase of his teachings once the ground is fertile via visions, dream transmission, illusory bodies, etc, etc.

Malcolm wrote:
You are indulging in pure speculation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, June 4th, 2014 at 5:00 AM
Title: Re: Abandoning Buddhism, What Now?
Content:
dharmagoat said:
If it means going against the advice set down by the Buddha himself, then I apologise to him alone.


Malcolm wrote:
I don't recall anyone asking you to apologize for anything.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, June 4th, 2014 at 4:58 AM
Title: Re: The Angulimala story is fake
Content:
odysseus said:
A hardened murderer can become a monk, but will not become enlightened.

Malcolm wrote:
Your reasoning is?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, June 4th, 2014 at 3:27 AM
Title: Re: Abandoning Buddhism, What Now?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
My point is, as always, that the entirety of the Buddhist path is meant to address the existential problem posed by constant rebirth in samsara. Our whole practice, regardless of yāna, is meant to address this sole fact.

smcj said:
Or, along the same lines, you can think of it this way: Even if someone has multiple wonderful mediation experience, sees life in a whole new way, is widely honored and praised for his spiritual accomplishments, is thought to be an authority on interpreting the Dharma, and seemingly reaps the fruits of all the potential benefits that practice has to offer in this life, if he is later reborn in an unfavorable situation then all that hoopla meant absolutely nothing --right?

Malcolm wrote:
Indeed, which is why Nāgārjuna quips that the fruits of generosity are enjoyed in lower realms...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, June 4th, 2014 at 3:25 AM
Title: Re: Is Nirvana Worth It?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
In the Sūtrālaṃkāravṛttibhāṣya, Sthiramati cites the Buddhabhumi sūtra:
"Though there is the appearance of many kinds of reflected images in the circle of a mirror, those do not exist in the mirror, they do not enter the mirror and do not form in the mirror...

dzogchungpa said:
Maybe this is a question of the meaning of "image", or possibly of "mirror" or "in".  I think that in ordinary English we would indeed say that images exist in the mirror and so on.


Malcolm wrote:
The point is that when the eight consciousness transform into wisdom, in the Indo-Tibetan tradition in general, it is understood there are no operations of consciousness one could liken to a sentient being's mind in a Buddha.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, June 4th, 2014 at 3:04 AM
Title: Re: Is Nirvana Worth It?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Whatever the case may be, Buddhas do not have operations of vijñāna. They do not possess the eight consciousnesses because all the traces that constitute the ālayavijñāna are exhausted, thus there is no basis for the arising of the other seven.

Astus said:
It seems to me that there are only some differences between consciousness and wisdom. For example, there are various mental functions going on according to Xuanzang:
.

Malcolm wrote:
But this contradicts the very sutra he is citing:

In the Sūtrālaṃkāravṛttibhāṣya, Sthiramati cites the Buddhabhumi sūtra:
"Though there is the appearance of many kinds of reflected images in the circle of a mirror, those do not exist in the mirror, they do not enter the mirror and do not form in the mirror. In the same way, though there is the appearance of many kinds of reflected images of the mirror-like wisdom, the reflections do not exist in the mirror-like wisdom, those reflections do not enter into the mirror-like wisdom and do not form in the mirror-like wisdom.
He adds:
When the eye consciousness is supported on form, there is the aspect of blue, yellow and so on and there is no conventional discrimination of the individual perceptions. In the same way though the forms of the objects of knowledge appear in that circle of wisdom, since there is no discrimination and no concept of the aspect and perception "this is blue, this is yellow", it never faces them.
As Vasubandhu states in the Sūtrālaṃkārabhāṣya:
[The mirror like wisdom] does not face them because it is imageless.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, June 4th, 2014 at 12:41 AM
Title: Re: Metaphor for the skandhas
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Works for me.

dzogchungpa said:
OK, so is there anything that would correspond to jñāna in this metaphor?

Malcolm wrote:
No, since the skandhas only present contaminated phenomena.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, June 4th, 2014 at 12:28 AM
Title: Re: Is Nirvana Worth It?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Buddhas don't have minds. They have wisdom.

Astus said:
The four/five wisdoms/knowledges are the eight consciousnesses without the two hindrances, or in other words, a non-attached mind.

Malcolm wrote:
Whatever the case may be, Buddhas do not have operations of vijñāna. They do not possess the eight consciousnesses because all the traces that constitute the ālayavijñāna are exhausted, thus there is no basis for the arising of the other seven.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, June 3rd, 2014 at 9:56 PM
Title: Re: Is Nirvana Worth It?
Content:
oushi said:
Mind is a shape, not an actually existing entity. There is a small confusion here. When we talk about the mind, self, intention we see it as an added component of the body-skandhas thing.

Astus said:
When I say mind, it means the mental aggregates. There is no mind besides the aggregates in Buddhism. Intention (cetana), for instance, belongs to the fourth aggregate (samskara).

Malcolm wrote:
Buddhas don't have minds. They have wisdom.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, June 3rd, 2014 at 9:01 PM
Title: Re: Abandoning Buddhism, What Now?
Content:
Sönam said:
Why some peoples accept annhiliation at death as being obvious? Honestly I do not understand that pov, as all goes in the sens of a non-cessation (mind being the forerunner and is prior to matter, and so on) ... some are quite intricate.

ovi said:
Because scientifically speaking, mind isn't prior to matter.

Malcolm wrote:
Scientifically speaking, there simply is no basis for that claim.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, June 3rd, 2014 at 8:47 PM
Title: Re: Metaphor for the skandhas
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
This is from the section of the Abhidharmakosabhasyam where Vasubandhu explains the order of the skandhas: Matter is the pot, sensation is the food, ideas are the seasoning, the samskaras are the cook, and the mind is the consumer. We have a third reason for the order of the skandhas.
(La Vallée Poussin, Pruden translation)

I find this a rather charming image, but I'm wondering if this is actually a good way to think about the skandhas. I would be happy to hear what the learned members of DW think.

Malcolm wrote:
Works for me.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, June 3rd, 2014 at 8:33 PM
Title: Re: Abandoning Buddhism, What Now?
Content:
ovi said:
I never posted something along the lines of Rebirth doesn't exist, Buddha was wrong 111!

Malcolm wrote:
My point is, as always, that the entirety of the Buddhist path is meant to address the existential problem posed by constant rebirth in samsara. Our whole practice, regardless of yāna, is meant to address this sole fact.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, June 3rd, 2014 at 8:25 PM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
TRC said:
I know the Mahayana sutras trump the Nikayas/Agamas, but just wanted to point out that it does directly contradict the Śālmalīvana-sutra, and maintains the point that the Buddha held nothing of importance back in regards to the Holy Life.

heart said:
The "Holy Life" means being a monk/nun, right?

/magnus

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, it does. Specifically, it is a translation of the term "brahmacariya".


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, June 3rd, 2014 at 7:34 PM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
TRC said:
I know the Mahayana sutras trump the Nikayas/Agamas, but just wanted to point out that it does directly contradict the Śālmalīvana-sutra, and maintains the point that the Buddha held nothing of importance back in regards to the Holy Life.

Malcolm wrote:
If your idea of the holy life is just to attain the state of an arhat, of course I agree.

If your aim is to practice the bodhisattvayāna and become a buddha however, the Buddha does not explain this in the canon the śrāvakas left for us.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, June 3rd, 2014 at 7:29 PM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
pueraeternus said:
There is certainly contradiction in the idea that Vajrapani is the collator of sutras - he is clearly not since the early Mahayana sutras specifically stated that the Buddha ordered Ananda to memorize the sutras, and never was Vajrapani asked. This is just a very late tantric idea.

Malcolm wrote:
The Tathāgatācintyaguhyanirdeśa, part of the Ratnakuta collection, is the main sources for this claim. As this sūtra was translated into Chinese in by Dharmarakṣa in 280, it is clearly not a "late tantric idea".


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, June 3rd, 2014 at 7:11 PM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:


pueraeternus said:
The eight points brought up by Maitreya also covers this (in Vasu's bhasya):

"Because it is self-evident;" even if the universal vehicle was taught by some
enlightened being other (than Säkyamuni Buddha), that also proves it to be
buddha-word, since a buddha is anyone who becomes perfectly enlightened and
then teaches such (a vehicle)."

So we can see that the Mahayanasutralamkara is trying to cover all bases. Even if Maitreya says "simultaneous", what does he really mean?

Malcolm wrote:
He means it is contemporary with and not later than the Śrāvakayāna, which is the Śrāvaka contention about Mahāyāna.

pueraeternus said:
And please don't say that Abhayakaragupta or Bhavya should know better because they are Indian Mahayanists - that doesn't fly since we know Indian Mahayanists could not come to agreement with each other on many many other fronts.

Malcolm wrote:
Indian Mahāyānists disagreed with each other over only two major issues, the question of the view [Madhyamaka or Yogacara] and the question of definitiveness [second or third turning]. Apart from this, there was broad agreement in terms of the path.

pueraeternus said:
There is little need to appeal to "western academic biases" as a scapegoat...

Malcolm wrote:
I am not doing that. I am saying that people treat the Indian Mahāyānis as if they were idiots. We are so heavily conditioned by our own cultural heritage with regards to Buddhist studies, it general never occurs to us once to that the western academic narrative might be incomplete, wrong, etc.

pueraeternus said:
since many of us can read for ourselves the Mahayana sutras and see that there are a lot of internal contradictions and logical incongruities if we were to take the stance that the flesh-and-blood Buddha did speak those sutras 2500 years ago.

Malcolm wrote:
For example? And if this is the case, how is that the flesh and blood Buddha would not censure these teachings as being distortions of the Dharma? Certainly Thervadins censure Mahāyāna sūtras as fakes and forgeries.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, June 3rd, 2014 at 5:51 AM
Title: Re: Abandoning Buddhism, What Now?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
And my point is that we have to preserve the Dharma in the face of all those people who think that they can cherry pick the Dharma.

dharmagoat said:
Preserve the Dharma in its traditional forms by all means. That is essential.

But why be threatened by those that are selective in their beliefs? What harm can they do the Dharma that has survived unadulterated for 2500 years?

Malcolm wrote:
Who said I felt threatened?

As to your other question, it is when Buddhists start importing wrong views that Dharma will degenerate. Only Buddhists can destroy the Dharma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, June 3rd, 2014 at 2:49 AM
Title: Re: Abandoning Buddhism, What Now?
Content:
Lazy_eye said:
My point is that even a partial embrace of Buddhist teachings is better than falling into that kind of thinking. If nothing else, Buddhism provides moral principles and a framework for living a virtuous life. Engaging dhamma even on those limited terms is better for most people's well-being than nurturing an amoral or cynical outlook.

Malcolm wrote:
And my point is that we have to preserve the Dharma in the face of all those people who think that they can cherry pick the Dharma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, June 3rd, 2014 at 2:42 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:


pueraeternus said:
Like I said, he is seldom there in the earlier sutras. His position in the early Mahayana sutras are the same as his namesake in the Agamas - that of a divine dharmapala. And in the Agamas and early Mahayana sutras, as far as I know, he is never there as an interlocutor.

Malcolm wrote:
It is very clear that the bodhisattva Varjapani is indeed the same person described in the Prajñāpāramita and in the Agamas, appearing as a guardian of the teachings here and there as an interlocutor — there is no contradiction whatsoever. In Vajrayāna, Vajrapani is considered to be the general of the dharmapālas.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, June 3rd, 2014 at 2:28 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:


pueraeternus said:
And how would Abhayakaragupta know what happened during the First Council? Why would non-tantrikas take his words as definitive?

Ananda was present in many of the major Mahayana sutras, as already quoted earlier - the prajnaparamitas, vimalakirtinirdesa, etc. How do you explain this?

Malcolm wrote:
Of course Ānanda was present during the teaching of many Mahāyāna sūtras, this is not under dispute.

The point is that Abhayakaragupta is making is that the first council was not a convention for collecting all the teachings of the Buddha. The point he is making is that the first council had an agenda that was limited in its scope.

As an Indian Buddhist, he had access to sources and traditions we do not have. Abhayakaragupta is as likely to know what actually happened during the first council as we are. And Abhayakaragupta's perspective is a confirmation of earlier opinions  voiced by those such as Maitreya and Bhavya.

We know a very great deal about what the Theravadins think about these issues. We know a very great deal about what western academics think about these issues. We know almost nothing about what Indian Mahāyānists think about these issues — but in general, Western Mahāyanists, including Tibetan Buddhists, tend to defer to the latter two groups when it comes to Mahāyāna history and ignore our own historical traditions. I think that is detrimental to Mahāyāna in general.

Mahāyāna proclaims five certainties: time, place, teacher, teaching and retinue, i.e. always; Akaniṣṭha; the Sambhogakāya; Mahāyāna;  Buddhas and bodhisattvas, both emanated and the continuums of others. By contrast, the Śravakayāna is limited in its scope in terms of time, place, teacher, teaching and retinue. Nevertheless, Mahāyāna taught by the nirmanakāya is a localized and temporal instantiation of those teachings, and there are good reasons why the Mahāyāna narratives of their spread ought not be ignored.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, June 3rd, 2014 at 2:12 AM
Title: Re: Abandoning Buddhism, What Now?
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
Rejecting rebirth is embracing nihilism, just affirming a truly existent self is embracing eternalism.

Lazy_eye said:
Annihilationism, as presented in the suttas, seems to be defined with reference to the Carvaka:
...
One might subscribe to part of this ("the sense-faculties scatter into space", etc) while rejecting some other parts ("generosity is taught by idiots", "there is no fruit of actions"). It is not clear at all that failure to uphold rebirth means embracing annihilationism as defined in this context.

Malcolm wrote:
Simply put, it means that one embraces the view that there is no result of action, there is no karma, etc. We can understand the general point that Carvaka view was greatly exaggerated by their opponents, but in general, the salient point is that they taught that death was the annihilation of the person. Anyone who does not accept rebirth subscribes to this view.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, June 3rd, 2014 at 12:23 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:


Lazy_eye said:
Well, it seems to me that this is exactly what the Buddha told his disciples. He said you have all the teachings...

Malcolm wrote:
No, in fact for we read in the Śālmalīvana-sutra *: Ānanda, I comprehend even more Dharma than however many leaves there are in this śālmalī grove, but I have not taught them to you. Since that many were taught for a purpose, you must not be regretful, but you should also not be without desire [to hear them].


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, June 3rd, 2014 at 12:20 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Not exactly. What I said is that the Mahāyāna was not compiled by Ānanda. It was compiled by Vajrapani, etc.
Whatever was entrusted to Ārya Ānanda, that was employed by the śravakas for the worldly, and not for the purpose of compiling the Dharma.

pensum said:
So all the Mahayana sutras entrusted to Ananda, including the Prajnaparamita, are not actually Mahayana sutras? But whatever the case, the very fact that such texts were "employed by the sravakas" would seem to contradict your earlier statements, that the sravakas had no serious interest in them and did not practice them. Or is that statement just a ploy to create a further divide between the Sravaka and the Mahayana? (such dubious motive, to my mind, would then further undermine the trustworthiness of a sutra with such motives)

Malcolm wrote:
"Whatever" is a restrictive. Abhayakaragupt is telling us that the goal of the first council was to compile what they thought was useful, not to compile everything. Ananda was not present at many teachings, as he was Buddha't attendant only a bit later in the Buddha's career. He certainly is not present in such major Mahāyana sutras such as the Avatamska, and so on.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, June 3rd, 2014 at 12:10 AM
Title: Re: Abandoning Buddhism, What Now?
Content:
Lazy_eye said:
embracing nihilism, etc.

Malcolm wrote:
Rejecting rebirth is embracing nihilism, just as affirming a truly existent self is embracing eternalism.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, June 2nd, 2014 at 11:10 PM
Title: Re: Is Rebirth Unscientific?
Content:
treehuggingoctopus said:
changing our convictions...

Malcolm wrote:
I have never, ever changed my conviction about the necessity to accept rebirth in all the years I have been participating in online discussions. While I have of course changed my opinions about many other things, this is one thing I have never wavered from for an instant as any review of my posting history will reveal.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, June 2nd, 2014 at 10:34 PM
Title: Re: Is Rebirth Unscientific?
Content:
ovi said:
Rejecting the notion of self is a common thought in the psychedelic community and the fact that there is suffering does not depend on the idea of rebirth.

Malcolm wrote:
The end of suffering very much depends on right view.

ovi said:
Frankly, you don't understand upaya. You would rather have people abandon Buddhism completely because they don't fully understand it...

Malcolm wrote:
In the contrary, I want people to understand Buddhism so they can gain the results of the path. Whatever they choose to believe is one thing; what the Buddha actually taught is quite another. We owe it the Dharma not to turn the teachings into a free for all.

ovi said:
..even though the vast majority of Buddhists who have full faith in rebirth and retribution fail to achieve liberation until death, that is they fail in fully understanding it.

Malcolm wrote:
Whether in this world, during the bardo or in the next world, liberation is liberation.

ovi said:
I do hope that it is more important for us to lead others to liberation than to actively work against their wellbeing.

Malcolm wrote:
One can not even begin to imagine one is leading others to liberation if one is not capable distinguishing right view from wrong view.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, June 2nd, 2014 at 8:48 PM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Not exactly. What I said is that the Mahāyāna was not compiled by Ānanda. It was compiled by Vajrapani, etc.

pensum said:
So by implication, are you now claiming that all the Mahayana sutras which were passed on by Ananda are fakes or that someone took literary license and switched the credit from Vajrapani to Ananda (hence falsifying them and drawing the validity of the entire corpus into question)? Or is Ananda merely one of Vajrapani's pen names?

Malcolm wrote:
Not claiming anything of the kind. I am also not engaging in conspiracy theories or speculations. I am reporting what various Indian masters opine based upon the sūtras that they read.

For example, Sakya Paṇḍita, while not an Indian master, opines that there is no contradiction between Vajrapani and Ānanda being the compilers of the sūtras.

I will leave it for others to engage in speculations and theories about this issue. As for myself, I am content to regard Guhyapati Vajrapani as being the primary collator of the Buddha's sūtras and tantras, as that is the role to which the Buddha appointed him.

Thus, there are three main considerations we need to understand:

1) The Śravakayāna and Mahāyāna arose at the same time, per Maitreyanatha
2) The collators of the Mahāyāna were the major bodhisattvas, Mañjuśrī, Vajrapani and so on per Bhava and so on
3) The person who is represented by "Thus have I heard..." is Vajrapani per Abhayakaragupta

This is our Mahāyāna tradition.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, June 2nd, 2014 at 7:24 PM
Title: Re: Is Rebirth Unscientific?
Content:
ovi said:
One can dispel the wrong notion of self and be liberated from suffering in this lifetime without making use of rebirth.

Malcolm wrote:
No, actually, you can't. Buddha lists acceptance of rebirth as being among the features of right view. People who do not understand this simply do not understand Buddha's Dharma and that's all there is to it.

ovi said:
I don't see how it prevents realization in this lifetime.

Malcolm wrote:
One cannot have any realization while one is operating under the influence of wrong view.

Frankly, you simply do not understand what the Buddha is saying in the Kalamas sutta.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, June 2nd, 2014 at 7:07 PM
Title: Re: Abandoning Buddhism, What Now?
Content:
Simon E. said:
It seems to have become almost axiomatic that those who quote the Kalama Sutta seem to ignore, or be unaware of, the fact that the Kalamas were not followers of the Buddha, and that he was telling them pointedly that their teacher would not give them the means to realise Nirvana.

Malcolm wrote:
It doesn't help matters that it is billed as Buddha's Charter of Free Inquiry. It is a minor sutta, of no traditional significance at all.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, June 2nd, 2014 at 6:53 PM
Title: Re: Is Rebirth Unscientific?
Content:


PadmaVonSamba said:
"you have a mind"
... then are you saying that the mind is possessed by a person?

Malcolm wrote:
Conventionally, yes — just like I have a face, a hand, a mouth, and so on.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, June 2nd, 2014 at 6:52 PM
Title: Re: Is Rebirth Unscientific?
Content:
PadmaVonSamba said:
the arising of mind is the result of awareness.
.
.
.


Malcolm wrote:
No, awareness is a characteristic of a moment of consciousness.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, June 2nd, 2014 at 6:42 PM
Title: Re: Is Rebirth Unscientific?
Content:
ovi said:
, however, according to the Kalama Sutta, achieving a high level of realization in this lifetime does not depend on believing in rebirth.

Malcolm wrote:
The Kalamas sutra implies nothing of the sort. It states that people who practice the four brahma-viharas will be "free from hatred, free from malice, safe and sound, and happy" and that is it. This is not a level of realization at all. It states at most that one "...shall arise in the heavenly world, which is possessed of the state of bliss."

In other words, the teaching in the Kalamas is not a path. It does not lead from samsara. It leads merely to temporary, samsaric happiness and that is all.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, June 2nd, 2014 at 6:32 PM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
The Vajrapani mentioned in the early Agamas is a yaksha...
As is Vajrapani in Mahāyāna sūtras. He is called "Guhyapati" because is he the master of the Guhyakas.

He is also seldom mentioned in most sutras and in the early Mahayana sutras, he is almost never there. Only in the much later phase of Mahayana does he appear with any regularity.
All these sutras mention him:

Śatasāhasrika-prajñāpāramitā
Pañcaviṃśatisahasrika
̄Aṣṭasāhasrika-prajñāpāramitā
Aṣṭadaśasahasrika-prajñāpāramitā
Daśasāhasrikā-prajñāpāramitā
Prajñāpāramitānayaśatapañcāśatikā
Pañcaviṃśatika-prajñāpāramitāmukha

In the Akṣobhyasya-tathāgatasyavyūha he is referred as the yakṣapati. The Lalitavistara states he is a yakṣa.The Mahāparinirvāṇa calls him the Yakṣarāja. The Gaganagañjaparipṛcchā calls him Vajrapani the yakṣa, as does the Vikurvāṇarājaparipṛcchā. The Vimalaprabhaparipṛcchā explains that he is the Yakṣarāja, the son of the yakṣa lord, Vaiśravana. The Dānapāramitā calls him the Mahānāyakaḥ, the great chief of all the yakṣas, as does the Nīlāmbaradharavajrapāṇi-rudratrivinaya-tantra, the Vajrapāṇinīlāmbaravidhivajrādaṇḍa-tantra, the Śrī-vajracaṇḍacittaguhya-tantra and the Śrī-vajracaṇḍacittaguhyatantrottarottara, the Vajrabhūmitricaraṇi-rājakalpa-nāma, the Saptatathāgatapūrvapraṇidhānaviśeṣavistara-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra, the Bhagavānbhaiṣajyaguruvaiḍūryaprabhasya-pūrvapraṇidhānaviśeṣavistara-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra, Mahāmaṇivipulavimānaviśvasupratiṣṭhitaguhyaparama-rahasyakalparāja-nāma-dhāraṇī, etc.

Vajrapani is just Vajrapani, whether in the Agamas/Nikayas, Vinaya, or the Vaipulya sūtras.

In short, Vajrapani is a tenth stage bodhisattva born among the Yakṣas.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, June 2nd, 2014 at 10:55 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
Sherlock said:
Incidentally I don't see what's wrong with the term "sravakayana". Calling it "Mainstream" lends weight to the the idea that Mahayana is somehow heterodox. Sravaka/Savaka on the other hand is used in the Sravakayana texts themselves and is used in the earliest Mahayana texts to distinguish it from the Pratyekabuddhayana and Bodhisattvayana.

Malcolm wrote:
Indeed, it is a bit of a joke.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, June 2nd, 2014 at 10:10 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:


pueraeternus said:
Why would this be a problem? Since the Mahayana encapsulates the three vehicles, why is it shocking that they have a common foundational basis?

Malcolm wrote:
It is not shocking that they have a similar foundation. But my point is that your basic point of view establishes the Mainstream canon as being more authoritative than any Mahāyāna text ever could be.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, June 2nd, 2014 at 10:08 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
pueraeternus said:
Such as Vajrapani not even mentioned in many of the early Mahayana sutras and that Ananda was specifically appointed to memorize and propagate sutras.

Malcolm wrote:
Since you accept the Mainstream canons as being more authoritative the Mahāyāna, it could not have escaped you that Vajrapani is mentioned in the Pali Canon.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, June 2nd, 2014 at 9:27 AM
Title: Re: Is Rebirth Unscientific?
Content:


dharmagoat said:
Only one concern: what if the traditional Buddhist standpoint is under-represented?

Malcolm wrote:
Oh, completely.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, June 2nd, 2014 at 9:27 AM
Title: Re: Is Rebirth Unscientific?
Content:


dharmagoat said:
I am interested in discussing the issues faced by Buddhists (and ex-Buddhists) like myself who are struggling to engage with Buddhism in its existing forms, but are not interested in rejecting the teachings of the Buddha. The discussion may provide an insight into what form a new dharma derived from the Buddhadharma might take, but it would be entirely speculative.

Malcolm wrote:
It is pretty hard to reject birth and not reject the Buddha's teaching, since the very idea of right view is predicated on accepting rebirth.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, June 2nd, 2014 at 9:07 AM
Title: Re: Is Rebirth Unscientific?
Content:
Adi said:
Since you are a person who has renounced Buddhism and revoke their refuge vows, I'd say yes, there could be quite a bit of harm possible.

dharmagoat said:
The alternative would be to not have been upfront about my relationship with Buddhism.

Adi said:
Besides that, though, if those kinds of  profound changes have come about then those other forums are surely a better place to find those of like mind who share the same goal.

dharmagoat said:
No profound changes, just a gradual progression.

I am actually primarily interested in what like-minded Buddhists can contribute to the idea. I won't find that on a non-Buddhist forum.

Malcolm wrote:
As I said, there are forums like the Secular Buddhist forum where you will find people of similar ideas.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, June 2nd, 2014 at 7:49 AM
Title: Re: Is Rebirth Unscientific?
Content:
dharmagoat said:
I would like to see the generation of a new dharma that derives from the Buddhadharma but does not attempt to challenge, change or replace any of the traditional forms. Any discussion that leads in this direction is a means to this end.

Malcolm wrote:
There are entire forums devoted to that already.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, June 2nd, 2014 at 7:00 AM
Title: Re: Is Rebirth Unscientific?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
We merely provide the glass of koolaid. It is up to them to drink it or not. We certainly don't waterboard them with it.

Mkoll said:
Crude, but it gets the point across.

ovi said:
You can't expect people to all agree on the same preference for flavor. You might blame renouncing Buddhism on something such as past karma and be indifferent to it, I blame it on lack of upaya.

Malcolm wrote:
You can't even get people to agree on a brand.

But when you present a brand, you need to include all the ingredients on the label so people may make intelligent, informed choices about what they are buying. You certainly don't sell something to someone saying, well, this tastes good, but ignore the ingredients, they are not important, since they might have a nut allergy and go into anaphylactic shock.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, June 2nd, 2014 at 6:18 AM
Title: Re: Is Rebirth Unscientific?
Content:
ovi said:
So you renounce Buddhism because people on the internet don't agree with you?

Malcolm wrote:
No, it would appear he has discovered that he does not in fact agree with the Buddha's Dharma in the end.

But we should respect his wish not to make a public discussion of this since it is a private matter.

ovi said:
Aren't we supposed to liberate beings from suffering, in accordance with their current abilities? Is there any point to try to preserve something called a Dharma that doesn't liberate people?


Malcolm wrote:
We merely provide the glass of koolaid. It is up to them to drink it or not. We certainly don't waterboard them with it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, June 2nd, 2014 at 6:09 AM
Title: Re: Is Rebirth Unscientific?
Content:
ovi said:
So you renounce Buddhism because people on the internet don't agree with you?

Malcolm wrote:
No, it would appear he has discovered that he does not in fact agree with the Buddha's Dharma in the end.

But we should respect his wish not to make a public discussion of this since it is a private matter.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, June 2nd, 2014 at 6:07 AM
Title: Re: Is Rebirth Unscientific?
Content:



Malcolm wrote:
No, this is your pet theory but it really does not make any sense. A plant turning towards the sun does not indicate the plant is any sense aware of the sun, or that there is awareness in a plant.

PadmaVonSamba said:
No, but a plant extending its roots specifically toward a source of water indicates intentional action.

Malcolm wrote:
No, absolutely not.


PadmaVonSamba said:
What I was getting at before, in responding to a previous post is that while you cannot really prove that all appearances are anything but illusions, or that your entire lifetime of existence is nothing but a brief dream you have been having, there is still awareness of that illusion, awareness of that dream.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, because you have a mind. Minds are aware.


PadmaVonSamba said:
...rebirth does not depend on any notion of a continuous physical body or brain.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, because minds are not dependent on bodies or brains.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, June 2nd, 2014 at 5:47 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
smcj said:
So your own personal confidence in the the validity of the Mahayana is based on…what?

pueraeternus said:
That it agrees with the dharma seals...

Malcolm wrote:
In other words, his acceptance of Mahāyāna is based on their containing the same instructions as the Mainstream canon, the doctrines they share in common. However, this bears the reverse consequence that he accepts the Mainstream canon as being the authority by which Mahāyāna compositions (as he must consider them) can be validated as Buddhist teachings.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, June 2nd, 2014 at 5:15 AM
Title: Re: Is Rebirth Unscientific?
Content:
dharmagoat said:
After 25 years of study and practice I renounce Buddhism and revoke my refuge vows.

Malcolm wrote:
What a pity.

dharmagoat said:
Do you mean that sincerely?

Malcolm wrote:
Of course.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, June 2nd, 2014 at 5:07 AM
Title: Re: Is Rebirth Unscientific?
Content:
dharmagoat said:
After 25 years of study and practice I renounce Buddhism and revoke my refuge vows.

Malcolm wrote:
What a pity.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, June 2nd, 2014 at 3:38 AM
Title: Re: Is Rebirth Unscientific?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
As has been pointed out to you any number of times, awareness is just a characteristic of consciousness.

PadmaVonSamba said:
Suggested, but not proven.
Since there are things which respond intentionally (meaning not merely "randomly")to their environments,
yet possess nothing that is regarded aw consciousness,
and since awareness does not depend on sensory function,
it is obvious that awareness precedes consciousness.
.
.
.

Malcolm wrote:
No, this is your pet theory but it really does not make any sense. A plant turning towards the sun does not indicate the plant is any sense aware of the sun, or that there is awareness in a plant.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, June 2nd, 2014 at 3:35 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
pueraeternus said:
What support is there that he taught Mahayana sutras during his earthly time?

Malcolm wrote:
Upon what evidence is the conclusion that he didn't based?

pueraeternus said:
Via the absence of any Mahayana materials in the earliest collections. For example, if the Mahayana were taught on the onset with everything else, the various Abhidharma texts of the many Sravaka schools would have made copious references to Mahayana sutras, since Abhidharmic texts are exegetical works on the sutric canons. And please don't repeat the canard about Arhats not privy to the Mahayana sutras (disproved).

Malcolm wrote:
I did't say they were not privy to them. I said that the Mahāyāna canon was not their domain, meaning, it was not their path, nor a path they were interested in promulgating. They were interested in freedom in this life, not in buddhahood three incalculable eons hence.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, June 2nd, 2014 at 3:31 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:


pueraeternus said:
We have several Agamic collections in the Taisho, along with abhidharmic works of various sects - none of them have any materials related to Mahayana. Malcolm said earlier that even Mahayana authors acknowledged that the Mahayana sutras where not gathered during early phases of Buddhism.

Malcolm wrote:
Not exactly. What I said is that the Mahāyāna was not compiled by Ānanda. It was compiled by Vajrapani, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, June 2nd, 2014 at 3:29 AM
Title: Re: Is Nirvana Worth It?
Content:
Astus said:
If and when someone agrees that the whole of samsara from hells to heavens is painful and unsatisfactory, liberation from it is the logical choice. But when nirvana is presented as not only the end of all the inconvenient things in life, but the end of all the good things as well, how could enlightenment be desirable?

Malcolm wrote:
When one understands that the "good" things are just the suffering of change...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, June 2nd, 2014 at 2:50 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
pueraeternus said:
And at this point, you are just speculating, and with no viable or even vaguely plausible evidence.

Malcolm wrote:
As are you.

pueraeternus said:
Nonsense. So far, I have provided internal evidence within the Mahayana sutras (note I did not rely on any scholarly arguments, but pointed to what the Mahayana sutras themselves say) and pointed out that if Ananda and the other sravakas were indeed taught by the Buddha on these sutras 2500 years ago, it would be impossible for the First Council collection to not have these recited and gathered.  Neither you nor heart have given a viable response against those points raised.

Malcolm wrote:
Sure I have. Unlike you, I am not willing to engage in speculation as to why this was the case, given that Maitreya insists Mahāyāna is contemporary with what we term the "śrāvaka canon" right at the beginning of the Sūtrālaṃkara.

Further, the Vajrapāṇyabhiṣeka tantra and the Tathāgatācintyaguhyanirdeśa mahāyāna sūtra clearly maintain that Vajrapani is actually the collator of the sūtras. Abhayakaragupta states in the Āryāṣṭasāhasrikāprajñāpāramitāvṛttimarmakaumudī:

In the same way, the Tathāgatācintyaguhyanirdeśa-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra explains the complier of "the separate and continuous explanations" and so on is the the lord of the tenth bhumi, the Mahābodhisattva Vajrapani, empowered to protect the rūpakāya and the dharmakāya of the tathāgatas after [the Buddha's] departure and where he is individually entrusted with the teachings in Vajrapāṇyabhiṣeka-sūtra. Whatever was entrusted to Ārya Ānanda, that was employed by the śravakas for the worldly, and not for the purpose of compiling the Dharma. The Bhagava's demonstrated of parinivana here. Because Ārya Vajrapani converts all worlds, he desired to compile the Prajñāpāramita and so on, after which he said "Thus have I heard..." and so on to the assembly of Mahābodhisattvas such as Ārya Maitreya and so on. Just as he heard it from the teacher, afterwards he recited it and in that same way others heard it from him. Thus Vajrapani is the compiler.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, June 2nd, 2014 at 1:04 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
So why wasn't this material preserved by the Shravakas?

Malcolm wrote:
Sadly, we can only guess, and guesses are no substitute for knowledge. So in fact we do not know. As I have said, we can either go on the accounts of the Indian Mahāyāna masters in recounting the history their tradition or not. It is a personal choice.

dzogchungpa said:
OK, and only one of those choices is virtuous, right?

Malcolm wrote:
If one is a practitioner of Mahāyāna, expressing doubt that it is the teaching of the Buddha is indeed a non-virtue.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, June 1st, 2014 at 11:36 PM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
So why wasn't this material preserved by the Shravakas?

Malcolm wrote:
Sadly, we can only guess, and guesses are no substitute for knowledge. So in fact we do not know. As I have said, we can either go on the accounts of the Indian Mahāyāna masters in recounting the history their tradition or not. It is a personal choice.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, June 1st, 2014 at 10:28 PM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
pueraeternus said:
What support is there that he taught Mahayana sutras during his earthly time?

Malcolm wrote:
Upon what evidence is the conclusion that he didn't based?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, June 1st, 2014 at 10:20 PM
Title: Re: Is Rebirth Unscientific?
Content:


asunthatneversets said:
Sure but that doesn't mean the inherency of awareness cannot be refuted. Awareness is dependently originated just like any other conditioned phenomena is. To use Nāgārjuna's logic; if you can have awareness without objects, then you can have objects without awareness. Obviously you cannot have objects without awareness, and therefore you cannot have awareness without objects, meaning awareness is dependent and therefore without inherency and entirely refutable.

PadmaVonSamba said:
Awareness is self-evident.
The fact that you are "aware that you are aware" makes the fact of awareness itself an object of awareness.

And objects can and obviously do exist without any awareness of them,
because all events are the results of causes, and causes are quite often functioning without any awareness of them
at the time they are functioning.
.
.
.

Malcolm wrote:
As has been pointed out to you any number of times, awareness is just a characteristic of consciousness.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, June 1st, 2014 at 9:52 PM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Just to add a point:
Simultaneous.
The commentary on this line states:
In reply to the claim, "When the śrāvakayāna was explained by the Bhagavan in Śravasti and so on during the time of the śrāvakas, at that time Mahāyāna was not explained. Since the Dharma called "Mahāyāna" arose after the Buddha's parinirvana, the Mahāyāna is not a Dharma of the Buddha", it is stated "because it arose simultaneously". When the Bhagavan was in places such as Śravasti and so on explaining the śrāvakayāna as the minor vehicle, since he explained the Mahāyāna at that time in those places, it is proven that the Mahāyāna is the speech of the Buddha."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, June 1st, 2014 at 8:26 PM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
PorkChop said:
He's merely advocating accepting the traditional historical paradigm regarding Mahayana sutras...

Malcolm wrote:
Precisely.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, June 1st, 2014 at 8:24 PM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
Nighthawk said:
Malcolm, let's say the western academics have it right and that none of the Mahayana sutras were spoken by the historical Buddha. Are we then to reject them and become Theravadins?

Malcolm wrote:
What I am contending is that there is no basis whatsoever to lend support to their claims that Mahāyāna is a later development. Especially since Maitreyanatha rejects this claim in the Sūtrālaṃkara stating:
Not predicted and simultaneous.

What I am saying is that we have our own historical tradition and it is time to start honoring it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, June 1st, 2014 at 10:26 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
pueraeternus said:
And at this point, you are just speculating, and with no viable or even vaguely plausible evidence.

Malcolm wrote:
As are you.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, June 1st, 2014 at 2:54 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
Sherlock said:
I think people should remember that these academics' arguments are all hypotheses. Hypotheses which are mostly unfalsifiable (unless you have a time machine or can remember past lives). As practitioners of Mahayana, we can formulate our own hypotheses subject to the same criteria (falsifiable only by time-travel or recollection of past lives) and it is better for not only our practice but the credibility of Mahayana as a whole.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, for some reason, people think that following the traditions we have less reasonable then the academic supposition that Buddha never taught Mahāyāna. The mind boggles.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, June 1st, 2014 at 2:30 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
pueraeternus said:
[

And the Buddha totally had no issues teaching Arhats bodhisattva doctrine and practices (as we can see so clearly in the Mahayana sutras), so your reasoning that Mahayana sutras were not recited in the First Council due to different domains is asinine - the Buddha didn't hesitate to teach Arhats bodhisattva doctrine, so if he really taught it when he was flesh-and-blood 2500 years ago, the Arhats would have totally no problem reciting and gathering them.

Malcolm wrote:
So here again, you are putting the śravakas as the authority which defines the validity of the Mahāyāna.

Obviously, we cannot get the Buddha's input on why the first council did not recite his Mahāyāna sūtras because he was not present. And, we do not need to assume every sūtra taught by the Buddha would have been gathered and recited there. This is the fundamental flaw with your thinking. You assume that if it was taught, it must have or should have been recited and the first council, which as far as anyone knows, had no bodhisattvas present. The point Bhava is making is that the first council only recited sūtras relevant to the attainment of the fruit of an arhat, not a bodhisattva or a buddha.

We know that the different groups have different sets of sūtras. The net effect of your implicit supposition is that only the sutras that all groups have in common can be regarded as what the Buddha actually taught; whereas, any sutras this or that group has which are not reflected in the whole collection of all canons must therefore be fakes. This is extremely bad reasoning.

pueraeternus said:
Of course - there is absolutely no good reason why the Mahayana sutras were not recited if they were really taught during the Buddha's earthly life, because even if the Arhats were of a smaller denomination, they were certainly part of the prime audience in many sutras, especially the prajnaparamitas. And the fact that the Buddha instructed Ananda to memorize and preserve the sutras destroys your (and whatever Indian master you favor) contention that only Manjushri and the bodhisattvas preserved the Mahayana canon.

Malcolm wrote:
No, it does not, for the reasons given above. We have no certainty whatsoever that all the sutras the Buddha taught were recited at the first council. Why? Because even different Mainstream canons contain different sets of sūtras.

At base, what should be contested is the supposition that the first council was a comprehensive review of all of the Buddha's teachings. What is our authority for believing this?

Remember, Indian Mahāyāna authors (despite your opinion that they were "asinine" in their belief that the Mahāyāna was not recited at the first council because the bodhisattva path did not concern trainees for arhatship and so on), they were Indian Buddhists, highly educated in their literature, to which they had far more access then we do today.

That is your problem. You think they are pious forgeries when they are not spoken by the flesh-and-blood Buddha, I beg to differ. Why? Because I follow the Mahayana doctrines and its trikaya doctrine - that's why!
This explains nothing. The sambhogakāya does not teach ordinary flesh and blood people like ourselves for the simple fact that we are not 8th stage bodhisattvas. We, if we are even so lucky, can only see the nirmanakāya. But according to you, the Mahāyāna sūtras are not even the teachings of the nirmanakāya.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, June 1st, 2014 at 1:51 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
Dan74 said:
But to us, to people who are already aware of the scholarship, to reject it because its findings are inconvenient, is intellectually dishonest.

Malcolm wrote:
The scholarship on the subject tells only that which we have already known for centuries: Mahāyāna sūtras were not recited during the first council, but began to be written down about the same time as the Agamas and Nikāyas.

We can see that the two most seminal authors in Mahāyāna, Nāgārjuna and Maitreya, both defended the validity of Mahāyāna in the face of Mainstream Buddhist attacks.

These are the only facts about them which we have at our disposal.

There are traditional accounts about how Mahāyāna was preserved. Those accounts clearly tell us that the Mahāyāna sūtras were all authored by the Buddha personally.

Then there is the point of view of western academics about the origin of these texts, which itself is purely speculative. It clearly tells us that not one of these texts was authored by the Buddha, that in effect it is an impossibility.

The net effect of following the latter position is that Mahāyāna is invalidated, the bodhisattva path and so on. The net effect of following the former position is that the Mahāyāna is validated, the bodhisattva path and so on.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 31st, 2014 at 9:58 PM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:


Dan74 said:
I don't see this dichotomy as necessary, Malcolm, as I've already tried to suggest. I agree with you that we cannot know for sure whether the scholars are right, but in the absence of this certainty, I am left with the Sutras themselves. And what they contain is enough for me to respect and even revere them, but most importantly to put them to use.

Malcolm wrote:
The dichotomy is necessary precisely because of how western academia has framed the reception of Mahāyāna. We are no longer in the phase where Mahāyāna is merely a curiosity for Sanskritists. We are in a period where many hundreds of thousands of westerners like ourselves are embracing Mahāyāna. Therefore, the authenticity of the lineage is important.

Dan74 said:
I fail to see the preoccupation with the origin (which is unverifiable) as helpful to practice. If the Dharma is true, many realised masters followed in Shakyamuni's footsteps and I have no problem learning from them, if that's what the Sutras are.

Malcolm wrote:
Oh, you entirely are missing my point. I know very well that origins are not verifiable. I am talking about which narrative is the most useful to bring to our practice of Mahāyāna. One that disempowers our tradition (the western academic narrative) or the one that bolsters our practice (the traditional narrative).


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 31st, 2014 at 8:40 PM
Title: Re: Is Rebirth Unscientific?
Content:
PadmaVonSamba said:
The point is, for karma to happen "to" someone...

Malcolm wrote:
...there just has to be the conventions "karma", "ripening" and "person".


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 31st, 2014 at 7:50 PM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
tobes said:
But I will not grant you the possibility that you can listen, think, read and write about a Buddhist discourse, somehow free or outside of the contemporary structure of language.

Malcolm wrote:
I never suggested that one could. This is actually the issue I am raising, viz., it is precisely the contemporary framing of Mahāyāna history that I find destructive to our tradition.

Most people's encounter with Mahāyāna starts with a survey course book, in which is the maintained that Mahāyāna was never taught by Śakyamuni in person, but rather at best it consisted of pious fictions, or possibly visions, by anonymous groups of people in various parts of India.

But when for example, Buton Rinchen Drup maintains that that the Mahāyāna was collated by bodhisattvas on Mt. Vimalasvabhava, this is met with derision and sneers by those who consider themselves Mahāyānists precisely because the majority of Western Mahāyānists have bought into the western academic version of Buddhist history.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 31st, 2014 at 7:42 PM
Title: Re: Arhats and Bodhisattvas
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
It is impossible for someone to has generated bodhicitta to experience the fruit of an arhat, i.e. cessation, indeed, it is against the very principles of the bodhisattva path to do so.

pueraeternus said:
Not true - bodhisattvas can fall from their path into Arhathood from the 1st to 7th bhumis. So bodhicitta (which they need to fully blossom before they enter the 1st bhumi) is no guarantee until the pure bhumis.

Malcolm wrote:
Citation please?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 31st, 2014 at 7:37 PM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:


pueraeternus said:
So? You said only a handful of Arhats spoke in the sutras, so I countered that likewise only a handful of Bodhisattvas really speak in Mahayana sutras.

Malcolm wrote:
Hundreds actually.


pueraeternus said:
It's a good question, but it has been answered already — the bodhisattva path is not the domain of śrāvakas.
Nonsense - then why did the Buddha preach to them the bodhisattva path, and even asked Ananda to preserve and propagate them?

Malcolm wrote:
Because the Sangha contained both śravakas and bodhisattvas.

Really. Already given that answer in my previous post.
RIght, so we have four or five regularly appearing śravakas in the sūtras, as opposed to hundreds of bodhisattvas in the sūtras, and you still wonder at why the bodhisattva pitika was not recited at the first assembly?

Then sadly, those Indian masters didn't give a good explanation. Sorry.
Works quite well for me.
My goodness, you have actually become a Sravakayanist.
What a strange world we live in where the idea that the words of the Buddha might be pious forgeries is lauded as virtuous.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 31st, 2014 at 9:36 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
So not many at all. A mere handful, apart from those in the audience.

pueraeternus said:
Don't be specious. By this logic then there are also very little bodhisattvas since only at most a handful of them really speak in the Mahayana sutras.

Malcolm wrote:
The bodhisattva retinues are often described as being beyond number, but never the śrāvaka Sangha.

pueraeternus said:
The fact that most of these Mahayana sutras include 1250 arhats in the audience, shows that they were indeed part of the targeted audience (and not merely as passive listeners) and hence the question that if the Buddha really spoke of these sutras during his earthly time here, why didn't the arhats propogate them?

Malcolm wrote:
It's a good question, but it has been answered already — the bodhisattva path is not the domain of śrāvakas.



pueraeternus said:
Again, don't be specious. Those "four or five" (actually some Mahayana sutras had more arhat interlocutors) already is more than enough to prove my point.

Malcolm wrote:
Really, which ones?

pueraeternus said:
Let me give you a few examples to dispel these notions of yours:

Malcolm wrote:
It's not my notion. It is prescribed by many [to use your definition of many] Indian masters, not only one.


pueraeternus said:
I prefer the understanding that the Mahayana is indeed the teaching of the Buddha, revealed to later Buddhist savants through visionary encounters, direct yogic encounter via siddhis, dream transmissions, etc.

Malcolm wrote:
I used to be satisfied with such apologetics. But now I find them pale and dissatisfying. In the end they are simply an admission that Mahāyāna is not the actual teaching of the Buddha. Some people might be fine with that story, but I am not.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 31st, 2014 at 8:10 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:


tobes said:
Where are all these scholars interpreting and translating Buddhist texts purely in this critical fashion and purely to publish and make a buck?

Malcolm wrote:
Publish or die...



tobes said:
I would say the trend is starkly opposite: most works occur out of sincere and genuine interest in what those texts might have to teach us. Very often they are scholar-practitioners. If not, they have committed a huge amount of time and energy to bring Buddhist thought into the contemporary epoch. I don't think it is possible to do this without a genuine effort to pursue an understanding.

Malcolm wrote:
Many of the academic scholars of Buddhism that I know are ex-practitioners.

tobes said:
Moreover, unless you have a time machine and can go back to the discourses themselves, there is no other possibility than, as you put it: "examining the dharma through different Western/modern/post-modern intellectual lenses." The point is, those lenses are already there in the language we use, and the conceptual frameworks we deploy in interpretation, whether we are aware of them or not. If there is a way to put them down, so to speak, and interpret 'on faith' could you explain how this may be possible?

Malcolm wrote:
Actually, we just accept the received tradition and leave it at that.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 31st, 2014 at 8:07 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
You can either assume that the reason for this is as described by Bhava...

Wayfarer said:
Where is this account to be found?


Malcolm wrote:
Tarkajvala.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 31st, 2014 at 6:55 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
How many arhats, exactly? In which sutras?

pueraeternus said:
Prajnaparamita sutras (eg. Subhuti), Suramgamasamadhi (eg. Sariputra, Mahakasyapa), Vimalakirti (e.g. Sariputra, Mahakasyapa, Purna, the whole team), Lotus Sutra (need I say more?)

Malcolm wrote:
So not many at all. A mere handful, apart from those in the audience.


pueraeternus said:
You're quite sure?
Oh yes, I am sure that the Buddha didn't intend only "Samantabhadra, Mañjuśrī, Guhyapati, Maitreya and so on" to compile the Mahayana sutras, since he directly gave instructions to Ananda to memorize and preserve many. And the fact that Arhats were present, many spoke and many rejoiced, and Ananda asked "what shall this wonderful sutra be called?", shows that the Buddha didn't intend to exclude them.

Malcolm wrote:
Many, as we see, is four or five. Ānanda of course was not an arhat while Buddha was alive.

But we are talking about compilers of these texts. Ananda did not hear all of the sūtras the Buddha taught. He did not compile them all. For example, in the Ānanda sutra, the Buddha states:
Anything the Bhagavan taught before, he [Ānanda] does not hold those. It is not reasonable to say "Teach them again to him" because they reside in some other bhikṣus.
Thus it is not established at all that Ananda was even the sole compiler of the Mainstream Canon. Bhava argues there were several compilers.

pueraeternus said:
Of course he appears in many Mahāyāna sūtras, but Ananda was not the compiler of Mahāyāna.
He was. The Buddha said so in many Mahayana sutras.

Malcolm wrote:
There is only one such statement as far as I can tell, found in the Mahākaruṇāpuṇḍarīka sūtra. Buddha here asked Ānanda to gather whatever the Buddha said.

However the Tathāgatācintyaguhyanirdeśa-sūtra asserts that Vajrapani is the compiler of all the sūtras of the Buddhas of the Bhadrakalapa.

Despite this contradiction, it is definitely the case that Bhava has a rather lengthy discussion about the issue of the compilation of the sūtras and he rejects the notion that they were compiled by the śrāvakas.

pueraeternus said:
Oh, but he and other Arhats appeared in plenty of the early Mahayana sutras - that itself would be more than sufficient for the teachings to be gathered during the First Council.

Malcolm wrote:
Here is a fact. The Mahāyāna sūtras were not recited at the first council, and everyone agrees this is so, including all Mahāyāna authors we know of who wrote on the subject. . You can either assume that the reason for this is as described by Bhava, or you can simply go with western historiography which denies Mahāyāna is the actual teaching of the Buddha.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 31st, 2014 at 5:05 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
daverupa said:
So all history is strictly speculative, except your own historical perspective?

Malcolm wrote:
History is a story told about the past. That's all. The story told by western academics about Buddhadharma, especially Mahāyāna is harmful to it.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 31st, 2014 at 3:32 AM
Title: Re: Astrological conflicts
Content:
kng said:
Thank you for your answers. I would like to ask one more question, is it necessary that I hang out lungtas by myself or is it ok to ask some monastery or sangha friend to do it for me?


Malcolm wrote:
Generally you would do it yourself.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 31st, 2014 at 2:35 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Yes, but this is incomplete. "Later" does not mean it was taught later. "Later" means that it appeared later. Rinpoche has explained the principle of how Buddha's teachings arose and spread many times using the example of the Heart Sūtra.

dzogchungpa said:
Well, I guess I haven't heard those explanations, but I don't think "w hat Buddha Shakyamuni taught orally to people was something like sutric Buddhism. It was not even the sutric Buddhism of the Mahayana Sutras " requires any interpretation. You are framing this as an issue of virtue, and I am happy to follow Rinpoche's lead here.

Malcolm wrote:
Please be my guest. But you are following the wrong lead.

Rinpoche clearly states (and so many times) for example that the Heart Sutra is an example where the text is taught through Buddha's permission, in this case by Avalokiteśvara. Or he uses the example of the Dharma drum which through Buddha' s blessing automatically resounds with Dharma teachings. Or he gives the example of the Sambhogakāya. As I said, what you've seized upon is incomplete. What in fact he is criticizing is the desire by some Lamas to prove that all the Tantras were taught by Śākyamuni Buddha.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 31st, 2014 at 1:48 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
From "Dzog Chen and Zen":
ChNN said:
Furthermore, since the Buddhist schools all have a rather limited vision, whenever they speak of a given Buddhist teaching, they try to associate it, for example, with a specific saying or statement of the historical Buddha Shakyamuni. This is a very limited way of looking at things. The principle is not that. If that were the principle, it would be more than sufficient to follow something like the Theravada tradition of sutric Buddhism, because what Buddha Shakyamuni taught orally to people was something like sutric Buddhism. It was not even the sutric Buddhism of the Mahayana Sutras; we know very well that Mahayana Buddhism later.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, but this is incomplete. "Later" does not mean it was taught later. "Later" means that it appeared later. Rinpoche has explained the principle of how Buddha's teachings arose and spread many times using the example of the Heart Sūtra.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 31st, 2014 at 1:33 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:


Sherlock said:
Mahayanis have always been involved in textual criticism and analysis from at least the first translators in China. There is just no need to subscribe to Protestant assumptions when analysing texts.

Malcolm wrote:
Precisely, or subscribe to historical revisionism.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 31st, 2014 at 1:29 AM
Title: Re: Is Rebirth Unscientific?
Content:
Andrew108 said:
'Apart from a requisite condition, there is no coming-into-play of consciousness.'

This is how this 'ethical hedonist' understands it.

Malcolm wrote:
So, what is the requisite condition of the mental consciousness (mano-vij̃ñāna)?

Andrew108 said:
'If one is asked, 'From what requisite condition does consciousness come?' one should say, 'Consciousness comes from name-and-form as its requisite condition.'

Malcolm wrote:
You forgot the other part of the citation. Sloppy.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 31st, 2014 at 1:24 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
pueraeternus said:
...if the Arhats were indeed in the audience in the Mahayana sermons (as they are clearly shown doing in said sutras), then the early Buddhists would have known and we would have seen clear evidence of it in the earliest materials.

Malcolm wrote:
Not so — we see in the sutras that the śrāvakas were constantly in a state of doubt about Mahāyāna. This is true even today, even more so.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 31st, 2014 at 1:22 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:


daverupa said:
So the evidence is actually fairly consistent that Mahayana is late. Malcolm, however, suggests going an a-historical a-evidentiary route, and with respect to an attitude like that, evidence simply has nowhere to land.

Malcolm wrote:
All the evidence you can produce is strictly speculative. But since you don't care about Mahāyāna, it's not really your concern anyway. But to clarify, I am rejecting the Western academic revisionism in the historical presentation of Buddhadharma. My perspective however, is not ahistorical. It's just a historical perspective you do not like.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 31st, 2014 at 1:20 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
In other words,  though the arhats were present at Mahāyāna teachings, it was not the path they were on, and not the path they wanted to preserve since they did not have the bodhisattva motivation. Thus, they compiled only the teachings they found relevant for nirvana and ignored those which treated the Bodhisattva path and did not memorize them or recite them.

pueraeternus said:
Mere apologetics and highly unconvincing - because based on the amount of Mahayana sutras, that would mean that the arhats ignored 70% of what the Buddha taught.

Malcolm wrote:
As indeed they did.


pueraeternus said:
And furthermore, they were heavily engaged in doctrine discussions in many of the Mahayana sutras. If they were indeed not interested, then why would they engage in the first place? They would just stand one side and look at their nails.

Malcolm wrote:
How many arhats, exactly? In which sutras?

pueraeternus said:
And besides, the Buddha himself never said anything like what Bhava suggested.

Malcolm wrote:
You're quite sure?

pueraeternus said:
Being omniscient, why  would he preach to them Mahayana sutras if he knew they were not receptive?

Malcolm wrote:
In order to imprint traces on their minds. Not only is the Buddha omniscient, he is loving.

pueraeternus said:
According to many Mahayana sutras, Ananda certainly heard, knew and was instructed by the Buddha to disseminate said doctrines.

Malcolm wrote:
Of course he appears in many Mahāyāna sūtras, but Ananda was not the compiler of Mahāyāna. So he did not recite these texts at the first council the reasons already stated.

Further, for example, the Ratnakuta collection has 49 sutras. Ānanda appears in only thirty of them. Ananda appears nowhere at all in the Avatamska. He appears nowhere in the higher tantras with exception of the Śrī-buddhakapāla-nāma-yoginī-tantrarāja; and very few of the lower tantras.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 31st, 2014 at 12:44 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Well, I am not a scholar so I don't even know the names of those treatises, let alone their contents, but do they speak with one voice about the origins of the Mahayana sutras?

Malcolm wrote:
The assertion that the bodhisattvas like Mañjuśrī and so on are the compilers of Mahāyāna was commonly held by Yogacarins, Madhyamakas as well by Vajrayana authors in such texts as: Āryāvikalpapraveśadhāraṇīṭīkā [Mañjuśrī, etc.]; 
Prajñāpāramitāmātṛkāśatasāhasrikābṛhacchāsanapañcaviṃśatisāhasrikāmadhyaśāsanāṣṭādaśasāhasrikālaghuśāsanāṣṭasamānārthaśāsana; 
Bhagavatyāmnāyānusāriṇī-nāma-vyākhyā [Vajrapani]; 
Madhyamakahṛdayavṛttitarkajvālā [mentioned above]; 
Āryamanñjuśrīguhyatantrasādhanasarvakarmanidhi-nāma-ṭīkā; 
Vimalaprabhā-nāma-mūlatantrānusāriṇī-dvādaśasāhasrikālaghukālacakratantrarājaṭīkā.
These six texts are the only ones I can find in a quick search for the key words "compiler" and "Mahāyāna" in the Kengyur and Tengyur; but I am sure there are others that may discuss the issue in slightly different terms.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 31st, 2014 at 12:05 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
We simply need to rely on the authoritative Indian treatises.

dzogchungpa said:
How do we know which ones are authoritative?

Malcolm wrote:
The one's deemed authoritative enough to expend the effort translating.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 30th, 2014 at 11:06 PM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
heart said:
That said I think the Mahasamgika's could certainly represent a clear link to Mahayana.
/magnus

Malcolm wrote:
Why? Maitreya clearly states in the first chapter of the Sūtrālaṃkara that Mahāyāna was taught during the Buddha's own lifetime, and it is not a later development.

There is no need to rely on these speculative academic contrivances. We simply need to rely on the authoritative Indian treatises. It is high time Mahāyānis threw off the burdensome shackles of western historiography.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 30th, 2014 at 10:38 PM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Isn't Bhava about 1000 years after the Buddha?

Malcolm wrote:
The last I checked, Gregory Schopen was about 2500 years after the Buddha.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 30th, 2014 at 10:37 PM
Title: Re: Astrological conflicts
Content:
kng said:
Hi everyone

During the last webcast Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche mentioned, that if someone has a difficult year from astrological point of view, he can use lungtas to be able to overcome those difficulties. Somehow I can not understand how this is supposed to work. I mean, I put some prayer flags with auspicious symbols and good wishes on trees and assuming that I did this on appropriate day, I shall be able to overcome problems and otherwise not? Seems a little bit odd to me.

Malcolm wrote:
One, Tibetan "astrology" is not astrology in the sense you understand it. The term in Tibetan is "calculation", so here we are calculating the cycle of the phases in the five elements— wood, fire, earth, metal and water— through the year, through the month and through the day.

Tibetan elemental calculation is very general, and it serves only as a sort of weather report, i.e., when rain is predicted, it may not necessarily rain in your area, but you are wise to bring an umbrella. It is the same with elemental calculation, if it indicates that this or that person will have obstacles in a given year, it is sound to make do practices to prevent this.

Lungta flags are blessed by you, and there is a mantra, so there is a definite connection between your energy and the flags themselves. They also harmonize the five elements of a place because they are consecrated to do so. Whenever you see them, you should also recite that mantra, since it is increases their benefit for you.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 30th, 2014 at 10:22 PM
Title: Re: Arhats and Bodhisattvas
Content:
Astus said:
It reminds me of the common criticism found in the popular versions of Mahayana (e.g. Zen and Tantra), that the common path of the bodhisattva, as it is actually presented by most of the sutras, takes too long and it is too difficult. What hardly anyone dares to consider is that those popular versions actually teach sravakayana under the pretence of "buddhahood in this life". Also, both Zen and Tantra are famous for emphasising discipleship (sravaka-hood). So, I'd add to Bhikkhu Bodhi's quote that hardly anyone wants to take the bodhisattva path, and all the arguments against Theravada are practically valid against the same people who use them.

Malcolm wrote:
"Buddhahood in the this life" means completing the two accumulations which lead to both freedom and omniscience.

It is impossible for someone to has generated bodhicitta to experience the fruit of an arhat, i.e. cessation, indeed, it is against the very principles of the bodhisattva path to do so.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 30th, 2014 at 10:15 PM
Title: Re: Is Rebirth Unscientific?
Content:
Andrew108 said:
'Apart from a requisite condition, there is no coming-into-play of consciousness.'

This is how this 'ethical hedonist' understands it.

Malcolm wrote:
So, what is the requisite condition of the mental consciousness (mano-vij̃ñāna)?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 30th, 2014 at 10:14 PM
Title: Re: Is Rebirth Unscientific?
Content:
Wayfarer said:
The issue is, whether there is 'the consciousness' that 'goes' from life to life. Sati is rebuked for saying that there is. But the fact that there isn't something the same that goes from life to life, doesn't solve the problem of karma.  If there is no agent, then to whom does karma accrue? There is clearly continuity in that sense. After all, if you say there is no karma, then you're a nihilist. So how does karma not pertain to agent?

Malcolm wrote:
There is no continuous agent, no atman, which transfers from this world to the next world [or even from this moment to the next], but the aggregates are serially connected, as Nāgārjuna shows in the Pratītyasamutpādakarikas.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 30th, 2014 at 10:03 PM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
pueraeternus said:
how is it that none of that survived in the FIrst Council?

Malcolm wrote:
These sūtras were not compiled at the first council.

In the Madhyamakahṛdayavṛttitarkajvālā, Bhava reports:
Mahāyāna was spoken by the Buddha because it does not contradict the Dharma seals, one is introduced to the sūtra canon of the noble truth; because the afflicted are truly seen to be tamed; and because it does not conflict with dependent origination — all of those said to be "spoken by the Buddha" are found in Mahāyāna. Further, also each of the eighteen schools each introduce their own canon, but there are a great many mutual contradictions [between them]. The profound and vast methods of benefitting others in Mahāyāna are not introduced at all in the sutra canon of the śravakas. Mahāyāna introduces the bodhisattva training appearing in seven hundred topics. Because the teaching of emptiness does not contradict the Dharma itself, therefore, the Dharma seals are not contradicted. Due to this, Mahāyāna was spoken by the Buddha because the compilers of the basic [texts],  Samantabhadra, Mañjuśrī, Guhyapati, Maitreya and so on, compiled them. The compilers of our basic [texts]  were not the śravakas because Mahāyāna discourses are not their domain.
In other words,  though the arhats were present at Mahāyāna teachings, it was not the path they were on, and not the path they wanted to preserve since they did not have the bodhisattva motivation. Thus, they compiled only the teachings they found relevant for nirvana and ignored those which treated the Bodhisattva path and did not memorize them or recite them.

Bhava reports a citation from a text called the Śālmalīvana-sutra *:
Ānanda, I comprehend even more Dharma than however many leaves there are in this śālmalī grove, but I have not taught them to you. Since that many were taught for a purpose, you must not be regretful, but you should also not be without desire [to hear them].
In response to the qualm that Ānanda heard all of the sutras:
If it is said "Ārya Ānanda comprehended all of the sūtras", with respect to that, the Uttama sūtra* states: "There is not even one bhikṣu holding the number of Dharmas held by Śakra, the king of the devas." Since that is so, Ānanda did not hold all of the Dharma. Therefore, the vast teachings of the Buddha are not seen in that authentic compilation Ānanda demonstrated and compiled authentically.
Bhava continues in this vein for quite some time. The point is that a) arhats did not preserve all the teachings of the Buddha b) Ānanda did not know all of the sūtras.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 30th, 2014 at 8:16 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
I would simply insist that the hermeneutical framework of Mahāyāna sutras has already been provided by the Buddha in those very same sutras
So, you are saying that "the Buddha taught them" is not hermeneutics, it is simple fact, while the hermeneutics taught therein are valid, etc. because of this authorship by the historical Buddha, in the same way that the Nikayas are valid because of their authorship -- because the historical Buddha taught the content.

Parsing anything about this - such as e.g. that the Nikayas are stratified and not wholly Buddhavacana, or that Mahayana is wholly later... all of that, to any historian, text-critical examiner, etc, the reply is that
Adopting the western text critical view of Mahāyāna sūtras is not virtuous.
Do I understand correctly?
Indeed you do. Indeed, Theravadins should adopt precisely the same attitude —why? Because these days even the Pali Canon is coming under attack from the very same forces who initially caused Mahāyāna to fall into disrepute.

In short, it is not virtuous to regard teachings in the Agamas/Nikāyas and well as the Mahāyāna canon to be anything other than taught by the Buddha. I am not insisting that of adherents of the Mainstream canons necessarily must accord validity to Mahāyāna canon; or those who are adherents of common Mahāyāna necessarily must accept Vajrayāna — they should remain a place free of judgement. But for those of us who are Mahāyānis and Vajrayānis, well, it is better for us to simply accept all these teachings as the teachings of the historical Buddha where it is so indicated, unless there are absolutely compelling reasons to believe otherwise.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 30th, 2014 at 8:14 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
Wayfarer said:
I think the idea of 'a visionary encounter with the Buddha' is perfectly real.

Malcolm wrote:
We have no evidence that the Mahāyāna sutras were received this way. My point is that all of these kind of speculative apologetics exist to satisfy a bias against Mahāyāna texts endemic in Western Academia, and sadly, a bias that persists even amongst the majority of those who term themselves Mahāyānis.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 30th, 2014 at 7:32 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
tobes said:
I think there is a huge difference between being text critical in the narrow philological sense, and simply recognising that reading any kind of literature necessarily involves some kind of hermeneutical framework.

Malcolm wrote:
Agreed — I am pretty sure I did not condemn hermeneutics.    I would simply insist that the hermeneutical framework of Mahāyāna sutras has already been provided by the Buddha in those very same sutras, and where it has not, by such authors as Nāgārjuna, Maitreya, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 30th, 2014 at 7:08 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Malcolm, if the Mahayana sutras were actually spoken by the Buddha, why were they rejected by mainstream Buddhists, who apparently constituted the majority of Buddhists in India?

Malcolm wrote:
Because they were not preserved by Śravakas, but rather by Mañjuśrī and Samantabhadra.

smcj said:
Well that's a whole different take on the subject! I can go along with that!

Malcolm wrote:
This is the traditional account.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 30th, 2014 at 7:07 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
smcj said:
Your criteria for authorship is far too narrow.
His criteria for credible authorship of authentic Dharma is too narrow.

But Malcolm knows this. He could argue my position better than I have. He is being loyal to what he sees as the interests of the Mahayana. Mistakenly so in my opinion, but at the same time understandably so.

pueraeternus said:
More like he is having a midlife crisis. He should be well beyond the stage where he needs to wrestle with sraddha issues. I don't get it.

Malcolm wrote:
I am not wrestling with any issues. I simply realize that adopting the western text critical view of Mahāyāna sūtras is not virtuous.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 30th, 2014 at 7:06 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
Adamantine said:
I just want to remind everyone that today is the first day of the sacred month Saga Dawa (according to Tibetan astrology).

As such, it is said that the effects of positive and negative actions are vastly multiplied.

dzogchungpa said:
Did the Buddha teach Tibetan astrology too?


Malcolm wrote:
No, that would be Mañjuśrī.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 30th, 2014 at 7:05 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Malcolm, if the Mahayana sutras were actually spoken by the Buddha, why were they rejected by mainstream Buddhists, who apparently constituted the majority of Buddhists in India?

Malcolm wrote:
Because they were not preserved by Śravakas, but rather by Mañjuśrī and Samantabhadra.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 30th, 2014 at 5:46 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:


pueraeternus said:
There is no surprise that fundamentalists of other creed denounce everything but their own. We don't even need to consider them since most of their minds are already closed to our path in this lifetime. We do need to exemplify the broad-mindedness, reasoning and virtue that accompanies those who walk the Buddhist path. We show by example, display the wondrous store of the Buddha's treasure to all and teach those who would come and listen. Closing our minds just because there are other closed-minded people out there is hardly skillful means.

Malcolm wrote:
I am not condemning anything. I am not denouncing anything. My message is quite positive. The Mahāyāna Sūtras are the words of the Buddha. Let those who do not believe this go their own way peacefully as I will mine.

Exemplifying broad-mindedness, reasoning and virtue does not entail denying the authorship and authenticity of our own core canon, which sadly, 90 percent of Western Mahāyānists do without even realizing it.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 30th, 2014 at 5:42 AM
Title: Re: Khyenri style of painting
Content:
dzoki said:
There is an updated page on Khyentri style of thangka painting on himalayanart, I found I really like this style. If I had the money I would have a whole set of thangkas painted in this style (that would be a hell lot of thangkas ), but then I found out it ceased to continue as a tradition. Have there been any attempts to revive this style? I am asking here since, as I understood this style was mainly tied to Sakya school.


http://www.himalayanart.org/search/set.cfm?setid=83 " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Malcolm wrote:
Well, I think this style continues to dominate Central Tibetan painting.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 30th, 2014 at 5:38 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
pueraeternus said:
Faith must lead towards prajna. The dog's tooth example merely shows that single-mindedness can lead to absorption and samadhi, and that (hopefully) leads to understanding and direct vision of dependent origination, emptiness, etc.


Malcolm wrote:
If one does not have faith in the authorship of the Dharma one is following, it will not lead to prajñā, but only to confusion and more doubt.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 30th, 2014 at 5:36 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
smcj said:
They can't. That's the point. But since they have, they have validated the texts and practices upon which they relied, proving that the tradition indeed came from an enlightened source, whether it be Sakyamuni or another enlightened being. The proof is in the taste of the pudding.

Malcolm wrote:
I see, so you are still left with the quandry: following the teaching in the sūtras produce the results predicted in the sūtras, upon what basis can you accept part of the text to be true, and yet doubt the attribution of the text. If the tradition is effective, if what the texts say are true, of what use is it to say "This tradition is effective, it produces the results which it claims, nevertheless, even though the words of the text are true, the authorship is false." For that is what you are saying here , no more, and no less.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 30th, 2014 at 5:31 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
But this is not how the text comes to us. These are all rationalizations to explain away the discomfort which arises from the fact that one has not accepted the Mahāyāna sūtras as being the actual speech of the Nirmanakāya, which is how they are presented, i.e. as the words spoken from the mouth of the Buddha .

pueraeternus said:
Oh - so now we are to uncritically accept at face value every Mahayana sutra word for word?

Malcolm wrote:
We are to merely accept that they were spoken by the Buddha.

pueraeternus said:
How do you think the Buddhist nitartha/neyartha textual hermeneutics came about? Go down this road and you will find yourself contenting with a mass of contradictions that ultimately leads to collapse of the very faith you are trying to protect.

Malcolm wrote:
I did not say we should not apply the hermeneutical strategies which come from the sutras themselves, as well as various commentaries upon them, such as the Abhisamayālaṃkara. It is high time, as Western Mahāyanists, that we should be guided by what the sūtras and commentaries on those sūtras say, rather than the opinions of Buddhologists.


There is actually no reason whatsoever to doubt that Mahāyāna sūtras are the actual words of the Buddha. Not one, apart from the fact that some 19th century westerner scholars decided this was the case and we have blindly followed their lead ever since without once questioning the wisdom of this.
There is - even early Buddhists denounce the new fangled sutras as heresy. All internal evidence from Sravakayana texts point to the Mahayana as a later development.
Yes, they did indeed reject Mahāyāna sūtras, eliciting Nāgārjuna's response in the Ratnavali and Maitreya Bodhisattva's response in the Sūtrālaṃkara. But the fact that Śravakas rejected the Mahāyāna sutras does not tell us anything at all about them. It certainly should not be take as evidence that the Mahāyāna sūtras are not the Buddha's own words. But most Westerners are dependent upon philologists who were biased towards the Pali canon as being the "authentic" Buddhism of the Buddha. And quite frankly, they have constructed a picture of Buddhism that we inherit and generally buy into without second thoughts. The entire history of Mahāyāna studies in the Academy begins from the premise that Mahāyāna sūtras are later literary fabrications. But it is just a premise, one with no supporting facts whatsoever.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 30th, 2014 at 5:08 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:


pueraeternus said:
Nonsense - just because a text was written down hundreds of years later after the Buddha's time on this planet does not mean that it did not come from an awakened or inspired source.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, so if you think that Mahāyāna sutras were not actually spoken by the Buddha, who is the awakened or inspired source to which you refer?

pueraeternus said:
They may not be spoken by the flesh-and-blood nirmanakaya Buddha, but they are certainly spoken by the Sambhogakaya or even Dharmakaya Buddha. Or perhaps the Buddha inspired someone to enlightened speech (ala Subhuti), and thus a sermon is given. Or a yogi obtained visions of Buddhas and Bodhisattvas in assembly, and promptly wrote it down after emerging from samadhi. Etc, etc.

Malcolm wrote:
But this is not how the text comes to us. These are all rationalizations to explain away the discomfort which arises from the fact that one has not accepted the Mahāyāna sūtras as being the actual speech of the Nirmanakāya, which is how they are presented, i.e. as the words spoken from the mouth of the Buddha, i.e. thus have I heard...

There is actually no reason whatsoever to doubt that Mahāyāna sūtras are the actual words of the Buddha. Not one, apart from the fact that some 19th century westerner scholars decided this was the case and we have blindly followed their lead ever since without once questioning the wisdom of this. We have basically decided that the wisdom of philologists is what we should follow.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 30th, 2014 at 4:28 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:


pueraeternus said:
Nonsense - just because a text was written down hundreds of years later after the Buddha's time on this planet does not mean that it did not come from an awakened or inspired source.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, so if you think that Mahāyāna sutras were not actually spoken by the Buddha, who is the awakened or inspired source to which you refer?

pueraeternus said:
Why are you all of a sudden struck by such fundamentalist tendencies?

Malcolm wrote:
I have concluded that denying that Śakyamunu Buddha is the author of the Mahāyāna sūtras constitutes abandoning the Dharma. I have concluded therefore, it is very non-virtuous, and not in the interest of those who claim to be Mahāyānists. Such positions only serve the forces which wittingly or unwittingly seek to unravel the Buddha's Dharma from within.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 30th, 2014 at 4:22 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
smcj said:
No. The only fact that matters, and it is a fact, is that we have enlightened teachers today. Maybe they are not fully enlightened, but are sufficiently so that they are proof positive of the viability of the Path and the validity of the Teachings. Everything else is of no consequence.

Malcolm wrote:
If they are awakened , how could they become so on the basis of texts which are just literary fictions, not matter now edifying?

As the Tantra of the Union of The Sun and Moon states:
If the history is not explained, 
there will be the fault of lack of confidence 
in this discourses of the definitive secret meaning.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 30th, 2014 at 3:51 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
smcj said:
Actually I'm even more speculative; that the historical Sakyamuni intended the said developments to occur. That's a little Issac Asimov "Foundation Trilogy" sic-fi speculative, but it is how I see it.

And I'm not so sure tradition dismisses it.

Malcolm wrote:
The fact is that we have some texts. They are records of the Buddha's teaching. Either they are or they are not. That is the only fact that matters.

I choose to believe that they are. I recommend that others do so. It will help their practice.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 30th, 2014 at 3:43 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
I finally understood that my former position is one which ultimately harms Mahāyāna Dharma. Since my practice comes first, I changed my mind.

smcj said:
I am largely in agreement with your former position, and do not see it as harming the Mahayana. However you are welcome to change your mind as you see fit.

Malcolm wrote:
My former position was purely speculative, it is not grounded in fact or tradition.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 30th, 2014 at 3:34 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:


Kunzang said:
Did I misunderstand your former position?  If not, what has prompted this shift, if you don't mind talking about it?  It seems a pretty radical turnaround.

Malcolm wrote:
I finally understood that my former position is one which ultimately harms Mahāyāna Dharma. Since my practice comes first, I changed my mind.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 30th, 2014 at 3:30 AM
Title: Re: NamDak SaLing closing
Content:
DechenNamdrol said:
Hello all.

I am immediately closing my centre in Calgary, Alberta and ceasing all activities due to a threat of violence made against me, a handicapped father of two young children, by a man who masquerades as a Dharma practitioner.

I wish you all the best. I won't be posting anything further.


Malcolm wrote:
Time for Simhamukha my friend.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 30th, 2014 at 2:34 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:


pueraeternus said:
By taking textual analysis into consideration, we can still be reasonable to most people and have a chance to convince them that the Mahayana teachings adhere to the dharma seals.

Malcolm wrote:
No, taking this position means that we have no faith at all in the Mahāyāna path since it does not come from an awakened source.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 30th, 2014 at 2:05 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:


pueraeternus said:
We have to accept the fact that some texts are indeed edited later, have textual corruption, are obviously apocryphal, etc. It is inevitable for a canon that is so vast and sprawling. Then we have to look at the soteriological value of such texts and determine if it is still of dharmic value. But to deny that is so just because of our "faith" is exactly the wrong thing to do.


Malcolm wrote:
The point is that from this point of view, the entire Mahāyāna canon is apocryphal, at least as far as Theravadins etc. are concerned. It is not desirable to admit this position. One fundamentally invalidates the Mahāyāna by following this view.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 30th, 2014 at 2:04 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Malcolm, it all comes down to faith or confidence or whatever in the end, right? You think it's insufficient to say "I have faith in this group of texts." but it's sufficient to say "I have faith in the Buddha and I have faith that the Buddha said what's in these texts."? I don't think there's any real apologetic advantage there. Why do you have faith in the Buddha in the first place? Who are you hoping to convince anyway?

Malcolm wrote:
Oh, I am not trying to convince anyone of anything, I learned long ago that is useless.


dzogchungpa said:
You think it's insufficient to say "I have faith in this group of texts." but it's sufficient to say "I have faith in the Buddha and I have faith that the Buddha said what's in these texts."?

Malcolm wrote:
When confronted with a claim "X teaching in Mahāyāna is contradicted by x teaching in the Agamas", if you take the view that the Mahāyāna sūtras were not taught by the Buddha, you have no choice but to admit the Agamic teaching is the definitive one.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 30th, 2014 at 2:00 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
smcj said:
Don't you reject Mt. Meru cosmology, which in fact the Buddha taught?

Malcolm wrote:
I don't reject Meru cosmology. It is an Indo-centric map of the ancient world in which Meru clearly lies in the middle of Central Asia, undoubtedly Tibet. I do not necessarily accept the way the Kosh́a presents it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 30th, 2014 at 1:56 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
smcj said:
Yes, motivated by ascribing them to Sakyamuni as the symbol of validity.

Malcolm wrote:
So now we are speaking the motivations of what we presume to anonymous authors? Seems a stretch to me.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 30th, 2014 at 1:00 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
pueraeternus said:
There are so many ways to cut it - so easy to turn it around and declare that the Mahayana teachings represented a deeper, more profound teachings that surely is the provenance of the Buddhas. And if others insist of the primacy of textual history, we just say "oh that is a viewpoint limited to time and space, we have to go beyond that.... blah blah blah"

Malcolm wrote:
This is a very weak apologetic. You are still admitting that the Mahāyāna teachings portray historical events which did not happen, conventionally.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 30th, 2014 at 12:59 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
smcj said:
Because otherwise, we are fundamentally admitting we do not know the source of such teachings.
I don't have a problem with that.

Malcolm wrote:
I do.


smcj said:
Likewise I don't believe the Naga story about Nagarjuna, yet I accept it as authentic Dharma. It is an appropriate elaboration on Sakyamuni's original teachings, the appropriateness being validated by Nagarjuna's own realization. It is an extension of Sakyamuni, not Sakyamuni's personal teaching.

Malcolm wrote:
I don't agree. And I don't thinks it serves our purposes in Mahāyāna take this perspective.

People with realization can add to Dharma, and have done so. People that have not been able to gain realization should not alter even one letter of it. That is why contemporary people that have failed at Dharma should not be the ones leading the charge to change it. That is taking the teachings of enlightened awareness and making them the teachings of ignorant unawareness.

smcj said:
Did Sakyamuni teach the 6 Yogas of Naropa? I don't' think so. Dzogchen? I don't' think so. If you say Vajradhara taught them, ok. (Vajradhara being the enlightenment of Sakyamuni as seen from the Vajrayana perspective.) But that means that the history of it will show up some time after the Paranirvana, when it comes back down to the human realm. If you say that Sakyamuni could still teach after the Paranirvana, then that is the same as saying later authors could, based on their own realization, contribute to the Canon. It is saying the same thing two different ways.

Malcolm wrote:
[/quote]

The Mahāyāna sūtras place themselves within the 80 year lifespan of the Buddha. If we take your route, we are openly admitting that Mahāyāna teachings are not the teachings of the Buddha. Therefore, this is a bad way to go. Vajrayāna also suffer too.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 30th, 2014 at 12:38 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:


PorkChop said:
I'm with you on the idea of holding firm that the teachings themselves come from Shakyamuni; the issue I bring up is how to go about doing this in the most defensible position available. The ability to defend this position is integral given the vested interest others have of shooting down Mahayana/Vajrayana teachings.

Malcolm wrote:
The best approach is to simply discuss the teachings with the understanding that Buddha actually taught themselves himself as we Mahāyānists have been doing for the past 2000 years and ignore what outsiders think. People become interested in Mahāyāna because they have the merit to do so, not because of some evangelism on the part of Mahāyānists. People can either believe what faithless academics say, "The Mahāyāna teachings are not the words of the Buddha" or they can believe what all of our realized masters say: "The Mahāyāna teachings are the words of the Buddha."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 30th, 2014 at 12:34 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:


smcj said:
I consider Dzogchen, Mahamudra, the tantas and such as authentic Dharma.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, and they can be traced back with precision to Vajradhara, apart from those few lower tantras the Buddha himself taught.

smcj said:
I feel no qualms whatsoever about not tracing them back 2,500 years to Sakyamuni.

Malcolm wrote:
Teachings such as Kalacakra were taught directly buy the Buddha, even if they were set down later by the Shambhala Kings.

smcj said:
They produce enlightened beings. They come from enlightened beings. Those enlightened beings came from practicing the Dharma that Sakyamuni taught. That makes them authentic Buddhism, regardless of whether or not Sakyamuni's specifically articulating those teachings in the flesh.

Malcolm wrote:
My point is that we cannot regard those teachings in Mahāyāna sūtras which the Buddha taught to be truly valid, unless in fact we believe the Buddha indeed taught them, where and when it is said he taught them. Because otherwise, we are fundamentally admitting we do not know the source of such teachings.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 30th, 2014 at 12:24 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
smcj said:
The strength of Buddhism lies in the idea that generation after generation has been able to produce realized beings. Their realization may not equal Buddha's but it is still realization nevertheless. What they have to say is by definition Dharma. End of controversy. Anyone that feels the need to have had Sakyamuni personally teach something is showing a karmic bias towards Shravakayana. That's their karma. Let them follow it.

Malcolm wrote:
The strength of the Dharma lies on it's lineage and origin being authentic. Otherwise, it is fabrication.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 30th, 2014 at 12:21 AM
Title: Re: Historicity of Yeshe Tsogyal
Content:
mutsuk said:
Great! Thanks for the reference! We can even see that her toponymic affiliation is even given (as mKhar-che(n) bza'). It's indeed a good reference outside the gter-ma tradition.


Malcolm wrote:
I thought so. I think it must be the earliest known textual reference to her. Yes, it is late, but it is from the corpus of a Tibetan family known for their very strict adherence to their Dharma traditions, whose lineage of Kīlaya traces back to Guru P.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 30th, 2014 at 12:16 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
smcj said:
Try standing behind the Nagarjuna story as literal history. Then you'll be laughed at.

Malcolm wrote:
No more so then someone will be laughed at for believing Abhidharma was taught to Buddha's mother in the deva realms.

smcj said:
The definition of Dharma needs to be made clear. It is the speech on an enlightened being.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, in the case of the Mahāyāna sūtras, if not Buddha, then who? Some anonymous enlightened being we do not know? This undermines the entire validity of the lineage.

smcj said:
Any other position is handing the academics the authority to decide what is authentic Dharma or not.

Malcolm wrote:
Academics have no such authority nor will they ever for as long as we insist that our sūtras are the actual words of the Buddha, either in person, by blessing or by permission.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 30th, 2014 at 12:13 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
smcj said:
The classic example is the fairy tale that sea serpents kept a secret text written by Sakyamuni at the bottom of the ocean in a time capsule for 1,000 years waiting for Nagarjuna to be born so they could give it to him.

Malcolm wrote:
But as must be clear to you for years, I actually believe in Nāgas, Yakṣas, Gandharvas, Kinnaras, Mahoragas, and so on. So I have absolutely no problem with the idea that Nāgārjuna recovered the Prajñāpāramita from the Nāga dimension.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 30th, 2014 at 12:10 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
pueraeternus said:
This is a dangerous veer towards fundamentalism.

Malcolm wrote:
No, it is actually an embrasure of "fundamentalism."


pueraeternus said:
One of our primary tasks as Mahayanist is to attract beings and convert them to the dharma. We cannot do this if we petulantly insist on the historicity of wildly contradictory sutras and tantras.

Malcolm wrote:
You call it "petulant", I call it "essential". We cannot attract anyone to Mahāyāna teachings if we front with "Well, Buddha did not really teach this, but..." By this strategy we are explicitly agreeing that our texts do not carry the weight of authority of the Mainstream Canon. It's just a simple fact.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 30th, 2014 at 12:06 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
smcj said:
What you are essentially saying is, "I recognize that these texts were not actually taught by the Buddha at the time they were said to have been taught. Nevertheless, I like what they say." One's objection to the refutation of their validity as the Buddhavacana will therefore be groundless and toothless. You have already admitted by this that the Mainstream canon is authoritative, and that the Mahāyāna canon is not.
I disagree on the grounds that tracing the historicity to Sakyamuni is not the criteria for "authoritative".


Malcolm wrote:
You can disagree all you like, and yet when you say the "Buddha said" and someone replies, "not he didn't because Gregory Schopen blah blah blah...", etc., how will you respond? Well, "Buddha didn't really teach that, I agree. But some later Buddhist wrote a book and put it in the mouth of the Buddha, so it is just as authoritative."?  You will be laughed at.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 30th, 2014 at 12:02 AM
Title: Re: Understanding of karma
Content:


kng said:
"For example in dzogchen teaching, which is somehow different from other buddhist teachings, we do not
say that, for example for meeting the teaching of Buddha we need to have some good causes, some merits
etc., we need to do something good during many lifetimes and then as a result we meet this high
teaching, that can help us to free ourselves, to become liberated.

Malcolm wrote:
Berkhin has a little misunderstanding here. We say that people who meet Dzogchen (and Dharma in general) are fortunate, why are they fortunate? Because they have the merit to meet the teachings. Why do they have that merit, because of positive actions performed over countless lifetimes.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 29th, 2014 at 10:47 PM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:


Wayfarer said:
I think the origin of the Mahayana Sutras is from 'visionary encounters' with the Buddha which could be understood as 'seeing the dharma by penetrating its meaning' or as 'insight into the true meaning of the Buddha's teaching through Prajñāpāramitā.' These insights were then codified into the Prajñāpāramitā sutras, amongst others.

Understood thus, I have always thought that these texts were the authentic word, even if not literally remembered and spoken in the same way as the early texts.

Malcolm wrote:
Again, this theory merely opens the door for criticism. It depends on a twist of interpretation. What you are essentially saying is, "I recognize that these texts were not actually taught by the Buddha at the time they were said to have been taught. Nevertheless, I like what they say." One's objection to the refutation of their validity as the Buddhavacana will therefore be groundless and toothless. You have already admitted by this that the Mainstream canon is authoritative, and that the Mahāyāna canon is not.

Instead it better to simply insist, "This is the sūtra that we read, if you do not read this sūtra, it is better for you to be neutral, than run the risk of abandoning Dharma." In this way one's point of view is unassailable when it comes to explicating points where the Buddha's teaching in Mahāyāna sūtras surpasses or seem to contradict those teachings found in the Mainstream canons.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 29th, 2014 at 10:39 PM
Title: Re: Is Rebirth Unscientific?
Content:


Sherab said:
I think I have problem...

Malcolm wrote:
Well, you can ground your understanding in the Nikayas, I prefer to ground it in Mahāyāna. I consider it more authoritative.

Sherab said:
Taking the Buddha as one who has an overall view of all things, I don't consider what the Buddha said in great vehicle sutras as more authoritative than what he said in the small vehicle suttas.

It is possible that one interpretation of what the Buddha said is more authoritative than another interpretation, but resorting to authority is my last resort for understanding what the Buddha said.

The Buddha said many things and unless one is as awakened as the Buddha himself, practically whatever he said would be interpreted by one's intellect.  What is important as far as I am concerned is the consistency of interpretation (understanding) of one aspect with other aspects of the Buddha's teachings.

Malcolm wrote:
You can choose to ignore the Saṃdhinirmocana, if you like.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 29th, 2014 at 10:34 PM
Title: Historicity of Yeshe Tsogyal
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Mutsuk wrote:
Of course we have no trace of Yeshe Tsogyel before quite late in the tibetan history and there is not a single mention of her in the Dunhuang documents if I'm not mistaken.
We have a record of Tsogyal outside the Nyingma Milieu which dates to the mid 12th century, i.e., there is a mention of her oral instructions concerning Vajrakīlaya in the Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen's collected works: http://tbrc.org/link?RID=O01CT0026%7CO01CT002600KG04134$W22271. The text from 793-794 mentiones that it is advice given to her on Guru Rinpoche's departure from Tibet.

Thus, we can see here that the Khon tradition clearly mentions her. Its very unlikely that Jetsun Rinpoche would be following the lead of Nyangral, given how stringent Sakyapas are about lineage, and how dubious they were about the nascent gter ma tradition. In my opinion, we can safely say that this advice was included in their ancestral teachings.

Therefore, I personally see no valid reason whatsoever to doubt the historicity of a Tibetan woman named Yeshe Tsogyal who was Padmasambhava's companion.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 29th, 2014 at 8:33 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
Dan74 said:
I am wondering though why on a Mahayana forum this dualistic parable would hold any sway?

Malcolm wrote:
Well, because the nondual is ultimate, but we still function in the relative.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 29th, 2014 at 8:30 AM
Title: Re: Is Rebirth Unscientific?
Content:


Sherab said:
I think I have problem...

Malcolm wrote:
Well, you can ground your understanding in the Nikayas, I prefer to ground it in Mahāyāna. I consider it more authoritative.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 29th, 2014 at 6:54 AM
Title: Re: Is Rebirth Unscientific?
Content:
smcj said:
Also, if I remember correctly, the nirvana of an Arhat is likened to a flame going out - you can't tell where the flame went. In other words, you can't tell where the mind of an Arhat goes when he attains nirvana.
That's not a Mahayana perspective. A Mahayanaist would understand the Arhat to have a continuation. In fact, the Mahayana perspective says that after a long while the Arhats are roused out of their sleep by the blessing of the bodhisattvas so they can continue on with the practice of the Mahayana.

And yes, that's not something I'd like to try to say on Dhamma Wheel.

Mkoll said:
I wouldn't be offended. If an arahant has put an end to suffering for themself, I doubt they'd mind helping others do the same.

Or do I have that wrong? Do Mahayana schools believe the arahant has made an end to suffering for themself?

Malcolm wrote:
Arhats have made an end to suffering, but have, in the Mahāyāna analysis, mistaken the samadhi of cessation for the ultimate fruit of the path. The Buddha teaches in the Lankāvatara that eventually, arhats are roused out of their samadhi and set on the Bodhisattva path, where after three incalculable eons, they attain full buddhahood.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 29th, 2014 at 6:49 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
We followers of Buddhadharma must confidence in the authenticity of our core canons. That confidence can only arise if we are confident in the lineage and authorship of the these canons.

Anders said:
Are you saying then that confidence in the Mahayana hinges on the belief that the mahayana sutras were spoken by the historical Shakyamuni Buddha? And that you think such a belief is most ideal for modern mahayana buddhism?

Malcolm wrote:
I think it is not only ideal, but essential. I am not insisting of course that this be some kind of entry bar for becoming a Buddhist. But it is a little strange to claim that one is taking refuge in the Dharma, the speech of the Buddha, and then on the other hand, consider virtually all of the teachings that constitute Mahāyāna to be little more than fabrications, no matter how pithy or profound. In Mahāyāna, we do not accept the Agamas or Nikayas to be authoritative in a way in which Mahāyāna sūtras are not.  But denying the authorship of Mahāyāna to the Buddha, we are depriving ourselves of the very basis which to respond to Theravadins and so on, because in affect, we are accepting their view of our own texts.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 29th, 2014 at 4:13 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
Anders said:
the evidence is so overwhelmingly to the contrary.

Malcolm wrote:
Would you like to trot out that evidence?

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 29th, 2014 at 4:01 AM
Title: Re: Is Rebirth Unscientific?
Content:


PadmaVonSamba said:
....what is your opinion of this?
Can a person be a Buddhist relying only on what can be achieved through direct experience?
. . .

Malcolm wrote:
A Buddhist cannot achieve anything without right view.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 29th, 2014 at 1:23 AM
Title: Re: Is Rebirth Unscientific?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The mind never ceases to continue, not even in the state of awakening.

Sherab said:
I am not sure about this.  I remembered that there is a story about how Mara (or was it a Deva?) boasted about how he could know the mind of anyone but when challenged by the Buddha to find his (the Buddha's) mind, he failed.  Also, if I remember correctly, the nirvana of an Arhat is likened to a flame going out - you can't tell where the flame went.  In other words, you can't tell where the mind of an Arhat goes when he attains nirvana.

Malcolm wrote:
According the Mainstream Buddhist schools it is indeed the case that the stream of consciousness experiences total cessation in parinirvana; but not according to the Mahāyāna and Vajrayāna where the Buddha rejects this as a misunderstanding of his teachings. As Sachen Kunga Nyingpo puts it, the garland of of moments of clarity continue from sentient being-hood through the state of Vajradhara.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 28th, 2014 at 8:15 PM
Title: Re: Is Rebirth Unscientific?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The body.

PadmaVonSamba said:
Yes, constantly.

Malcolm wrote:
Death, according to the Buddha is the break up of the aggregates, i.e. when mind and body separate. Since the mind does not die, then we can say that what dies, ceases to continue is the body. The mind never ceases to continue, not even in the state of awakening.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 28th, 2014 at 7:56 PM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
Simon E. said:
As to "if its not historically true its more important "...the mind boggles at the sheer frigging nonsense that clever people can take seriously.

Anders said:
If,for example, the encounter dialogues in Zen are not historical reports, then they were manufactured for a religious purpose.

Malcolm wrote:
They are not sūtra.

We followers of Buddhadharma must confidence in the authenticity of our core canons. That confidence can only arise if we are confident in the lineage and authorship of the these canons.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 28th, 2014 at 7:55 PM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
Anders said:
I think it weakens Buddhism if it can formulate no religious response to to academic findings. I don't wish to see Buddhism sticking it's head in the sand, catholic style, insisting that dinosaurs were put in the ground to test our faith and so forth.

Malcolm wrote:
The religious response is not to cater to Western Academia by giving credence to their "findings" with such devices as the one you propose. No, it is not sufficient. It is is just a back-handed way of saying, "Well, yes you're right, but..."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 28th, 2014 at 6:50 PM
Title: Re: Is Rebirth Unscientific?
Content:
JKhedrup said:
So I agree with Malcolm: if you want to be "happy" in this lifetime, ethical hedonism is 100% the way to go, and maybe a little Buddhist practice
Meditation in the morning, Xanax or a joint and a couple of shots of vodka in the evening?


Malcolm wrote:
Dude!


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 28th, 2014 at 6:23 AM
Title: Re: Is Rebirth Unscientific?
Content:
LastLegend said:
Well death is real. I think we can all agree on this.

PadmaVonSamba said:
The death of....what?
.
.
.


Malcolm wrote:
The body.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 28th, 2014 at 6:22 AM
Title: Re: Is Rebirth Unscientific?
Content:
PadmaVonSamba said:
The reality of a physical universe is valid when it comes to suggesting the existence of a lineage of teachers,
....but not for "materialists" for whom it is a view 'so deeply ingrained".


Malcolm wrote:
Just what are you on about? Are you interested in having a discussion or are you just interested in mocking people? What's your problem?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 28th, 2014 at 5:38 AM
Title: Re: Is Rebirth Unscientific?
Content:
PadmaVonSamba said:
It is possible to go beyond the dualism of comfortable vs. uncomfortable.

Malcolm wrote:
Not without first cultivating right view.

PadmaVonSamba said:
...then you are essentially saying that since (according to you) nobody has attained perfect tranquility and peace of mind in a thousand years, then nobody has cultivated right view.


Malcolm wrote:
I didn't say that. What I said is that, if one follows the Theravada school's reckoning of things, there has not been an arhat for more than a thousand years. I never said anything at all about bodhisattvas.

Even someone with only mundane correct view however, can attain perfectly tranquility and peace of mind — it's called śamatha. Even Hindus have this. The cultivation of ṥamatha does not depend on right view at all. Someone who has no faith in rebirth whatsoever can achieve śamatha.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 28th, 2014 at 5:27 AM
Title: Re: Is Rebirth Unscientific?
Content:


PadmaVonSamba said:
It is possible to go beyond the dualism of comfortable vs. uncomfortable.
...

Malcolm wrote:
Not without first cultivating right view.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 28th, 2014 at 4:35 AM
Title: Re: Is Rebirth Unscientific?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Wrong view is not just active disbelief, it also includes well considered agnosticism on the issue, which by definition is a form of ignorance.

daverupa said:
The Buddha did not tell these fine folk that a well-considered agnosticism was a form of ignorance. He instead taught them how to use such an agnosticism to attain four assurances here and now, and even with agnosticism in play he is able to call those who successfully employ this gambit those with 'mind thus free from hostility, free from ill will, undefiled, & pure'.

Malcolm wrote:
Nevertheless, it is. An agnostic by definition cannot enter the beginning of the path. The four brahmaviharas are not a path.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 28th, 2014 at 4:15 AM
Title: Re: Is Rebirth Unscientific?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Without rebirth, there is such thing as "liberation"

Anders said:
Surely full freedom from suffering in this life can qualify as "liberation" even if it is not a liberation from the endless rounds of samsara?

Malcolm wrote:
There can be no full liberation from suffering for one with wrong view, even in this life.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 28th, 2014 at 2:58 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
smcj said:
To me it is only when somebody starts trying to publicly legitimize their rejection of the teachings that I've got a problem, and at that point I'm right with you.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, and those people ought to just be ignored. It does no good to argue with academic skeptics like Jeff, materialists like Andrew, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 28th, 2014 at 2:45 AM
Title: Re: Is Rebirth Unscientific?
Content:
Norwegian said:
As Nagarjuna points out:

" Even though an individual may have practiced well,
   with a wrong view
All that matures will be unbearable. "
-- Suhrllekha ["Letter to a Friend"]

Malcolm wrote:
Indeed.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 28th, 2014 at 2:39 AM
Title: Re: Is Rebirth Unscientific?
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
Ok, well I get it then, I think I took your words to mean something else, thanks for the clarification.


Malcolm wrote:
Just to reinforce the point:

Bhikku Bodhi said:
The Buddha includes belief in rebirth and kamma in his definition of right view, and their explicit denial in wrong view.

Malcolm wrote:
So, the point is that someone who has wrong view is automatically barred from liberation. Wrong view is not just active disbelief, it also includes well considered agnosticism on the issue, which by definition is a form of ignorance.

This is why I consider it so tragic that so many people out there are interested in the Dharma, but their very beliefs, or lack of it, bar them from experiencing the true fruits of practice. They most they can expect is a higher rebirth, which sadly, they do not even believe in. Worse, if they meditate incorrectly, develop the higher dhyanas and so on, they can take rebirth in formless realms from which they will never escape for literally millions and millions of years.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 28th, 2014 at 2:32 AM
Title: Re: Is Rebirth Unscientific?
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
JD, can you tell me the difference between Buddhist mindfulness and say Hindu mindfulness, or even secular mindfulness?

Johnny Dangerous said:
No, I don't have your background, and thus I can't do that. I can however wonder what exactly you are trying to convey re: accessiblity and right usage opf Buddhist teachings in this thread, which is what i'm asking.

There is nothing particularly "Buddhist" about the kleshas for example, they are discussed in all Indian spiritual paths.

Sans rebirth, what is it that makes any discussion about the kleshas more interesting from a Buddhist perspective than say for example, the plethora of psychologies out there, considering that kleshas and so on are not unique to Buddhism?

I'm not approaching the question from an academic standpoint, nor do I imagine are most practitioners, nor most people who MIGHT become practitioners. All I am asking is why you would want someone to be an ethical hedonist rather than a Buddhist, albeit one whose opinions you might think are nonsense.

Malcolm wrote:
I never said ethical hedonist could not crib teachings of the Buddha and so on that suit them. But liberation is just not in the cards for them. Buddha never said that someone who did not accept rebirth could attain stream entry, let alone Arhatship. Forget about Bodhisattvas and so on.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 28th, 2014 at 2:25 AM
Title: Re: Is Rebirth Unscientific?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
e]

Whose talking about restricting access to the teachings?
I dunno, what ARE you talking about then, declarations of faith, simply refuting incorrect views on doctrine, or what? Is there a purpose behind telling someone they should just be an ethical hedonist? I'm unclear on your actual position..especially as someone who not too long ago declared their desire to distance themselves from the "Buddhist" label.

Johnny Dangerous said:
I did not say someone should be an ethical hedonist, I said it would be better to be an ethical hedonist.
Actually, a "Buddhism" sans rebirth is just ethical hedonism.
Not by a longshot. Even given the obvious ethical quandaries that can be involved with "secular Dharma" - which I recognize, Buddhist meditation, and even a bit of the Buddhist understanding of emotion and mind works wonders for non-Buddhists..hopefully that's non-controversial right?

Malcolm wrote:
JD, can you tell me the difference between Buddhist mindfulness and say Hindu mindfulness, or even secular mindfulness?

There is nothing particularly "Buddhist" about the kleshas for example, they are discussed in all Indian spiritual paths.

Sans rebirth, what is it that makes any discussion about the kleshas more interesting from a Buddhist perspective than say for example, the plethora of psychologies out there, considering that kleshas and so on are not unique to Buddhism?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 28th, 2014 at 2:04 AM
Title: Re: Is Rebirth Unscientific?
Content:


Johnny Dangerous said:
Man, I really do not get this.

You don't think it's better for people to have access to teachings that decrease afflictive emotions, regardless of worldview? I sure do.

Malcolm wrote:
Whose talking about restricting access to the teachings?

Johnny Dangerous said:
It seems like the only real issue is when people want to say "the Buddha didn't believe in rebirth" and similar, thinking of Sam Harris here among others...beyond that, I WANT those people to have access to the teachings, and be welcome in Dharma centers etc. without needing to make some sort of declaration of faith - unless they plan on taking refuge of course.

Malcolm wrote:
Again, this does not address my point, which is, there are plenty of wonderful ethical systems out there which can bring people peace and improve their lives immeasurably. Actually, a "Buddhism" sans rebirth is just ethical hedonism.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 28th, 2014 at 1:45 AM
Title: Re: Is Rebirth Unscientific?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
No, it would be better to be an ethical hedonist. Why? If rebirth wasn't the case, the statement you cite from the Dhammapada would have no meaning.

Anders said:
Why should it be better?

Are you saying that liberation in this lifetime is not worth it for the sake of this lifetime? That there are higher means of happiness in this lifetime only than full freedom from suffering?

Malcolm wrote:
Without rebirth, there is such thing as "liberation". If you have your needs and wants met, that's enough. This is why said it would be better to be an ethical hedonist.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 28th, 2014 at 1:43 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Macolm, I'm sympathetic to what you're saying, but what exactly do you mean by "the teaching of the Buddha"? For example, is the Aro gTér the teaching of the Buddha? Is Michael Roach's stuff the teaching of the Buddha?

Malcolm wrote:
I was actually talking about the teachings in the bKa' 'gyur in general as well as the Nyingma rgyud 'bum. As far as termas go, well, what I had in mind was more like standard traditional termas.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 28th, 2014 at 1:23 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
Sherlock said:
Do we have to accept that tantras also come from Shakyamuni Buddha?

Malcolm wrote:
No, we should just accept they they were taught by a Buddha, such as Vajradhara, for example. However, some of the lower tantras were directly taught by the Buddha.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 28th, 2014 at 12:40 AM
Title: Re: Is Rebirth Unscientific?
Content:


Anders said:
If rebirth wasn't the case and perfect freedom from suffering was nevertheless an option for the remainder of one's singular lifetime, that would still be plenty good reason for a Buddha to teach. Cf the dhammapada:

Malcolm wrote:
No, it would be better to be an ethical hedonist. Why? If rebirth wasn't the case, the statement you cite from the Dhammapada would have no meaning.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 28th, 2014 at 12:02 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Three things are required to turn the tide of Buddhist modernism, especially of the academic variety:

1) We must resist the temptation to fall under the spell of text criticism. The text critical approach is forensic and speculative. It proceeds from Western hermeneutical prejudices founded in a materialist notion of what a "text" is. It also is born out of a Western idea of historiography. Text criticism, used as a means of discerning the origin of Buddhist texts and its developments, results in nothing more than speculative conjectures being taken as facts by the reading public, and by many Buddhists as well. These speculative conjectures harm the foundations of Mahāyāna and Vajrayāna in particular, which are seen as modifications or corruptions of an ur-canon.

2) We must resist the attempt to erect science as our final authority in all matters of cosmology, theories of consciousness, etc. While not disregarding modern science and so on, we must insist that domain of Buddhadharma is necessarily outside of scientific inquiry. The origin of Buddhadharma is the awakening of the Buddha. There is no way the mundane sciences can either enhance our understanding of Dharma nor can it replace the Dharma.

3) We must insist that on fact the Buddhist canon, all sutra, tantra and Vajrayāna originate with the Buddhas in general, and Śakyamuni Buddha in particular. We must take into consideration that the very survival of Buddhism as a living tradition depends on the integrity of the origins of the teachings. In particular, we must insist on the necessity that the timeless teachings of the Buddhas transcend mundane concerns about space and time, existing as a remedy for the suffering of all sentient beings, wherever they may be. Therefore, the teachings of the Buddhas, whether directly, by permission or by blessing should be accepted as they are at face value as the teaching of the Buddha. It is only in this way that the integrity of the Buddhist tradition will be preserved. This is not to say that all Buddhists must accept all canons as being of equal value. We need to recognize that all the Buddha's teachings have value for different people at different stages in their evolution on the path.

Therefore, engaging with people addicted to text criticism or historical analysis of Buddhist texts, or who have aim to replace key concepts in Buddhadharma with concepts drawn from the mundane sciences should be considered extraneous distractions and such people's qualms and objections must be ignored, because trying to deflect or negate such misguided criticisms of materialists, made by non-practitioners, or Theravadin practitioners is completely useless. If they say Mahāyāna is not the teaching of the Buddha, we must insist that it is. If they claim the Vajrayāna teachings are not the teaching of the Buddha, we insist that it is. If they claim that termas are not the teaching of the Buddha, we insist that they are and leave it at that. Many long, stupid conversations will be blunted in the beginning by a simple statement "This is a teaching of the Buddha. If you don't think so, you are welcome to your opinion but I am not interested in discussing it with you further." Such discussions are not useful for anyone's practice, their's, if they have one, or ours. Further, we create much non-virtue and negative traces by engaging in such discussions. So it is time to just stop.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 27th, 2014 at 11:03 PM
Title: Re: Hello from Texas
Content:
DharmaCloud said:
Hello everyone.

I'm a self-proclaimed "book buddhist" who has tried (really?) to engage in a practice for many years.  Too many excuses to throw out there for that one, but as I often have, I'm once again stepping back onto the path.

I'm hoping to engage in lively discussions and be part of a community in the dharma.  Once again moving from the distractions, I hope to use the encouragement of seeing others on the path to spur my own practice.

This time I hope to lay down my unhealthy ego, the one that causes me to seek perfection in my attempts to be in a better place.  I am trying to accept where I am and start from here.


Malcolm wrote:
Find a teacher.

The victor, the owner of the best of all qualities, has said:
“Rely on the Buddha, Dharma and the virtuous mentor .”

— Samcayagathas


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 27th, 2014 at 9:27 PM
Title: Re: Is Rebirth Unscientific?
Content:
Andrew108 said:
When rebirth is debated it should be kept in mind that rebirth is something to be overcome. It is something that needs to be seen as false.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, that is the point of Buddhadharma, overcoming rebirth. Not merely as a concept, but in actuality. You seem to be proposing the only thing we need to overcome is the idea of rebirth. Well, materialists don't need to since they have no idea of rebirth. Maybe they are already liberated. At death, poof, nirvana.

The point is, A108, without rebirth, there is no need for Buddhadharma per se.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 27th, 2014 at 11:07 AM
Title: Re: Is Rebirth Unscientific?
Content:


PadmaVonSamba said:
How totally hypocritical to say that a scientific view
. . .

Malcolm wrote:
I wan't talking about science per se. I was talking about western materialism.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 27th, 2014 at 9:22 AM
Title: Re: Is Rebirth Unscientific?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
There has not been an Arhat for more than a thousand years...

Vajraprajnakhadga said:
How do you know this?

Malcolm wrote:
Please read my previous response to this post. This is a tradition that is universal in Theravada.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 27th, 2014 at 8:09 AM
Title: Re: Is Rebirth Unscientific?
Content:


PadmaVonSamba said:
Every bit of your "true buddhism" is based on material references, on written texts...

Malcolm wrote:
No, my Buddhism is based on a living lineage of realized teachers going right back to the Buddha.

PadmaVonSamba said:
So, you are saying they are figments of your imagination?

Malcolm wrote:
You know, if you do not believe that the Buddha's teachings have passed down to us in an unbroken lineage through realized masters; which present those teachings to us faithfully, that's your problem, not mine.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 27th, 2014 at 8:07 AM
Title: Re: Is Rebirth Unscientific?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
There has not been an Arhat for more than a thousand years...

PadmaVonSamba said:
So you say.
Prove it.

Malcolm wrote:
There are various schemes, but let us suppose that we take the Theravadin scheme. According to Buddhaghosha, circa 5th century, when a thousand years have elapsed from the Buddha's parinirvana, it will no longer be possible to become a stream entrant, let alone an Arhat.

If you are interested in this kind of thing, look at Jan Nattier's synopsis of these issues in Once Upon a Future Time.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 27th, 2014 at 7:03 AM
Title: Re: Is Rebirth Unscientific?
Content:
PadmaVonSamba said:
How many people are there who argue about whether or not there is a next life
when they haven't yet got freedom in this life?
Peace of mind, total contentment,
these are all possible right now.
If you attain them in this life,
whether another life follows this one or not doesn't really matter at all.
. . .

Malcolm wrote:
And if you don't, the point is critical. There has not been an Arhat for more than a thousand years...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 27th, 2014 at 7:02 AM
Title: Re: Is Rebirth Unscientific?
Content:


PadmaVonSamba said:
Every bit of your "true buddhism" is based on material references, on written texts...

Malcolm wrote:
No, my Buddhism is based on a living lineage of realized teachers going right back to the Buddha.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 27th, 2014 at 4:55 AM
Title: Re: Honen's One-Sheet Document
Content:
Luke said:
In Part 7, Rev. Ishikawa talks a bit about the views of some of Honen's main students, such as Bencho.  He also mentions that he feels that there is very little information about Pure Land Buddhism available in English (this is part of his motivation for making these videos).  Perhaps more Pure Land texts will be translated into English in the future...

One thing these videos have given me is just the opportunity to see how a Pure Land Buddhist priest thinks and acts.  Rev. Ishikawa is very knowledgeable and rational, so this is what impresses me the most.  He doesn't have any overdone "Praise Amitabha! Hallelujah, brothers and sisters!" type of attitude that I had always expected Pure Land priests to have.

Malcolm wrote:
Ippen is an interesting character.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 27th, 2014 at 2:09 AM
Title: Re: Is Rebirth Unscientific?
Content:
Andrew108 said:
For some people it is important. For me it's not meaningful. If you want to follow Buddha's teachings then it is best to slowly divest yourself of concepts regarding Buddhist teachings.

asunthatneversets said:
This makes no sense. Seems to be a misinterpretation of what it means for wisdom to be free of concepts.

Andrew108 said:
When you sit back and think thank goodness I don't have to be a Buddhist anymore, maybe you relax a bit. When you sit back and think thank goodness I'm a Buddhist, may be you relax a bit. As a practitioner you realize both are an equality. When you do this are you a Buddhist or are you someone who has understood something about the invariant condition we all find ourselves in?


Malcolm wrote:
The point is not whether one is a Buddhist or not; the point is whether one understands Buddhadharma or not. People who reject rebirth and yet continue to call themselves "Buddhists" do not understand Buddhadharma.

I don't know you personally, but from everything you have written, I would say that you are someone who has some intellectual understanding of Buddhism, but I really don't think you grasp the meaning of Buddhadharma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 27th, 2014 at 1:31 AM
Title: Re: Understanding of karma
Content:
Andrew108 said:
Yes agreed, but if Dzogchen accepted a conventional view of karma then one would think that one needs to accumulate vast stores of merit and purify oceans of negativities.


Malcolm wrote:
Khenpo Ngachung, someone who attained the pinnacle of Dzogchen realization in the last century, and then wrote of his experiences states:

In any system of sutra or tantra, without gathering the accumulations and purifying obscurations, Buddhahood can never be attained.  Though the system of gathering accumulations and purifying obscurations is different, in this respect [dzogchen] is the same.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 27th, 2014 at 1:13 AM
Title: Re: Is Rebirth Unscientific?
Content:


Andrew108 said:
Physicalism? Not really.

Malcolm wrote:
Really.


Andrew108 said:
If I say that immaterial mental phenomena cannot exist independently of material phenomena you would take me as a physicalist. But I am not making any assertions as to what matter is apart from saying that it is interdependently originated.

Malcolm wrote:
Non-sequitar -- what is at issue of your views of consciousness, not your views of matter.


Andrew108 said:
On the other hand you are asserting that the immaterial (consciousness) has characteristics and functionality separate from the physical. It's characteristics do not depend on a physical base but are innate to it, part of it.

Malcolm wrote:
Andrew, your notion of the relation between consciousness and matter is a one way dependency: i.e. consciousness depends on matter, period.


Andrew108 said:
But I wonder how you can say this? What for example are the actual qualities of an immaterial rainbow if the rainbow is absolutely immaterial?

Rongzom says:

"If an immaterial phenomenon existed, for example a mirage, it would be empty of causes and empty of movement. In the very moment of engaging a mirage designated by convention, the phenomenon of emptiness does not depend upon the mirage."

Malcolm wrote:
I am not sure that Rongzom says this, citation please, so I can look at the Tibetan text. I am not sure what the translator means by "immaterial".


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 26th, 2014 at 11:38 PM
Title: Re: Understanding of karma
Content:


Andrew108 said:
Really? Dzogchen accepts a conventional view of karma?

Malcolm wrote:
Very much so, as Garland of Pearls Tantra [one of seventeen tantras] states:

One is placed in the dungeon of name and matter
in the castle of the three realms,
tortured with the barbs of ignorance and so on, 
oppressed by the thick darkness of samsara, 
attached to the salty taste of desire, 
bound by the neck with the noose of confusion, 
burned with the hot fire of hatred, 
head covered with pride, 
setting a rendezvous with the mistress of jealousy, 
surrounded by the army of enmity...
tied by the neck with the noose of subject and object, [29b]
stuck in the mud of successive traces
and handcuffed with the ripening of karma.
Having been joined with the ripening of karma, 
one takes bodies good and bad, 
one after another like a water wheel,
born into each individual class.
Having crossed at the ford of self-grasping, 
one sinks into the ocean of suffering
and one is caught by the heart on the hook of the three lowers realms.
One is bound by oneself; the afflictions are the enemy.

The whole purpose of practicing rushan, especially outer rushan, is to eliminate the causes of birth in the six lokas.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 26th, 2014 at 11:23 PM
Title: Re: Is Rebirth Unscientific?
Content:
Andrew108 said:
I suspended my world view for 24 years. That's how many years it took for me to overcome the belief in literal rebirth.


Malcolm wrote:
And so now you have become an evangelist for replacing Buddha's own teachings with physicalism, and promulgating that as the Dharma.

Pretty sad, dude.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 26th, 2014 at 11:12 PM
Title: Re: Understanding of karma
Content:


kng said:
For those who would wish to participate in discussion, without having to watch the video, maybe you could suggest some sources from which to study karma or give overview about karma from the point of view of nine vehicles.

Malcolm wrote:
The point of view of karma in the conventional is the same for all nine vehicles. In other words, Dzogchen does not deviate in any significant way from the standard presentation of Karma given in chapter 4 of the Abhidharmakośa.

There is no karma in the ultimate, so in that respect too, the point of view of all nine vehicles is the same.

The treatment of karma absolutely does not change from one vehicle to the next.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 26th, 2014 at 10:02 PM
Title: Re: why is Vajrayana considered the fastest way to buddhahoo
Content:
JKhedrup said:
I had thought what made the merit and wisdom accumulations more powerful was that they were done in most cases in the aspect of the self-generation. For example, one generates as Yamantaka before blessing the inner offering, and emanating goddesses to offer it to the merit field etc. as to do so in one's ordinary form would not be possible.
.

Malcolm wrote:
As I understand it, what makes the merit accumulation more powerful is that you are making offerings to the Guru above all. The wisdom accumulation is more powerful because it is done with a mantra based on the the example wisdom of the time of empowerment.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 26th, 2014 at 9:28 PM
Title: Re: Is Rebirth Unscientific?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The fact is that the only thing preventing many people from waking up is the rigid resistance I see among many westerners, who think they are interested in Buddha's Dharma, to what the Buddha's Dharma actually teaches. This is why many people follow a "Buddhism" of their imagination, rather than Buddhadharma.

Andrew108 said:
It is as you say. The Pali suttas are full of mentions of literal rebirth.  But we also know that Buddhism has been modified and developed over the centuries.

Malcolm wrote:
No, Buddhadharma has never been modified. Over the centuries however, more of the Buddha's teachings have been revealed, to help people cope with evolving circumstances.



Andrew108 said:
In the Samadhanga Sutta Buddha says:
"If he wants, he recollects his manifold past lives,[3] i.e., one birth, two births, three births, four, five, ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, one hundred, one thousand, one hundred thousand, many aeons of cosmic contraction, many aeons of cosmic expansion, many aeons of cosmic contraction and expansion, [recollecting], 'There I had such a name, belonged to such a clan, had such an appearance. Such was my food, such my experience of pleasure and pain, such the end of my life. Passing away from that state, I re-arose there. There too I had such a name, belonged to such a clan, had such an appearance. Such was my food, such my experience of pleasure and pain, such the end of my life. Passing away from that state, I re-arose here.' Thus he remembers his manifold past lives in their modes and details. He can witness this for himself whenever there is an opening."

So we should take this literally right?

Malcolm wrote:
It is intended literally. There is nothing here to dispute, conventionally speaking.

Andrew108 said:
But one wonders how could it be possible? How could all these memories survive so many lives when there were lives where we didn't have language or developed senses capable of recording and storing that information. Why was it that the Buddha couldn't talk about the evolution of species or what life was like on other planets. It seems that life on other planets was much like life on this one?

Malcolm wrote:
Life in Sukhavati for example, is nothing like life on this one.


Andrew108 said:
How does this memory survive after brain death? What is it about consciousness that enables it to contain so much information and why is that information not ordinarily available to us? Then there is a kind of folkism here where memory is seen like a serial display and that one needs only rewind to uncover past events. It seems if you develop the jhanas then that is the kind of capacity you will have. The way you remember things will be serial.

Malcolm wrote:
In general, for ordinary beings, the shock of being unconscious at the moment of conception is said to render our past live memories unavailable. Bodhisattvas in their last life however are conscious through the entire process of conception, gestation and birth.

When one enters into the concentration of recalling past lives, indeed one starts with this life and that starts with the present and works one's way back.

Memory is serial because consciousness is serial. Memory, as I already explained to you from Candrakirti, is not different than the consciousness that experienced the event. So the process consists of recalling every serial sense impression from beginningless time.

Consciousness is empty, there is nothing preventing consciousness from recalling all of its past objects other than our present obscurations. Just as there is nothing preventing karma from ripening because karma too is empty.

But if you try to understand these things in physicalist terms it will never make any sense.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 26th, 2014 at 7:26 PM
Title: Re: Is Rebirth Unscientific?
Content:


Andrew108 said:
The teachings have to make practical sense.

Malcolm wrote:
They do, but first you have to understand their context. The context of Buddhadharma is to be liberated from rebirth in samsara.

Andrew108 said:
Have to be applicable right now.

Malcolm wrote:
They are.

Andrew108 said:
Shouldn't isolate an individual.

Malcolm wrote:
They don't.

Andrew108 said:
Shouldn't enable the forming of inside-outside identity making.

Malcolm wrote:
Tell that to the Buddha,  i.e., "Outside of my Dharma and Discipline..."

Andrew108 said:
Should bring a measurable benefit to the practitioner and others.

Malcolm wrote:
They do.

Andrew108 said:
Have to be absolutely useful and relevant.

Malcolm wrote:
There is nothing more relevant that eliminating the traces that cause rebirth in samsara.

Andrew108 said:
All of these amazing effects of the teachings are available when the metaphysical aspects are dropped in favour of direct experience.

Malcolm wrote:
The direct experience of deluded beings is delusion.

Andrew108 said:
So many buddhists are in denial about their behaviour.

Malcolm wrote:
Here is a mirror, take a look at your reflection.

Andrew108 said:
Thinking that being buddhist and being in receipt of wonderful teachings is enough. It is not enough.

Malcolm wrote:
Agreed, but abandoning the Buddha's Dharma and replacing it with physicalism is not the right approach.

Andrew108 said:
There needs to be an absolute benefit to the practitioner's life.

Malcolm wrote:
There is only one absolute benefit, liberation. If someone does not begin with right view, which incidentally includes rebirth, karma and so on, there will be no benefit at all to a person's life.

The fact is that the only thing preventing many people from waking up is the rigid resistance I see among many westerners, who think they are interested in Buddha's Dharma, to what the Buddha's Dharma actually teaches. This is why many people follow a "Buddhism" of their imagination, rather than Buddhadharma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 26th, 2014 at 7:16 PM
Title: Re: Is Rebirth Unscientific?
Content:
Andrew108 said:
There is also the issue of petty sectarianism where other views can't be tolerated and are seen as being a threat.

Malcolm wrote:
I am afraid that you seem to subscribe to the view, "Buddhism is whatever I think it is". Well, to a large extent these days that that is true. But Buddhadharma is not "whatever we think it is".

Andrew108 said:
Since the logic is not there, it should be perfectly acceptable for a Buddhist to not accept rebirth. They should not have to feel excluded or de-valued because of their agnosticism or reasoned disbelief.

Malcolm wrote:
I have never insisted that people accept rebirth as a personal belief. I have insisted that people understand how Buddha's teaching of rebirth is critical to understanding Buddhadharma properly. I have also insisted that if we discard rebirth, the Buddha's Dharma ceases to have any more meaning than any other secular self-help system. Without the teaching of rebirth, the Buddha's Dharma is no more than a set of moral platitudes. It ceases to be a path of liberation, and becomes a mere palliative for life's ailments, rather than a cure.

This I have unwaveringly maintained literally for years, as anyone who remembers E-Sangha can attest.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 26th, 2014 at 6:25 AM
Title: Re: why is Vajrayana considered the fastest way to buddhahoo
Content:
JKhedrup said:
I honestly thought that the practices of generating as the deity, and things like illusory body, clear light and tummo were the uncommon features of Highest Yoga Tantra. I especially thought the generation stage created extraordinary causes to achieve the form body. I am a little worried I misunderstood something here. (Which is totally possible!)

Malcolm wrote:
All these things are uncommon, JK, but in a sadhana, the merit and wisdom accumulations are completed even before you start in on the main section. And the main section of the sadhana is nothing or nor less than a reenactment of Buddha's awakening and deeds through nirvana.

Yes, it is true that creation stage is a cause for realizing the rūpakāya, just as the completion stage is a cause for realizing the dharmkāya. But superior even to the the two stages is guru yoga, which along with mandala offerings are truly unique to anuttarayoga tantra.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 26th, 2014 at 6:18 AM
Title: Re: Is Rebirth Unscientific?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The same applies to text critical scholarship of Buddhist texts. It destroys Buddhadharma. I really want nothing more to do with this contemporary approach to Buddhadharma.

dzogchungpa said:
Are we to just ignore it then?

Malcolm wrote:
Pretty much, AFAIC. It does nothing to help one's practice or realization.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 26th, 2014 at 2:39 AM
Title: Re: Is Rebirth Unscientific?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
From my limited perspective, it appears to me that the real danger inherent in all of this is that by adhering to this western materialist view that is so deeply ingrained in our culture, we are simply piling trace upon trace in our mindstreams that will make it ever more difficult for us to meet the Dharma in future lives, much less have faith in it.

This is sad.

The same applies to text critical scholarship of Buddhist texts. It destroys Buddhadharma. I really want nothing more to do with this contemporary approach to Buddhadharma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 26th, 2014 at 2:27 AM
Title: Re: why is Vajrayana considered the fastest way to buddhahoo
Content:
JKhedrup said:
I have heard some lamas explain it that Vajrayana also establishes causes for achieving the form body of a Buddha, it allows us to start doing that right in this life. This is part of the reason for its swiftness.

Malcolm wrote:
That is not a very good explanation. The rupakāya comes from the punyasambhara, the merit accumulation. Also this exists in common Mahāyāna, right from the start. It is the means of accumulating merit that set Vajrayāna apart, like mandala offerings (in particular) and so on.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 26th, 2014 at 2:18 AM
Title: Re: Concerns about Commercializing Buddhism in the West
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
http://tuttejiorg.wordpress.com/2014/01/31/tutte-wachtmeister-how-to-monetize-the-dharma/

smcj said:
298 pages. Hardback. $34.95

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, one of those x-buddhist hacks.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 26th, 2014 at 2:17 AM
Title: Re: why is Vajrayana considered the fastest way to buddhahoo
Content:
Arjan Dirkse said:
Religions all compete in the market place of ideas, most of them and their denominations claim to have the superior path.

Malcolm wrote:
Vajrayāna is the uncommon Mahāyāna path because it is uses methods which the Buddha did not teach in Mahāyāna sūtras. The Buddha taught that, unlike in common Mahāyāna, it is possible for a beginner, someone at the beginning of the path of preparation, to attain complete buddhahood in a single lifetime by following Vajrayāna. These teachings are stated by the Buddha, Padmasambhava, and so on, not by simple people like me.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 26th, 2014 at 1:25 AM
Title: Re: Concerns about Commercializing Buddhism in the West
Content:
catlady2112 said:
I read in some earlier posts of people who went to a (Buddhist Geeks?) conference and said there was an overemphasis on how to market yourself in order to get students.

Malcolm wrote:
Seriously? That is corrupt. Such people will merely send themselves to hell.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 26th, 2014 at 1:19 AM
Title: Re: why is Vajrayana considered the fasted way to buddhahood
Content:
Crazywisdom said:
Tantras themselves say they are the pinnacle of the dispensation,

theanarchist said:
Yeah, but they also say that they are for disciples of higher/highest capacity. Means, only for a small minority of all people who come in contact with dharma.

Malcolm wrote:
No, the tantras do not say this. What the tantras say is that only _fortunate_ people meet the Vajrayāna stream.

theanarchist said:
And the fact that a lot of people follow vajrayana, but very very very few of them indeed attain liberatin in this one life...

Malcolm wrote:
The tantras divide people in three categories basically, best, medium, average. They provide all necessary methods for attaining buddhahood in this life, or the bardo, or taking rebirth in a buddhafield such as Sukhavati.


theanarchist said:
So yeah, anyone can follow vajrayana, but not everyone can or will attain liberation in the that fast manner.

Malcolm wrote:
Vajrayāna texts promise that if one maintains ones samaya well, one will attain full buddhahood within seven lifetimes. Compared to the three incalculable eons at minimum to practice the common Mahāyāna path, this is fast, no?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 26th, 2014 at 12:07 AM
Title: Re: why is Vajrayana considered the fasted way to buddhahood
Content:
theanarchist said:
[
Why should they be offended? In Theravada leading all other beings to liberation is indeed not on the program.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, as is the case with all the so-called Mainstream schools.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 25th, 2014 at 11:44 PM
Title: Re: Honen's One-Sheet Document
Content:
Luke said:
I have watched the first five videos just out of curiosity.  They don't make me want to practice Jodo Shu, but they have given me a better understanding of this tradition and of Japanese language and culture.  Rev. Ishikawa seems like a very kind and joyful person.  If anybody thinks that Buddhism is only about misery and suffering, they should take a look at Rev. Ishikawa!


Malcolm wrote:
Buddhism is only about escaping misery suffering; but if someone thinks there is even a microgram of happiness in samsara, they are pretty deluded. However, people on the path have good reason to be happy.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 25th, 2014 at 10:51 PM
Title: Re: why is Vajrayana considered the fasted way to buddhahood
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Needless to say, for those who have no faith in Vajrayāna, Vajrayāna is not a vehicle at all, much less the fastest one.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 25th, 2014 at 9:33 PM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
plwk said:
I used to agree with some like Malcolm that this 'foundation' may not be necessary but after having read this thread and some others, I can now see the wisdom and acute urgency of this statement.

Malcolm wrote:
I used to have that feeling, I no longer do. Quite the opposite in fact.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 25th, 2014 at 7:43 PM
Title: Re: 21 Years from the Dharamsala Conference
Content:
kirtu said:
How does the square with the pervasive drug culture in the US?

Malcolm wrote:
Dude, people in Britain snort so much coke it in the WATER supply.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 25th, 2014 at 7:40 PM
Title: Re: 21 Years from the Dharamsala Conference
Content:
kirtu said:
Due to misfortune I had to move to Baltimore in late 2012.  The entire region is a nest of rampant drug activity.

Malcolm wrote:
Like every working class city in the US with a ruined economy.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 25th, 2014 at 7:16 PM
Title: Re: Excellent online resource for Colloquial Tibetan
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Some of the speakers have terrible Chinese accents.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 25th, 2014 at 6:39 AM
Title: Re: China expands new measures to directly control Tibetan m
Content:


kirtu said:
Then by your admission, Central Tibet was some ruled in some way by the Gelug during the time of the 5th Dalai Lama to the 6th, then there was a 40 year period (this would overlap with the life of the 6th and the 7th), then from some point during the life of the 7th the Gelug rule again in some form up to the 13th.  Is that correct?

Malcolm wrote:
I was very precise. The government established by the Fifth collapsed when when Lozang Khan invaded, and Desid Sangye Gyatso was assassinated by Lozang Khan's wife (a former mistress of his) in 1705 (I said 1704, but oh well). The Desid never allowed the Sixth to rule.

Central Tibet remained without any effective government at all, apart from warlords, until Pho lha nas, an aristocrat from Tsang, ruled Tibet from 1727-1748 with Qing backing.

The seventh was installed by the Qianglong emperor in 1751. The Kashag itself was a creation was a creation of the Qianglong emperor.

Please get your facts straight, Kirt. I expect better from you. The Central Tibetans were ruled by the Qing, so they could not be a theocracy either.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 25th, 2014 at 6:28 AM
Title: Re: China expands new measures to directly control Tibetan m
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
No one refers to Europe as a THEOCRACY during the middle ages. No one. I defy you find even one serious historian that labels Medieval Europe so.

uan said:
I defy you to find even one serious historian that labels Medieval Europe as a single country.

Malcolm wrote:
That my friend, is my entire point. Tibet was never "Tibet", Tibet is Ü, Tsang, Ngari Korsum [Formerly known as Zhang Zhung], Guge, Amdo, Chamdo, Kham, Nangchen, Golog, Nyarong, Gyalmo Rong, Lhodrag, Kongpö, Pö, and a plethora of other small kingdoms and regions like Mustang, Lhadak, Dolpo, Jyathang and so on, with huge ethnic diversity — for example, the people in Gyalrong speak a language that is not even Tibetan, though they are Tibetan Buddhists. You are talking about a vast region, historically tied together by religion rather than ethnic identity, much like Medieval Europe.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 25th, 2014 at 5:37 AM
Title: Re: China expands new measures to directly control Tibetan m
Content:


kirtu said:
Your characterization of the brief rein of the 5th Dalai Lama is correct.  The rest was an obfuscation.  Although a specific Mongol group reinvaded and disposed the 6th Dalai Lama, it appears that the Gelugs were more or less in charge of Central Tibet at least through the beginning of the rule of the 13th Dalai Lama.  This was enforced at least nominally from Beijing.

Malcolm wrote:
No that is not correct. There were two separate secular regimes over a period of 40 or so years, before the 7th was installed.


kirtu said:
Yes, people do.  Europe was characterized as having heavy theocratic influence at least until the French Revolution.  The period 1789-1848 was this inflection point in Western and Central Europe.

Malcolm wrote:
No one refers to Europe as a THEOCRACY during the middle ages. No one. I defy you find even one serious historian that labels Medieval Europe so.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 25th, 2014 at 3:04 AM
Title: Re: China expands new measures to directly control Tibetan m
Content:
JKhedrup said:
Also, let us not forget that the post-Industrial Revolution, capitalist system of the West, while perhaps "democratic", has led to an unsustainable strain on the earth's resources and a pollution crisis that is destroying the planet.

Malcolm wrote:
If this is the case, then the "West" is the whole world.

In fact everybody on the whole planet has bought in industrialization. The West coast of the US and Canada experiences the pollution from China's factories.

Quite frankly, there are no players who do not participate willing in the Global economy. I know it is fun to point fingers at the US, but in reality, the environmental degradation we are experiencing was caused by all countries who industrialized.

This East/West thing is really misguided — ya'll need to read Edward Said.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 25th, 2014 at 2:33 AM
Title: Re: Is Rebirth Unscientific?
Content:
Andrew108 said:
Stop crying and make your position more clear. I haven't invented anything.

Malcolm wrote:
Sure you have.

Andrew108 said:
You are the one implying consciousness has potential and is supported by warmth.

Malcolm wrote:
What do you mean by "potential"?

Andrew108 said:
So why wouldn't I assume that you understand consciousness to be self-sustaining and therefore not without energy?

Malcolm wrote:
A moment of consciousness is not self-sustaining, like everything else it is sustained on causes and conditions, they are simply not physical causes and conditions. Unless of course you eliminate the formless realm, in which cause there there would only be two dhātus rather then the standard three.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 25th, 2014 at 2:06 AM
Title: Re: 21 Years from the Dharamsala Conference
Content:


kirtu said:
Logic please.  Mexico is not considered the West

Malcolm wrote:
Yes it is.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 25th, 2014 at 1:50 AM
Title: Re: 21 Years from the Dharamsala Conference
Content:
kirtu said:
You can also just take up the "fearful and mistrusting" assessment with Noam Chomsky, Carol O'Connor and others who have said exactly the same thing.

Malcolm wrote:
As I have often pointed out, you live in a different country than I do.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 25th, 2014 at 1:49 AM
Title: Re: 21 Years from the Dharamsala Conference
Content:


kirtu said:
It has been the most violent society in the West

Malcolm wrote:
You clearly have never been to Mexico.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 25th, 2014 at 1:41 AM
Title: Re: China expands new measures to directly control Tibetan m
Content:


kirtu said:
No you said that the majority of Tibet was actually small kingdoms and said nothing about how they were actually governed.  Central Tibet was ruled by the 5th Dalai Lama for 50 years but that Gelug rulership fell apart after his death (which is inaccurate, BTW).

Malcolm wrote:
It's perfectly accurate. Why you don't you look up the period between  Desrid's assassination and the kidnapping of the sixth, and the the ascension of the 7th? Tell me who ruled Tibetan during this period.


kirtu said:
Tibet was very much a kind of theocracy where the aristocracy vied amoungst themselves and with lamas to secure power...

Malcolm wrote:
Sounds very much like Medieval Europe, but no one calls this a "theocracy":

Europe was very much a kind of theocracy where the aristocracy vied amoungst themselves and with clergy to secure power...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 25th, 2014 at 1:21 AM
Title: Re: 21 Years from the Dharamsala Conference
Content:
kirtu said:
If you grew up in the US, you additionally grew up in a fearful, violent  and mistrusting society (albeit one that does not recognize that it is fearful, violent or mistrusting).

Malcolm wrote:
hahahahahahahaha.

You have such a strange view of the US.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 25th, 2014 at 1:18 AM
Title: Re: China expands new measures to directly control Tibetan m
Content:
ReasonAndRhyme said:
I'd find it much more interesting to hear historical arguments why Tibet was or was not a theocracy.


Malcolm wrote:
Been there, done that.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 24th, 2014 at 9:54 PM
Title: Re: Is Rebirth Unscientific?
Content:


Andrew108 said:
Very fine quote indeed from RM.

Malcolm wrote:
And this?

Andrew108 said:
Maharshi: The real Self is continuous and unaffected.

Malcolm wrote:
M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 24th, 2014 at 8:17 PM
Title: Re: Is Rebirth Unscientific?
Content:


Andrew108 said:
Substantial cause? Yes causality is an invariant. But there needs to be a 'substantial' cause. I fail to see how disembodied consciousness can be classed as 'substantial'.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, because for you, if it is not listed on the table of elements, or composed thereof, it does not exist. Ergo, you are a materialist, not a follower of the Buddha.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 24th, 2014 at 8:09 PM
Title: Re: why is Vajrayana considered the fasted way to buddhahood
Content:
Crazywisdom said:
So what do we make of how Buddha treated poor Shariputra in the Mahayana sutras?

Malcolm wrote:
Buddha, in Mahāyāna sutras, was acting out of his infinite and omniscient compassion. Not only that, while Śariputra may seem like a foil against which many unkind tricks were played, Śariputra in fact is a very high bodhisattva on the stages, a player in the drama of the Mahāyāna sutras.

I think that until I am at that level, I will refrain from criticizing the other vehicles.

Of course, when we openly discuss the fact that Vajrayāna promises the ideal practitioner full buddhahood replete with the two accumulations in a single life, it is natural that others might feel criticized or that we are making "triumphalist claims", but we are not. There isn't even one single Mainstream sutra or Mahāyāna sūtra that suggests that full buddhahood can be attained in a single life, so what need to mention the complete absence of the methods of doing so? Moreover, the Mainstream Sūtras do not detail the path of the bodhisattva, so people who wish the embark on the career of a bodhisattva must learn that from Mahāyāna sūtras. The Mainstream sūtra teachings have one goal primarily, to guide people to the four fruits of the śravakas path.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 24th, 2014 at 7:48 PM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
Wayfarer said:
Science is indispensable and if used wisely brings many material benefits.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, but it is not profound.

Crazywisdom said:
What do you mean by profound?

Malcolm wrote:
It does not lead to liberation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 24th, 2014 at 7:29 PM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
dharmagoat said:
... For that matter, I am grateful to everyone who has posted intelligently on this subject, regardless of their perspective.


Malcolm wrote:
I guess that leaves me out, since according to Andrew, I am not "logical".


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 24th, 2014 at 7:27 PM
Title: Re: why is Vajrayana considered the fasted way to buddhahood
Content:
Crazywisdom said:
We have good reason to disparage the smaller goal.

Malcolm wrote:
Actually, disparaging  the other yanas is a violation of our samaya.

Crazywisdom said:
Disparaging is too strong a word. I admit. The Mahayana sutras do disparage poor Shariputra, I'm afraid. Vajrayana is a species of Mahayana.

Malcolm wrote:
As the samaya of the Amitabha family states:
"I will uphold the sublime Dharma, 
the outer, inner and secret yānas".
Therefore, if we Vajrayānists criticize or berate other yānas, we break our samaya -- not in the sense of a root downfall, no, but in the sense that we are not honoring our commitment to the Padma family which is related to the teachings.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 24th, 2014 at 11:58 AM
Title: Re: why is Vajrayana considered the fasted way to buddhahood
Content:
Crazywisdom said:
We have good reason to disparage the smaller goal.

Malcolm wrote:
Actually, disparaging  the other yanas is a violation of our samaya.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 24th, 2014 at 7:48 AM
Title: Re: why is Vajrayana considered the fasted way to buddhahood
Content:
smcj said:
Ahem, in order to avoid a different kind of shit storm we say "Mainstream Buddhism" around here instead.
I thought we were supposed to use "Shravakayana". I know HHDL just differentiates between Pali and Sanskrit texts.

In any case we do try no avoid pejoratives.

Malcolm wrote:
Nah, that is also considered pejorative. They want to be Mainstream Buddhism, because in point of fact there were never that many Mahāyāna Buddhists in India anyway.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 24th, 2014 at 7:12 AM
Title: Re: China expands new measures to directly control Tibetan m
Content:


uan said:
That was a non answer. But it does arise out of a real understanding of how non answers function.

Malcolm wrote:
Look, you made a gross inaccurate generalization. For one, the vast majority of Tibet, for most of its history, was divvied up into small kingdoms held together by a network of trade, family relations as well as monastic ties.

While it is true that the Great Fifth took control of Central Tibet and Tsang, his consolidation fell apart after his death completely. in 1704. It was another 50 years before a Dalai Lama was the nominal ruler of Central Tibet and Tsang. Even here, principalities like Sakya in Western Tsang maintained their independence. During much of the 19th century, Lhasa was controlled through Manchu Ambans.

So my point is, your contention has no substance.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 24th, 2014 at 5:46 AM
Title: Re: China expands new measures to directly control Tibetan m
Content:


uan said:
Their culture was a theocracy and was centered around supporting that theocracy. A theocracy is not Dharma. Samsara existed in Tibet and permeated all levels of their culture, just like any other culture.


Malcolm wrote:
You really have no understanding of Tibetan history or culture.

uan said:
Would you care to elaborate?
Their culture was a theocracy and was centered around supporting that theocracy

Malcolm wrote:
This statement is complete nonsense. It cannot arise out of a real understanding of how Tibetan culture functions.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 24th, 2014 at 5:43 AM
Title: Re: why is Vajrayana considered the fasted way to buddhahood
Content:
Crazywisdom said:
Hinayana

Malcolm wrote:
Ahem, in order to avoid a different kind of chaotic and unpleasant situation we say "Mainstream Buddhism" around here instead.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 24th, 2014 at 5:41 AM
Title: Re: why is Vajrayana considered the fasted way to buddhahood
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
No, it merely proves that a text from the Agamas was translated during late eighth or early ninth century into Tibetan. Virtually no one reads that text, and no one regards it as being particularly authoritative.

santa100 said:
But that's the question I posed to you and which you continue to evade. Please provide reference to back up your claim that the Agamas is less "authoritative" to your sutras.

Malcolm wrote:
No, it merely proves that a text from the Agamas was translated during late eighth or early ninth century into Tibetan. Virtually no one reads that text, and no one regards it as being particularly authoritative.

santa100 said:
But that's the question I posed to you and which you continue to evade. Please provide reference to back up your claim that the Agamas is less "authoritative" to your sutras.

Malcolm wrote:
Well for example, in Mahāyāna sūtras, it very clearly explains that the Bodhisattva Mañjuśrī actually attained samyakasambuddhahood countless eons ago. If it is the case that in Mahāyāna they accepted the statement in the Dhātubahuka-sūtra as authoritative, how is it that Mañjuśrī could appear as a disciple of the Buddha? For example,in the bKa' 'gyur, the translated words of the Buddha, the Ārya-mañjuśrīnāmāṣṭaśataka praises Mañjuśrī in the following words:
You are a Buddha, a pratyekabudddha,
and you are the Primordial Buddha.
How can this be possible, if the Dhātubahuka-sūtra is to be regarded as definitive?

Further, to underscore the point that Mahāyāna sūtras are more definitive for Mahāyāna followers than Mainstream Buddhist Sūtras, consider the following from the Arya-sandhinirmocana-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra:
At first, since the Bhagavan demonstrated the aspects of the four noble truths to those correctly participating in the vehicle in the deer park called Ṛṣivadanam, the amazing Dharma wheel he turned first was amazing, a corresponding Dharma had not been turned in the past by any deva nor any human. However, that Dharma wheel that the Bhagavan turned was surpassable, contextual, of provisional meaning, and a basis for contention. The Bhagavan turned a second very amazing Dharma wheel with the aspects beginning with the absence of inherent existence of phenomena, and beginning with their nonarising, noncessation, peace from the beginning, and intrinsic parinirvana to those correctly participating in the Mahāyāna. However, that Dharma Wheel turned by the Bhagavan too was surpassable, contextual, of provisional meaning, and a basis for contention. The Bhagavan then turned the third very amazing Dharma Wheel perfectly differentiating for those correctly participating in all vehicles beginning with the absence of inherent existence of phenomena, and beginning with their nonarising, noncessation, peace from the beginning, and intrinsic parinirvana. This Dharma Wheel turned by the Bhagavan is unsurpassable, not circumstantial, definitive in meaning, and not a basis of contention.
Here you can see that Mahāyāna sūtra, the teaching of the Mahāyāna is clearly defined as definitive. while the teaching of the Mainstream Buddhists, the Agamas and so on are defined as provisional in meaning, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 24th, 2014 at 4:48 AM
Title: Re: why is Vajrayana considered the fasted way to buddhahood
Content:
smcj said:
And just because this is the "Mahayana/Vajrayana" forum doesn't give you the right to say that.
If not here, then where?

santa100 said:
No, not here. This is the General Dharma > Exploring Buddhism section, not Vajrayana section. Saying any elitist claim about Vajrayana here in this section is extremely misleading to those who are new to Buddhism. I see a site admin currently viewing this, if he disagrees, I will shut up.

Malcolm wrote:
I answered a direct question put out to the forum. I am sorry you don't like the answer, but the answer I provided was the correct one from a Vajrayāna perspective.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 24th, 2014 at 4:45 AM
Title: Re: why is Vajrayana considered the fasted way to buddhahood
Content:
Crazywisdom said:
For example the claim made above, Buddha does not say which discourses, or which language. It is mere assumption he refers only to Pali. Buddha did not speak Pali.

santa100 said:
But that's irrelevant. The fact that you have the exact equivalence in the Agamas and the Tibetan prove that this is universally accepted by all Buddhist schools.

Malcolm wrote:
No, it merely proves that a text from the Agamas was translated during late eighth or early ninth century into Tibetan. Virtually no one reads that text, and no one regards it as being particularly authoritative in the Tibetan tradition. Your mistake is assuming that we value the Agamas as highly as you do. While we respect all the Buddha's teachings, we really do not spend much time with Mainstream Buddhist primary texts, as we have very few Agamic sutras in our canon.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 24th, 2014 at 4:41 AM
Title: Re: why is Vajrayana considered the fasted way to buddhahood
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
By your words you have shown this to be so. You have also demonstrated huge ignorance about Vajrayāna texts with your tempest in a teapot here.

santa100 said:
And you've also demonstrated a distorted view of Vajrayana text, even the basic Tibetan equivalence of MN 115 I have repeatedly provided.

Malcolm wrote:
Not everything in the Tibetan Canon is Vajrayāna; there are Mainstream Buddhist texts like Vinaya, Abhidharma and so on, as well as their commentaries, and a few scattered sūtras from the Agamas, but very few indeed; Mahāyāna texts like the Prajñāpāramita, Avatamska and so on, as well as their commentaries; and Vajrayāna texts like Kalacakra, Hevajra, Manjushri Namasamgiti, etc., and their commentaries.

The interpretive rule is simple — where a Mahāyāna texts contradicts a Mainstream Buddhist text such as the one you cited, the Mahāyāna text takes precedence. Where a Vajrayāna text contradicts a Mahāyāna text, the Vajrayāna text takes precedence.

It is that simple. Because you do not understand how those of us in Tibetan Buddhism are trained to understand our own canon, you have made several erroneous assertions that I have kindly and patiently corrected.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 24th, 2014 at 4:19 AM
Title: Re: why is Vajrayana considered the fasted way to buddhahood
Content:
santa100 said:
And just because this is the "Mahayana/Vajrayana" forum doesn't give you the right to say that.

Malcolm wrote:
Of course it does.

santa100 said:
I have no problem with Vajrayana. I do have a problem with the the wild claim that Vajrayana as the fastest vehicle above all other schools and that it will make one becomes a Fully Enlightened Buddha in a single lifetime.

Malcolm wrote:
Umm, that is exactly what Vajrayāna texts state without reservation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 24th, 2014 at 3:47 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
pensum said:
if it is true that the self is not a thing but a process ... then it is also true that the tragedy of the ego dissolves because, strictly speaking, nobody is ever born and nobody ever dies. "

Malcolm wrote:
The self isn't even a process, it is just an innate imputation.

pensum said:
Which is precisely what Metzinger describes in his self-model theory.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, Hume had the same idea.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 24th, 2014 at 3:38 AM
Title: Re: why is Vajrayana considered the fasted way to buddhahood
Content:


smcj said:
But in any case good fences make good neighbors.

Malcolm wrote:
It would appear TRC and santa100 have boundary issues.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 24th, 2014 at 3:16 AM
Title: Re: why is Vajrayana considered the fasted way to buddhahood
Content:
JKhedrup said:
There is a whole thrust of literature that the Tibetans call ཐེག་ཆེན་ བཀའ་སྒྲུབས་ or "Proving Mahayana as the Buddha's Word". The philosophy is worth looking at for those interested in the basis and defense of Mahayana philosophy. I once had a list of works and passages of this genre but have now lost it, which is a shame.

jiashengrox said:
Ven Khedrup, I am not sure if we are suggesting the same thing, but try Chapter 1 or 2 of The Ornament of Mahayana Sutras. I remember there is a whole Chapter in the treatise dedicated to proving the words of the Mahayana to belong to the Buddha. Otherwise, The Chapter 1 of Mahayanasamgraha gives a summarised explanation, with Vasubhandu's bhasya.


Malcolm wrote:
Its the subject of chapter one.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 24th, 2014 at 3:11 AM
Title: Re: why is Vajrayana considered the fasted way to buddhahood
Content:
santa100 said:
I'm so so glad that I participated in this thread for I have presented the most vivid proof that Vajrayana cannot be the best and fastest vehicle above all other Buddhist schools.!


Malcolm wrote:
In your imagination.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 24th, 2014 at 1:34 AM
Title: Re: why is Vajrayana considered the fasted way to buddhahood
Content:


santa100 said:
Well, then you must agree that Vajrayana is not the fastest vehicle above all other Buddhist schools that enable one to become a Fully Enlightened Buddha, SammaSambuddha!

Malcolm wrote:
There are no means by which one may become a buddha, gathering the twin stores of merit in a single lifetime and eliminating the two obscurations outside Vajrayāna. I am sorry, but such a teaching does not exist in any sūtra.

santa100 said:
I'm for all the Buddhist schools Mahayana and Theravada that challenge the absurd elitist Vajrayana claim here.

Malcolm wrote:
Glad you finally revealed your anti-Vajrayāna bias. As Nāgarjuna said while addressing critics of Mahāyāna:
Since the teachings of the Tathāgata are not explicit,
they are not easy to understand.
Since one vehicle and three vehicles are taught,
one should guard oneself with equanimity.
Through equanimity one will not commit a misdeed,
through aversion there will be a misdeed and there will be no virtue,
therefore, hatred towards the Mahāyāna
is not reasonable for one who desires their own welfare.
Those of you who cannot endure it when you see someone speak openly of Vajrayāna principles should apply Nāgārjuna's advice in kind.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 24th, 2014 at 1:30 AM
Title: Re: why is Vajrayana considered the fasted way to buddhahood
Content:
Crazywisdom said:
N

Yes, the bodhi of a Buddha and an Arahant are the same. The Pali sources, at least, do seem to say this. But Buddha differs from Arahants in two respects: He was first to teach dharma, and by virtue of this, teaches it the best.

Malcolm wrote:
That quite depends on what you mean by "bodhi".


Crazywisdom said:
Buddhadharma is really and truly THE most amazing phenomena in the history of the universe. How it makes us feel, how it transforms us and empowers us is something wondrous. All of Buddhism is very special and unique. Practitioners, whether high or low are all so so very very precious. Even to think of awakening once is such a precious moment, not just for oneself but in the history of sentient beings. Even one thought has so many karmic ripplings.

Malcolm wrote:
Indeed.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 24th, 2014 at 12:40 AM
Title: Re: China expands new measures to directly control Tibetan m
Content:


uan said:
Their culture was a theocracy and was centered around supporting that theocracy. A theocracy is not Dharma. Samsara existed in Tibet and permeated all levels of their culture, just like any other culture.


Malcolm wrote:
You really have no understanding of Tibetan history or culture.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 24th, 2014 at 12:38 AM
Title: Re: why is Vajrayana considered the fasted way to buddhahood
Content:
JKhedrup said:
If it did, both sides would just be collecting negative karma back and forth I think. When I was in Thailand I put aside my views and respectfully learnt what I was taught by conservative Dhammayutika Nikaya Theravada masters. I am glad I didn't push the envelope because I wouldn't have learned nearly as much and would have upset people.

Malcolm wrote:
Of course. It would be like going to Dhammawheel and insisting that people were wasting their time with Theravada and the Pali canon. Practicing any of the Buddha's teachings is never a waste of time.

What is a waste of time is when sectarian Theravadins like TRC come here and try to shove the Pali Canon down our throats.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 24th, 2014 at 12:34 AM
Title: Re: why is Vajrayana considered the fasted way to buddhahood
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
But not necessarily the supreme authority of any of the Mainstream Buddhist canons.
For example, in Tibetan Buddhism, the doctrine of the three kinds of nirmanakāyas comes from the Sutrālaṃkara attributed to the Maitreya Bodhisattva. Because this text is by a tenth stage bodhisattva, it is considered to Buddhavacana. Likewise, the Three Bodhisattva Commentaries on the Tantras are considered in the same light since they are authored, according to tradition, by tenth stage Bodhisattvas.

santa100 said:
Since you keep saying "Mainstream Buddhist", please define exactly what you mean. Per the cross references I have provided with the Chinese Taishos and the Tibetan, please be explicit on what exactly is and is not included in that "Mainstream Buddhist" source of yours.

I have no problem with the Bodhisattva comy. but you will have to reconcile it with your own Tibetan and the Chinese Taisho equivalences of MN 115 source I have provided, which was the Buddha's own words. I don't know about you, but I'd place my bet with the Buddha's teaching in https://books.google.com/books?id=lt7kFlVNONcC&pg=PT377&lpg=PT377&dq=That+bhikkhu%E2%80%99s+statement+should+neither+be+approved+nor+rejected&source=bl&ots=hnUHIu-hvM&sig=ElhMoutbuf01Si4LZtgovpV2e8Q&hl=en&sa=X&ei=p2B9U5TTD63KsQSDjIDwBA&ved=0CCYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=That%20bhikkhu%E2%80%99s%20statement%20should%20neither%20be%20approved%20nor%20rejected&f=false

Malcolm wrote:
Mainstream Buddhism refers to the canons of the Theravadins, Sarvastivadins and so on, what are often called the Śravaka canon. The Chinese canon combines both the Agamas and the Vaipulya [aka Mahāyāna] sūtras together. There are indeed a few scattered Śravakayāna sūtras in the bKa' 'gyur in the mdo sde section, but in any case, these are not considered as authoritative as Mahāyāna sūtras,

As pointed out to you, now for the third time, I have not, and no one has said, that there can be two SUPREME nirmanakāyas in a given world system, but there is nothing forbidding anyone to obtain the same result as the Buddha himself in this world system during the dispensation of Shakyamuni's Dharma. Such persons therefor are nirmanakāyas, known as "nirmanakāyas through birth" because they have fully completed both stores of wisdom and merit and are completely free from the two obscurations. NIrmanakāyas are Buddhas.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 23rd, 2014 at 11:58 PM
Title: Re: why is Vajrayana considered the fasted way to buddhahood
Content:
santa100 said:
...all schools believe in the authority of the Sutta Pitaka.

Malcolm wrote:
But not necessarily the supreme authority of any of the Mainstream Buddhist canons.

For example, in Tibetan Buddhism, the doctrine of the three kinds of nirmanakāyas comes from the Sutrālaṃkara attributed to the Maitreya Bodhisattva. Because this text is by a tenth stage bodhisattva, it is considered to Buddhavacana. Likewise, the Three Bodhisattva Commentaries on the Tantras are considered in the same light since they are authored, according to tradition, by tenth stage Bodhisattvas.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 23rd, 2014 at 11:46 PM
Title: Re: Do Tummo-practitioners describe this?
Content:
zenman said:
Copied from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tummo " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; by Kurt Keutzer
Kundalini yoga in the Natha Sampradaya and Vajrayana in Tibetan Buddhism both take their origin from the Mahasiddhas who were active in India from the 8th century to the 12th century. Kundalini yoga practices formed the core of the teachings of a number of these Mahasiddhas and are strongly represented in both Tibetan Buddhist practices and contemporary kundalini yoga practices. Kundalini yoga was spoken of as "Candali yoga" by these Mahasiddhas and became known as gTummo rnal 'byor in Tibet. Candali yoga was a key practice of the famous Tibetan yogin Milarepa.

How does this claim fit in the picture?

What little I've heard or read of tummo, they have to do with breathing, moving attention and visualising in the central channel in the spine. I don't mean to be a drag Malcolm but what you say is a major surprise for me. If spine practices nor kundalini energy are utilised what do they/you guys do then? No specific information needed, just general remarks with slight explanations, please.

Malcolm wrote:
There is no meditation related to the spine, for the third time.
Yes, caṇḍali yoga involves kumbhaka.
In general the spine is considered to be a major subsidiary channel.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 23rd, 2014 at 11:32 PM
Title: Re: why is Vajrayana considered the fasted way to buddhahood
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
This is not a statement that they will achieve buddhahood in a single life in Sukhavati.

Astus said:
The 11th vow:

"If, when I attain Buddhahood, humans and devas in my land should not dwell in the Definitely Assured State and unfailingly reach Nirvana, may I not attain perfect Enlightenment."

Later in the Larger Sutra:

"Sentient beings who are born in that Buddha-land all reside among those assured of Nirvana."

Also:

"However hard you may practice in this life, it can only be for a short while. In the life to come you will be born in the land of Amitayus and enjoy endless bliss there. Being forever in accord with the Way, you will no longer be subject to birth-and-death and be free of the afflictions caused by greed, anger and stupidity. If you wish your life to be as long as a kalpa, a hundred kalpas, or ten million kalpas, it will be just as you please. You will dwell in effortless spontaneity and attain Nirvana."

Shinran's collection of quotes regarding enlightenment in the Pure Land: http://www.amidanet.com/kgss-e.htm

Malcolm wrote:
None of these citations assure buddhahood in a single lifetime.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 23rd, 2014 at 10:37 PM
Title: Re: why is Vajrayana considered the fasted way to buddhahood
Content:


Astus said:
The Pure Land path is the easy method of guaranteed buddhahood in one life.

In the http://www.amidanet.com/amida-sutra-b.htm:

"sentient beings born in that land all dwell in the Stage of Non-retrogression, and will not fall again into an evil realm, be born in a border-land or in the state of debased people or mlecchas. They always enjoy visiting pure lands of other Buddhas. With their excellent vows and practice advancing and developing every moment, they will unfailingly realize the highest, perfect Enlightenment."

Malcolm wrote:
This is not a statement that they will achieve buddhahood in a single life in Sukhavati.

Astus said:
The http://www.amidanet.com/contemplation-sutra.htm says about birth on the lowest level of the lowest grade:

"Because he calls the Buddha's Name, with each repetition, the evil karma which he has committed during eighty kotis of kalpas of Samsara is extinguished. When he comes to die, he sees before him a golden lotus-flower like the disk of the sun, and in an instant he is born within a lotus-bud in the Land of Utmost Bliss. After twelve great kalpas the lotus-bud opens. When the flower opens, Avalokiteshvara and Mahasthamaprapta teach him with voices of great compassion the method of extinguishing evil karma through the realization of Suchness of all dharmas. Hearing this, he rejoices and immediately awakens aspiration for Enlightenment."

The 19th vow in the http://www.amidanet.com/larger-sutra-1.htm:

"If, when I attain Buddhahood, sentient beings in the lands of the ten quarters, who awaken aspiration for Enlightenment, do various meritorious deeds and sincerely desire to be born in my land, should not, at their death, see me appear before them surrounded by a multitude of sages, may I not attain perfect Enlightenment."

And vow 46:

"If, when I attain Buddhahood, bodhisattvas in my land should not be able to hear spontaneously whatever teachings they may wish, may I not attain perfect Enlightenment."

Malcolm wrote:
These three statements have nothing to do with buddhahood in one lifetime. There is a very strong Amitabha tradition in Tibetan Buddhism, it is an important practice for millions of Tibetans. Karma Chagme has the mostly beautiful aspiration prayer for birth in Sukhavati and there are several important commentaries written on these topics.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 23rd, 2014 at 10:34 PM
Title: Re: why is Vajrayana considered the fasted way to buddhahood
Content:
TRC said:
Lastly, it seems that many here are upset because I dare question the veracity of the grandiose claims of the Vajrayana.

Malcolm wrote:
Your rudeness in starting a sectarian feud is inappropriate when I was merely answering someone's questions.

TRC said:
You obviously don’t like being challenged on this. However, if you continually make grandiose and provocative claims on a public forum (even if it is in response to a question), people are going to question them, and I believe they have a right to question them. I'm sure others feel this way too, so you may need to get used to it.

Malcolm wrote:
What is even more inappropriate is the fact that you come here your "Mainstream" Buddhist biases and expect us to accept them as definitive. This is a Mahāyāna and Vajrayāna forum. It is not a Theravada forum. Go back to Dhammawheel.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 23rd, 2014 at 10:28 PM
Title: Re: why is Vajrayana considered the fasted way to buddhahood
Content:


TRC said:
Notice also the absence of any polemic and sectarian rhetoric written into the Pali Canon? That’s because its content was established pre-sectarianism. The Lankavatara Sutra was written post-sectarianism. Do you see the relevance here?

Malcolm wrote:
Who are you kidding? There is plenty sectarian rhetoric in Mainstream Buddhism, it just happens to be aimed at tīrthikas such as the Jains, and so on.

TRC said:
I maintain that the quantification and the sectarian comparative determination of levels of awakening cannot be verified, and the labels attached to them are just loaded concepts.

The whole exercise of claiming highest, fastest, most profound, etc is puerile and silly and bears no resemblance to the reality on the ground.

Malcolm wrote:
What a laugh. When it comes to the tīrthikas you excuse the exact same thing in the Pali Canon that you accuse us of.
The worldly are bound by desire, 
desire itself brings liberation. 
This contrary meditation
will not be understood by Buddhist tīrthikas.
— Hevajra Tantra


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 23rd, 2014 at 9:56 PM
Title: Re: why is Vajrayana considered the fasted way to buddhahood
Content:


Dan74 said:
My sense is that Zen (or Seon that I've been taught) can be a direct path and very fast if one has the right karma, but most of us don't and so teachers take that into account. Not having practiced Vajrayana, I can only surmise that it has a somewhat different toolkit which may sometimes help cut through a lot of garbage, and sometimes not. Just like any other school, really. I recall John Blofeld saying that Zen was too hard for him, that he was too dull (he ordained with Ven Hsu Yun) and he switched to Vajrayana. Go figure!

Malcolm wrote:
It's a completely different understanding of the path, meditation, the body, and so on than sūtrayāna.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 23rd, 2014 at 9:52 PM
Title: Re: Is Rebirth Unscientific?
Content:
Andrew108 said:
The causes need to be somewhere and they need to be active without a physical body. That is, they must have potentiality and function by themselves or in and of themselves. If someone asserts a literal interpretation of rebirth then it is impossible not to imply that some substance with energy and potentiality continues and directs itself towards taking another material form.

Malcolm wrote:
Andrew, this is your limitation. In any case, it is karma that accounts for rebirth.

Andrew108 said:
If you don't take a literal view of rebirth and see rebirth as the experience of becoming in this life only...

Malcolm wrote:
...then you have abandoned the Buddha's teachings.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 23rd, 2014 at 9:30 PM
Title: Re: why is Vajrayana considered the fasted way to buddhahood
Content:
JKhedrup said:
Also, there are the different "grades" of lotuses, which has always confused me a bit. How are these grades determined?

Malcolm wrote:
By your karma and merit. Some take rebirth in Suhavati and never see Amitabha's face. In some respects, Sukhavati is like taking a nap from sasmara.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 23rd, 2014 at 9:29 PM
Title: Re: Do Tummo-practitioners describe this?
Content:


zenman said:
Oh, OK. I thought tummo was all about that. Well... are any vajrayana practices concerned with breathing in the spine and kundalini?

Malcolm wrote:
Nope, not at all.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 23rd, 2014 at 9:21 PM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
pensum said:
if it is true that the self is not a thing but a process ... then it is also true that the tragedy of the ego dissolves because, strictly speaking, nobody is ever born and nobody ever dies. "

Malcolm wrote:
The self isn't even a process, it is just an innate imputation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 23rd, 2014 at 9:13 PM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:


Wayfarer said:
I think there have been scientific discoveries...which are indubitably profound

Malcolm wrote:
I really don't agree.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 23rd, 2014 at 8:42 PM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
Wayfarer said:
Science is indispensable and if used wisely brings many material benefits.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, but it is not profound.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 23rd, 2014 at 8:38 PM
Title: Re: why is Vajrayana considered the fasted way to buddhahood
Content:
TRC said:
Why would the Buddha, the founder of the movement teach such a lowly level of awakening (I.E. the Arahant)?

Malcolm wrote:
First of all, Buddha differentiates the bodhi of a buddha and the bodhi of an arhat.

Secondly, Buddha taught according to the needs of the disciples he had in front of him. They compiled a canon. He taught other things to devas, brahmans, kṣatriyas, etc. He even says so himself in the Mainstream sūtras, but he does not state what he taught them.

And Buddha was not the founder of Buddhadharma. Buddhadharma has existed for eons and eons in many different expressions. Sometimes there is a monastic Sangha, sometimes there isn't a monastic Sangha and so on.

Moreover, the Buddha explains in the Lankāvatara sūtra that he is not even the definitive buddha.

In any case, if you want to understand the difference between the bodhi of an Arhat and a Bodhisattva, you should read Maitreya's Abhisamayālaṃkara, which explains the Prajñāpāramitasūtras treatment of the bodhi of arhats and so on.

Dan74 said:
Malcolm, in the light of what we know today about the development of Buddhism, a literal belief in all of the above is somewhat naive, don't you think?

I ask myself how this discussion is relevant to my practice and I come up empty-handed. There is much that you say that is actually very useful but these sectarian threads, what purpose do they serve?

Malcolm wrote:
So you are including the idea that Sakyamuni was not the founder of Buddhadharma among those literal beliefs that are naive? You believe there is no difference between the awakening of an arhat and a Buddha? Which exactly are the naive beliefs to which you refer?

As for the thread — this thread was not a sectarian thread until others chose to make it so. I was merely answering a question.

Dan74 said:
The only good reason I can see for the Vajra claim is to increase Vajra practitioners' determination, but it just seems to lead to pride, resentment and wrangling...

Malcolm wrote:
You don't understand Vajrayāna, and as I already told you, if you really wanted to understand it, you'd have to take Vajrayāna teachings, and that comes with some commitments.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 23rd, 2014 at 8:11 PM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
JKhedrup said:
Well stated.

I should add I think that in some cases a rigorous scientific training produces very sharp and intelligent Buddhists, much more capable of debate of the finer points than I am. However, in a number of cases it also seems to lead to a dichotomy of world-view which seems to be troubling or frustating for some people, both from the POV of their Buddhist practice and their daily life. They are difficult worlds to reconcile, though for those more intelligent than I, it sure may be possible.

Malcolm wrote:
They cannot be reconciled. To adapt a statement by Rongzom to the present conversation; the words of Buddhadharma are simple and easy to understand, but the meaning is very profound and hard to realize; the words of science and so on are very detailed and intricate, but the meaning is as rough and course as a pile of dust.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 23rd, 2014 at 7:58 PM
Title: Re: Supreme Nirmankaya
Content:
reddust said:
Malcolm said: In Mahāyāna, and especially Vajrayāna, it is considered possible for there to be more than one nirmanakāya during a given Buddha's dispensation. However, it is only possible for there to be one supreme Nirmanakāya during any given dispensation in any given world system.
Why is it not possible for there to be two Supreme Nirmanakaya when the Dharma is still being taught? Is it because a Buddha has no ignorance, aversion and craving so there is nothing to see?

Malcolm wrote:
It is because only one Buddha at a time may demonstrate the deeds of discovering the path, and so on. However, this does not preclude others from reaching the same level of realization the Buddha himself attained.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 23rd, 2014 at 7:54 PM
Title: Re: chNNr New York Retreat
Content:
Bhusuku said:
Can't seem to find any infos on this one, so I'm wondering... is this a new Longsal teaching?


Malcolm wrote:
Yes, AFAIK.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 23rd, 2014 at 7:17 PM
Title: Re: why is Vajrayana considered the fasted way to buddhahood
Content:
PorkChop said:
This is where the paths diverge. It's not empty rhetoric as there's an actual training method being described. It's also described in Chapter 26th of the Avatamsaka, known as the Chapter on the Ten Grounds, but I don't have a complete translation to work with. Nagarjuna talks about the equivalency (of Arhats, Pratekyabuddhas, and 8th Bhumi Bodhisattvas) a lot in his commentaries.

Malcolm wrote:
No, this is not right; the paths diverge in the generation of bodhicitta. Arhats do not form the bodhicitta to attain full buddhahood. While there is also a Bodhisattva path in Mainstream Buddhism, which as I mention before, it is not detailed in Mainstream Buddhist sūtras. As Nāgārjuna points out in the Ratnavali:
Ignorant blind people cannot bear 
this Mahāyāna the Buddha taught;
the great path of awakening
that has the nature of merit and wisdom.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 23rd, 2014 at 6:42 PM
Title: Re: why is Vajrayana considered the fasted way to buddhahood
Content:
TRC said:
You "think." And that is the crux of the  problem. Speculating and making claims about things which cannot be determined. As these claims can never be determined, it is just irresponsible and provocative to make them. It creates disharmony and is divisive.

Malcolm wrote:
It all depends on what one accepts as authoritative.

In general, here, we accept Mahāyāna sūtras as authoritative. Therefore, when someone comes along and complains that common ideas found in Mahāyāna are "speculative" and "cannot be determined", when in fact they can by recourse to examining the foundational texts of our tradition, this itself "creates disharmony and is divisive".

In fact, the person disrupting this thread, clearly out of a sense of self-righteous indignation, is none other than you. Your comments are clearly out of place since I was merely responding to a person's question. The claims made in the Mahāyāna and Vajrayāna traditions may enrage you, as they clearly do, but you should go be enraged somewhere where people will be sympathetic to you.. Because certainly, your comments are not welcome here, they add nothing to the conversation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 23rd, 2014 at 6:31 PM
Title: Re: why is Vajrayana considered the fasted way to buddhahood
Content:
TRC said:
Why would the Buddha, the founder of the movement teach such a lowly level of awakening (I.E. the Arahant)?

Malcolm wrote:
First of all, Buddha differentiates the bodhi of a buddha and the bodhi of an arhat.

Secondly, Buddha taught according to the needs of the disciples he had in front of him. They compiled a canon. He taught other things to devas, brahmans, kṣatriyas, etc. He even says so himself in the Mainstream sūtras, but he does not state what he taught them.

And Buddha was not the founder of Buddhadharma. Buddhadharma has existed for eons and eons in many different expressions. Sometimes there is a monastic Sangha, sometimes there isn't a monastic Sangha and so on.

Moreover, the Buddha explains in the Lankāvatara sūtra that he is not even the definitive buddha.

In any case, if you want to understand the difference between the bodhi of an Arhat and a Bodhisattva, you should read Maitreya's Abhisamayālaṃkara, which explains the Prajñāpāramitasūtras treatment of the bodhi of arhats and so on.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 23rd, 2014 at 6:20 PM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
Andrew108 said:
I don't really see this discussion as a contest. Posters here are free to hold whatever beliefs they like and I am not interested in conditioning anybody. What has kept me in the discussion is the hope that Malcolm can furnish some amazing logic or description that gives belief in rebirth a solid foundation. I don't think he has been able to do this.

Malcolm wrote:
The problem here, Andrew, is not my logic, but rather, your commitment to materialism. It is just as Dharmakirti points out: if the "opponent" is committed to materialism, the conversation can go no further. In order to have a true debate there must be some commonly agreed upon principles. You and I have no commonly agreed upon principles concerning the matter that we have been discussing.

Andrew108 said:
This idea of warmth for example is very weak. Where would the 'warmth' come from in the bardo for example?

Malcolm wrote:
The diaphanous body of the gandharva, of course.

Andrew108 said:
It's about belief and to that end how that belief supports real results. Initially many Buddhist practitioners take on Buddhist beliefs with enthusiasm, imagining that they open up a way of seeing the world that is new and insightful. After some time these beliefs become more restrictive and practitioners understand that to continue they must submit.

Malcolm wrote:
Not, really. One sees that the Buddha's own logic makes sense and so continues down his path.

Andrew108 said:
I'm not alone in my scepticism of rebirth. Posters here might of heard of Stephen Batchelor but I wonder if they have read the sceptical views of Glenn Wallis (who claims not to be a Buddhist whilst holding a PhD in Buddhist studies)?

Malcolm wrote:
Glenn Wallis adds nothing of interest to the conversation. Such people merely wish to destroy Dharma, create a "Franken-Dharma" fashioned out of bit and pieces of the corpse of Buddhadharma they have left for dead. There are a lot of people who hold PhD's in Buddhists studies, this means that they are might be good at languages [though this is varies with the person] and writing book reports and not much else, necessarily. It does not mean that they are insightful, or that they have a deep understanding of the subject about which they write.

Andrew108 said:
Anyway I don't think the discussion is going to continue or that I really want to put my effort into presenting the 'other side'. If Malcolm or others can put forward a logically coherent case for how it is consciousness gets reborn then I might chip in.

Malcolm wrote:
Sure I have, the problem is that you don't accept the basic terms of the discussion because of your intellectual commitment to nonbuddhist materialism.

Andrew108 said:
My own bias is that if you understand Madhyamaka and you practice contemplation in which results lead to reduction of kleshas then you have no need for the beliefs around rebirth and so on.

Malcolm wrote:
For materialists, there are all kinds of contemplations out there Andrew, even some materialists in Ancient India were contemplatives.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 23rd, 2014 at 10:28 AM
Title: Re: why is Vajrayana considered the fasted way to buddhahood
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
There is no Mainstream Buddhist sūtra nor Mahāyāna sūtra that assserts full buddhahood can be realized in a single lifetime. This is strictly a Vajrayāna claim.

PorkChop said:
Would the http://www.bdk.or.jp/pdf/bdk/digitaldl/dBET_T0848_Vairocana_2005.pdf be considered a Vajrayāna Sutra?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes.
Moreover, he assumed the appearance of vajradharas and the bodhisattvas Samantabhadra, Padmapāṇi, and so on, and proclaimed everywhere in the ten directions the Dharma of the pure words of the mantra path so that [all the steps from] the initial generation of the [bodhi-]mind up to the ten stages may be progressively satisfied in this lifetime, the seeds of the karmic[ally determined] lives of the varieties of sentient beings who have been born and nurtured by karma may be eradicated, and there may also occur the sprouting of [wholesome] seeds.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 23rd, 2014 at 8:37 AM
Title: Re: why is Vajrayana considered the fasted way to buddhahood
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
It is based on the commentary, which clarifies...
...This is strictly a Vajrayana claim

santa100 said:
As you've said, it's the comy.'s interpretation, not the Buddha's own words. At best, it's still a life time work, not the Satipatthana sutta's attainment in 7 days.

Malcolm wrote:
This is the attainment of an Arhat, not even that of a first stage bodhisattva. It is completely different.

And no, King Indrabhuti and many other siddhas attained buddhahood merely through receiving empowerments.

Anyway, your mind is made up. You have decided that Mainstream Buddhist sutras are the most authoritative. I respect that and wish you all the best of luck.

santa100 said:
Sakya Pandita...

Malcolm wrote:
...says:
If one who possesses the three vows
understands the profound points of the two stages,
it is said that in this life, the bardo
or within sixteen lifetimes, 
that one will accomplish perfect buddhahood.
Incidentally, there are many other such citations from the tantras, but I don't have time to dig them all out for you.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 23rd, 2014 at 8:08 AM
Title: Re: why is Vajrayana considered the fasted way to buddhahood
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The Guhyasamaja states:... accomplish[buddhahood] in this life
the "buddhahood" in brackets is your own note? If not, still says nothing about SammaSambuddha as I have requested. Also, please provide URL.
http://asianclassics.org/reader.php?collection=kangyur&index=416

It is based on the commentary, which clarifies that "in this lifetime" refers to attaining the state of Buddha Mahāvajradhara.

Sri-devikali-namastasata:...
Please provide full context with URL to make sure this talks about sentient beings instead of the Buddha himself.
http://asianclassics.org/reader.php?collection=kangyur&index=639

Sri-candraguhyatilaka-nama-mahatantraraja:...
Please, for crying out loud, one doesn't even have to be a Buddhist Noble disciple to master the siddhis.
So, yes, please continue, there's still nothing about being the "fastest" nor SammaSambuddha as repeatedly requested.
Ummm, actually, "all siddhis" means both the common siddhis as well as the supreme siddhi, buddhahood.

In general, in order to accomplish Buddhahood, it takes three incalculable eons. So when when a texts says that this can happen in a single lifetime, that is fast. There is no Mainstream Buddhist sūtra nor Mahāyāna sūtra that assserts full buddhahood can be realized in a single lifetime. This is strictly a Vajrayāna claim.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 23rd, 2014 at 6:57 AM
Title: Re: why is Vajrayana considered the fasted way to buddhahood
Content:
santa100 said:
Please understand that I'm in no way trying give you a hard time. But in order to engage in an informative, fair and objective discussion, we need to support our claims with backup literatures and proper sutra references. So far, I have not seen the appropriate sources to support your claim that Vajrayana is indeed the "fastest" vehicle that helps one to become a Fully Enlightened Buddha (SammaSambuddha). On my part, I have provided 2 sources straight from the Buddha's teaching in the Tipitaka: one is the proper way to handle peoples' claims and the other is the impossibility of 2 Fully Enlightened Buddhas in the same world-system ( http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=77&t=16555&start=40#p235723 )


Malcolm wrote:
The Guhyasamāja states: Because of this, lords of Dharma,
ornamented with an ocean of wisdom
arising from the three inseparable kāyas,
accomplish [buddhahood] in this life.
Śrī-devīkālī-nāmāṣṭaśataka: Omniscient and self-knowing,
also the twelve bhumis of buddhahood
are rapidly produced in this lifetime.

Śrī-candraguhyatilaka-nāma-mahātantrarājā The great bliss of all siddhis
will be accomplished by this in one lifetime.
Sarvatathāgatacittaguhyajñānārthagarbhavajrakrodhakulatantrapinathārthavidyāyogasiddhi-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra In this one lifetime, sambuddhahood.
Do you really need me to continue?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 23rd, 2014 at 5:55 AM
Title: Re: why is Vajrayana considered the fasted way to buddhahood
Content:
santa100 said:
All I see there is the key phrase "every sentient being is fully shown", which says nothing about the claim you said Vajrayana as the best vehicle for one to attain Fully Enlightened Buddha state (SammaSambuddha) and more importantly, nothing that contradicts the Buddha's teaching in MN 115 that "It is impossible, it cannot happen that two Accomplished Ones, Fully Enlightened Ones, could arise contemporaneously in one world-system—there is no such possibility".

Malcolm wrote:
I already explained to you that there can only be one supreme nirmanakāya in any given world system. But this does not preclude variegated nirmanakāyas, as I have already explained.


santa100 said:
Again, nothing about Vajrayana and nothing about the fastest way to attain Fully Enlightend state.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, it is axiomatic that Vajrayāna makes such claims. Do you really want me to dig out the Vajrayāna citations about variegated nirmanakāyas and the rapidity of Vajrayāna? Is it necessary? I can, if it will make you happy.

I am not trying to convert anyone, I was merely answering a posed question. I really do not see why people are getting so up in arms over this.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 23rd, 2014 at 1:49 AM
Title: Re: why is Vajrayana considered the fasted way to buddhahood
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Only a Buddha is completely free from all afflictive obscurations.
Should be "Only a Buddha is completely free from all non-afflictive obscurations.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 23rd, 2014 at 1:38 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:


Andrew108 said:
But still you have repeatedly stated that it has energy...

Malcolm wrote:
No, you stated it for me, and since then, have not wavered from your mistake.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 23rd, 2014 at 12:50 AM
Title: Re: Is Rebirth Unscientific?
Content:
Andrew108 said:
So far we have Malcolm saying that consciousness is massless, yet supported by warmth...

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, because in living bodies, there is warmth, in dead bodies, there is none. It's a simple empirical observation.

Andrew108 said:
So after death what is consciousness supported by?

Malcolm wrote:
It takes new body, as has been endless explained to you.

Of course not all realms of rebirth are material, so in those "places" consciousness is sustained on karma alone.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 23rd, 2014 at 12:47 AM
Title: Re: why is Vajrayana considered the fasted way to buddhahood
Content:
Dan74 said:
Does the Bodhisattva not have to attain liberation from delusion? So does the Vajra path speed that up?

Malcolm wrote:
Arhats are liberated from affliction, according the Sarvastivadins, Arhats and Pratyekabuddhas still posses a non-afflictive ignorance. Only a Buddha is completely free from all afflictive obscurations. Further, according the Lankāvatara, Arhats and Pratyekabuddhas are roused from the samahdi of cessation in which they enter at their death, only to begin on the bodhisattva path. There are also differences in the depth of emptiness taught in the Mainstream Canon, i.e. the Agamas and Nikayas.

So, yes, the Vajrayāna does speed up the process, because unlike common Mahāyāna where emptiness is the result, etc., Vajrayāna experientially introduces the wisdom to be realized right at the very beginning.

Since someone asked, I have answered.

Granted, in order gain the satisfaction of Vajrayāna claims, one must do the practice very perfectly and study and practice under a qualified guru.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 23rd, 2014 at 12:29 AM
Title: Re: why is Vajrayana considered the fasted way to buddhahood
Content:
Dan74 said:
Unique - I haven't seen it yet.

Malcolm wrote:
Without fully studying Vajrayāna, you won't. And you cannot really study it without entering it. And you cannot enter it without making commitments, hence it is secret and so on.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 23rd, 2014 at 12:26 AM
Title: Re: why is Vajrayana considered the fasted way to buddhahood
Content:
santa100 said:
So I'm not sure which particular Mahayana or Vajrayana source you're refering to (please provide sutra references and related backup literatures) that contradicts the Buddha's teaching in the Tipitaka.

Malcolm wrote:
The Avatamska sūtra, volume nga, folio 147a, Lhasa:
Oh Jinaputras, when the samyaksambuddha, the unsurpassed dharmarāja, manifests with an unceasing manifestation of Dharma, the entire dharmadhātu is entirely filled with the cloud of dharmakāya, and truly shows a cloud of kaȳas according to the inclinations of sentient beings. In this way, each and every sentient being is fully shown a cloud of kāyas being born; each and every sentient being is fully shown a cloud of nirmanakāyas; each and every sentient being is fully shown a cloud of kāyas of blessings; each and every sentient being is fully shown a cloud of rūpakāyas; each and every sentient being is fully shown a cloud of full accomplished variegated kāyas; each and every sentient being is fully shown a cloud of punyakāyas; each and every sentient being is fully shown a cloud of jñānakāyas; each and every sentient being is fully shown a cloud of unconquerable strong kāyas; each and every sentient being is fully shown a cloud of fearless splendid kāyas.
The Lanka states:
In delightful Akaniṣṭha,
beyond the pure abodes,
the true Buddha becomes a Buddha;
an emanated one becomes a Buddha here.
So you see, there is no reason any number of persons cannot become Buddha here on Jambudvipa, because Buddhas do not, according to Mahāyāna, actually attain buddhahood here anyway.

It is true that teaching of the variegated nirmankāya is more throughly taught in Vajrayāna texts, but it is present in Mahāyāna as well, as you can see from the above.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 22nd, 2014 at 11:31 PM
Title: Re: why is Vajrayana considered the fasted way to buddhahood
Content:
Dan74 said:
The Buddha in Satipatthana Sutte says :
...
Of course there is a condition, "if". And to maintain the the Four Arisings for a week certainly requires a karma that is accumulated over some serious practice. But the same thing can be said about keeping the samaya. So yes, one lifetime, provided you've cultivated for x lifetimes that enables you to meet the right guru and keep the samaya... No?

Malcolm wrote:
There are no methods for attaining full Buddhahood in Mainstream Buddhism, even thought a limited version of the bodhisattva path is taught.

Dan74 said:
This claim is hard to believe, since the Buddha is not really known for making such a distinction. The Suttas are about liberation, and according to them the arahats attain full release. Of course one can believe that there is something higher and beyond, but this is a belief, and one based on latter developments. I take it no one here surpassed arahatship?

But considering that most of us are not going to, and seeing that the Buddha taught that release is possible in this lifetime too, I think it takes the wind out of the Vajra claim. As far as I can make out, the speediest path is the one that one is ready to commit to fully, and the one with the right teacher and Sangha.

Malcolm wrote:
No one doubts that the Mainstream Buddhist path brings about freedom, in the sense of full freedom from afflictions, that is the awakening of an arhat or a pratyekabuddha. But that is not the awakening to which Vajrayāna refers. The awakening to which Vajrayāna refers is the full buddhahood that results from gathering the two accumulations as taught Mahāyāna. The bodhisattva path is not detailed in any of the Mainstream canons. For the Mainstream canons, it is extra-canonical.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 22nd, 2014 at 11:01 PM
Title: Re: why is Vajrayana considered the fasted way to buddhahood
Content:
Dan74 said:
The Buddha in Satipatthana Sutte says :
...
Of course there is a condition, "if". And to maintain the the Four Arisings for a week certainly requires a karma that is accumulated over some serious practice. But the same thing can be said about keeping the samaya. So yes, one lifetime, provided you've cultivated for x lifetimes that enables you to meet the right guru and keep the samaya... No?

Malcolm wrote:
There are no methods for attaining full Buddhahood in Mainstream Buddhism, even thought a limited version of the bodhisattva path is taught.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 22nd, 2014 at 10:59 PM
Title: Re: why is Vajrayana considered the fasted way to buddhahood
Content:
Jamyang_Tsering said:
Just for the record, if your search for quick enlightenment why not to try Zen!

28.   Open Your Own Treasure House

Daiju visited the master Baso in China. Baso asked: "What do you seek?"

"Enlightenment," replied Daiju.

"You have your own treasure house. Why do you search outside?" Baso asked.

Daiju inquired: "Where is my treasure house?"

Baso answered: "What you are asking is your treasure house."

Daiju was enlightened! Ever after he urged his friends: "Open your own tresure house and use those treasures."


Malcolm wrote:
Awakening and Buddhahood are not the same thing.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 22nd, 2014 at 10:04 PM
Title: Re: Is Rebirth Unscientific?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Well, if your only standard is Mainstream Buddhism, such as Theravada or Sarvastivada, this is true. However, Mahāyāna and Vajrayāna has a different understanding of the issue, which is more authoritative for those who follow that teaching.

santa100 said:
I'm not sure what you mean about Mainstream Buddhism. I have cited the sources from the Tipitaka, the Three Baskets that all schools of Buddhism recognize and study. It's not something only the Theravada studies, but the Mahayana and Tibetan schools do too. Please see the cross references https://suttacentral.net/mn115 and https://suttacentral.net/an4.180. So I'm not sure which particular Mahayana or Vajrayana source you're refering to (please provide sutra references and related backup literatures) that contradicts the Buddha's teaching in the Tipitaka.

Malcolm wrote:
In Mahāyāna, and especially Vajrayāna, it is considered possible for there to be more than one nirmanakāya during a given Buddha's dispensation. However, it is only possible for there to be one supreme Nirmanakāya during any given dispensation in any given world system.

As for Tripitika, to you mean the Tripitka according the Mainstream Schools, or are you including the Mahāyāna sutras and tantras in that designation?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 22nd, 2014 at 7:45 PM
Title: Re: Is Rebirth Unscientific?
Content:


Andrew108 said:
I have to keep repeating myself because you are not understanding the implications of what I am saying. If consciousness is self-sustaining after death or even supported by 'warmth' (as per Malcolm) then it has energy. If it has energy it can be measured. That is it. We don't need to enter into a philosophical debate about the nature of energy. Just that consciousness, as described by Malcolm who claims to accurately represent the Buddhist view, has characteristics that should be measurable.

Malcolm wrote:
The warmth of a body inhabited by consciousness is measurable, but the consciousness that has a appropriated that series of aggregates is not.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 22nd, 2014 at 7:42 PM
Title: Re: Is Rebirth Unscientific?
Content:
Andrew108 said:
So far we have Malcolm saying that consciousness is massless, yet supported by warmth...

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, because in living bodies, there is warmth, in dead bodies, there is none. It's a simple empirical observation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 22nd, 2014 at 7:36 PM
Title: Re: why is Vajrayana considered the fasted way to buddhahood
Content:
JKhedrup said:
However, from the headline of a thread, we can see what is written is an answer, from a Vajrayana POV, to a very specific question.

Malcolm wrote:
Thank you for reminding people of this.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 22nd, 2014 at 7:34 PM
Title: Re: why is Vajrayana considered the fasted way to buddhahood
Content:
TRC said:
It has more to do with the practitioner then the path.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes and no.

There is no means for realizing total buddhahood in Mainstream Buddhism, not in Theravada, not in Sarvastivada nor in Dharmaguptaka, the only three Mainstream Buddhist schools left.

In Mahāyāna, total Buddhahood takes a minimum of three incalculable eons, for the best practitioner.

In Vajrayāna, total Buddhahood can be realized in a single lifetime by the best practitioner, but even if you do not practice, as long as you maintain your vows perfectly, one will achieve total Buddha within seven lifetimes.

You can either accept or reject these accounts as you wish. There is really nothing to argue about. Incidentally, I am merely reporting the assertions made in these schools. Whether one accepts these assertions or not depends upon one's own inclinations.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 22nd, 2014 at 7:28 PM
Title: Re: why is Vajrayana considered the fasted way to buddhahood
Content:
santa100 said:
Bottom line is, though many masters from various schools claimed their attainment of "Buddhahood", per the suttas' teaching, it doesn't mean they have attained "Fully Enlightened" Buddha state for the Dispensation is still around. If they meant the state of Savakabuddha or Arahantship, then any Buddhist school would be just as good provided that its practitioner puts in their best effort to cultivate virtues, meditation, and wisdom (as mentioned from my previous post http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=77&t=16555#p235263 )

Malcolm wrote:
Well, if your only standard is Mainstream Buddhism, such as Theravada or Sarvastivada, this is true. However, Mahāyāna and Vajrayāna has a different understanding of the issue, which is more authoritative for those who follow that teaching.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 22nd, 2014 at 7:25 PM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
dharmagoat said:
Could it be the last vestige of faith?

Malcolm wrote:
That does not really answer the question. It is not a question whether science is "honest" -- indeed, there is as much faith and zeal among scientists in scientific endeavor as there is in evangelical Christians. The question is, can you reconcile what you truly have faith in, i.e. science, with the Buddha's teachings? Unlike Andrew, for example, I don't think that science as gotten at what consciousness is, they don't have the math for it, consciousness cannot be mathematically modeled. I don't think that science will ever be able to get at consciousness because consciousness is not a physical process, in the end, even though nama and rūpa do interact. But the interaction is strictly one way, consciousness interacts with matter, matter does not interact with consciousness. Our brains, our physical eyes, our body are all, in essence, inert matter, conventionally speaking (forget about going into higher Buddhist teachings like Dzogchen where matter is merely the reified luminosity of consciousness). Chemical processes do not amount to consciousness. There is no experiment that can produce consciousness. Consciousness cannot be created in a lab. There is no way to verify experimentally what consciousness is at all, that is, not by any means known to western science. But there is a means to know these things and it involves personally developing the skills to verify the Buddha's teachings on such issues. It's not hard, per se, you just have to be dedicated, and do the work.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 22nd, 2014 at 9:38 AM
Title: Re: why is Vajrayana considered the fasted way to buddhahood
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Do you have any evidence the Buddha was even awakened?

TRC said:
Oh come on, is that the best you can do?

Malcolm wrote:
That is the point, the evidence is the hundreds of biographies of masters in Tibet who achieved Buddhahood or the bhumis.

The evidence we have for Vajrayāna is the same evidence we have for the Buddha, the reports of their close disciples.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 22nd, 2014 at 9:26 AM
Title: Re: why is Vajrayana considered the fasted way to buddhahood
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Fundamentally, speaking, according to Vajrayāna texts, the extraordinary difference in time is due to the fact that Vajrayāna pratices uses the body as the vehicle for liberation, as well as other special methods, that allow a very serious practitioner to gather the two accumulations that normally require three eons in a single lifetime.

M

TRC said:
Using the "body as the vehicle for liberation." Yeah that's right. Kind of like what the Buddha was saying http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.045.than.html

"Yet it is just within this fathom-long body, with its perception & intellect, that I declare that there is the cosmos, the origination of the cosmos, the cessation of the cosmos, and the path of practice leading to the cessation of the cosmos."

But hold on, that's not a 'vajrayana' practice, just 'sutrayana'. Perhaps the differences between the practices aren't really as different as the rhetoric likes to make out.

Malcolm wrote:
It is completely different.

TRC said:
So Malcolm, do you have any actual evidence that the vajrayana path is really quicker, that are not just claims and boasts?

Malcolm wrote:
Do you have any evidence the Buddha was even awakened?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 22nd, 2014 at 3:33 AM
Title: Re: gDangs And mDangs: Differences In Meaning?
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
A few other questions:

Which is the proper Wylie transliteration for 'dang', in the context of the three energies: dang, rol pa and rtsal [gdangs or mdangs]? Because I have seen both used in that context.

Which [gdangs or mdangs] is the vital essence (dang) spoken of in Tibetan medicine?

How about this third term 'dwangs'? Is dwangs simply an orthographic variant of one of the above terms?

When Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche makes a statement such as "The dang of emptiness is rigpa", which variant [gdangs or mdangs] is he using?

Malcolm wrote:
1) gdangs
2) mdangs, it is a translation of ojas.
3) dwangs ma is the nutriment, it means refined essence.
4) gdangs.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 22nd, 2014 at 3:28 AM
Title: Re: Is Rebirth Unscientific?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
First of all, why do you even believe there is such a thing as awakening? What reason do you have to believe such a state is even possible?

dharmagoat said:
Because I have experienced the very beginning of the process (who hasn't?). It is natural to expect more to follow.

Malcolm wrote:
And you consider this sufficient to accept Buddha was an awakened person, yet you disbelieve when rebirth is central to his teachings.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 22nd, 2014 at 3:25 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
People of a scientific bent will need to ask themselves whether they actually believe there is such a thing a awakening.

dharmagoat said:
And if the answer is 'yes', what then?

Malcolm wrote:
Why do you believe such thing.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 22nd, 2014 at 2:43 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The funny thing is that there are folks here who take it on faith that Buddha was a buddha, and yet spend endless energy trying to prove that the awakening Buddha taught is not what he really meant. I mean, doesn't it strike you as odd to on the one hand accept that the Buddha was buddha on faith, and then spend all this effort refuting the Buddha's own teaching?

dharmagoat said:
Who truly appreciates the breadth and depth of the Buddha's skillful means?

Malcolm wrote:
Um, this is a total non-sequitar.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 22nd, 2014 at 2:42 AM
Title: Re: China expands new measures to directly control Tibetan m
Content:
Indrajala said:
Weren't you fine with the Bhutanese booting out the Nepalis, where Nepalis born in Bhutan were selectively identified and ejected from the country (i.e., discrimination by a Buddhist state)?

Malcolm wrote:
I am fine with illegal Mexican immigrants being deported from the US, why should I not be fine with illegal Nepali immigrants being deported from Bhutan?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 22nd, 2014 at 2:37 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
pensum said:
of course it only seems reasonable that now various skillful means ought to be developed for those with a scientific bent.

Malcolm wrote:
There is no need. People of a scientific bent are still just deluded sentient beings. There are sufficient means for everyone already.

People of a scientific bent will need to ask themselves whether they actually believe there is such a thing a awakening.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 22nd, 2014 at 2:35 AM
Title: Re: Is Rebirth Unscientific?
Content:


dharmagoat said:
What troubles me is this idea that any rearrangement of the teachings merely serves to "cater to our biases", instead of, as Andrew describes it, "speaking to our condition as we find it now". The difference seems to be lost on you, which is unfortunate.

Malcolm wrote:
First of all, why do you even believe there is such a thing as awakening? What reason do you have to believe such a state is even possible?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 22nd, 2014 at 2:33 AM
Title: Re: Is Rebirth Unscientific?
Content:
Andrew108 said:
Buddha speaks directly to our condition in the Kālāma Sutta. Through following this teaching and other definitive teachings we become the 'reliable witness'.

Malcolm wrote:
Buddha is talking to a group of non-Buddhists in that text. He then leaves them the "ngondro" of the four brahma-viharas. But he does not teach them any path at all, for the four brahma-viharas are not a path since they do not lead out of samsara.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 22nd, 2014 at 2:23 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
pensum said:
Besides there are countless gateways to the Dharma so who is to say that attempting to disprove the Buddha isn't one of them?

Malcolm wrote:
A much misunderstood point. There are 84 thousand doors to dharma because there are 21,000 doors for addressing the three afflictions, and the three afflictions combined.

In other words, all doors to the Dharma involve addressing the three poisons and nothing else. So they can be included in four, or, since the root of the three poisons is self-grasping, there is only one, since all Dharma practice bears on that point. And why you would want to remove self-grasping? Because it is the force that causes us to take rebirth in samsara again and again. Mainstream Buddhism, Mahāyāna and Vajrayāna all stem the desire to eradicate this single root.

pensum said:
So the tradition itself provides the standard for those who do not surrender to faith so easily and first require sound logic and empirical evidence which they can see with their own (unawakened, fleshy) eyes.

Malcolm wrote:
The funny thing is that there are folks here who take it on faith that Buddha was a buddha, and yet spend endless energy trying to prove that the awakening Buddha taught is not what he really meant. I mean, doesn't it strike you as odd to on the one hand accept that the Buddha was buddha on faith, and then spend all this effort refuting the Buddha's own teaching?

It seems to me that such people really ought to start from beginning:


1) What does "buddha" mean?
2) Having discerned what "buddha" means, do I believe in this state?
3) Was Buddha actually a buddha?
etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 22nd, 2014 at 1:56 AM
Title: Re: China expands new measures to directly control Tibetan m
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The point here, Jeff, is whether their behavior is reprehensible to you.

Indrajala said:
Of course I feel it is wrong to kill, harm and imprison innocent people, but I also recognize that if the Chinese leadership plays their cards wrong then there are a lot more lives than the Tibetans at stake. You seem to think that idealistically if they just did the right thing everything would work out for the best and Tibetans would forgive and forget, but Chinese civilization has many centuries of experience which renders their political thinking cold and calculating because the alternatives haven't always worked out in the past.

Malcolm wrote:
No "buts", Jeff. It is either acceptable or it is not.

Indrajala said:
Their position is really ugly because they inherited territories that were conquered by Mao in earlier decades which were never really part of China. Nevertheless, they have to govern them in the face of hostile neighboring states (India) and now non-national threats (Jihadists). On top of that by virtue of ruling Tibet they have a threatening deterrent against their neighbors which ensures relative peace (India is unlikely to push China into a war, and avoiding war is desirable). In the real world peace is established by having a threatening deterrent against potential enemies. You can be virtuous and honorable, but your enemies don't have to be and probably won't be.

Malcolm wrote:
India is "hostile" because of absurd PRC claims about where their border is. China made their enemies all on their own.

Indrajala said:
Buddhist ethics in the realm of geopolitics are problematic because if you try to be the good guy you can easily end up shot in the back by those who don't play by the rules, and then those whose welfare you were charged with suffer tremendously because you failed your job. Classical Buddhist literature comments on how hard it is being king because you have to commit misdeeds in the course of your duties.

Malcolm wrote:
Understood. Kings and leaders are fools.

Indrajala said:
In any case, I doubt most members on this forum really understand what I am saying because they have a religious belief that China is the model Devil that everyone loves to hate. Almost nobody here is trying to see things from their side. It is just a lot of finger pointing and condemnation, which is reflective of how activists operate in the Tibetan Buddhist scene it seems. As I said, this is really simplistic and doesn't really help to solve the issues at hand.

Malcolm wrote:
[/quote]

Jeff, I don't hate China. I have been there on more than one occasion. I understand why they do what they do, but I will never see things "from their side" because what they are doing is wrong, just as I don't see things from the side of the US Govt., I don't see thing from the side of the Mexican Govt. w/regards to Chiapas; or the Israeli Govt. w/regards to Palestine; or the Myanmar Regime w/regards to the Rohingyas (which is more of an issue having to with border security than anything else, and the Rohingyas are caught in the middle), Japanese Govt. w/regards to ethnic Koreans in Japan and so on.

In other words, I think it is deplorable when Buddhists apologize for atrocity, discrimination, etc., for any reason.

I don't have a personal stake in the Tibetan Nationalist cause, I have never been active in it, never demonstrated. I actually got a good report card from the Party Secretary in the school (we all did) when I was in China for not stirring up anti-Chinese sentiment amongst Tibetans I came into contact with while doing my internship and so on. But Tibet is an important place. It is environmentally important, politically important, and so on to the whole world, not just the Chinese.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 22nd, 2014 at 1:23 AM
Title: Re: Is Rebirth Unscientific?
Content:
Andrew108 said:
Malcolm's point is that the Buddha asserted literal rebirth...

Malcolm wrote:
literally thousands of times, even if you only accept the Mainstream canon (Nikayas/Agamas).

Andrew108 said:
The problem we have is not that we doubt the Buddha's realization and overcoming of suffering, but we doubt that there was a 'reliable witness' to report all of what the Buddha would/could have have said if we or someone like us, had been there.

Malcolm wrote:
But you must doubt it. You are merely taking Buddha's realization and overcoming of suffering on blind faith Why can't you see this defect in your own thinking: to wit; you claim to accept the Buddha was a realized person, and yet you reject everything the Buddha says about the terms of how he came to be a realized person. Do you not see the internal contradictions in your own statements?

Andrew108 said:
So the sutras we have need to speak to our condition as we find it now. That is the definition of 'reliable witness'.

Malcolm wrote:
You really do have the strangest ideas. A reliable witness is someone whose testimony is beyond reproach, not someone who caters to our biases.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 22nd, 2014 at 12:39 AM
Title: Re: China expands new measures to directly control Tibetan m
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Finally. It is like pulling your teeth to get you to admit that Chinese policies towards Tibetans are inhumane and savage.

Indrajala said:
My ongoing point has been that despite moral judgments, their behavior is predictably politically amoral because that's often how politics works. Their behavior might be reprehensible to many, but they're acting logically, and the leadership seems to feel that their policies are warranted. Human rights and so on are very alien concepts to much of the world, but then from the Chinese perspective the west just uses "human rights" to bully their opponents and justify acts of unwarranted violence against innocent people. So in their minds why care about human rights?

Malcolm wrote:
The point here, Jeff, is whether their behavior is reprehensible to you.


Indrajala said:
There is no political stability at stake for the PRC if they left the Tibetans alone to do their thing.
Do you think India wouldn't try to get the Tibetans on their side? What about the border control and Xinjiang? If Tibet gets autonomy, so should Xinjiang, and Xinjiang is easily another Afghanistan in the making. These would presumably be issues apparent to China's leadership.

Malcolm wrote:
Tibetans do not have a good relationship with Muslims in general. So China would have no worries on that score. In fact, if China eased up on Tibetans, supported their national culture, education, gave them education in Tibetan as their primary language will sponsoring CSL programs, as well as TSL programs for Han immigrants into Tibet, etc., if the Chinese stopped discriminating against Tibetans for jobs, and so on, and did a 180, the Tibetans would happily be part of a New China, and would probably even gladly join the PLA and fight Muslim terrorists. Really, I think most of your opinions come from have very little familiarity with Tibetans inside Tibet. But right now the Chinese have given the Tibetans NO reason to have a stake in Chinese security on any level. You have no idea about the resentment that Tibetans inside Tibet have against exile Tibetans, nor the piles of shit Tibetans from Tibet get from exile Tibetans in places like Dharamsala.


Indrajala said:
If the Chinese Govt., had an ounce of sense they would bring back HHDL, restore Tibet, restore Tibetan culture, and turn Tibet into their new best friend.
Have you been reading the idealist Thurman?

Malcolm wrote:
[/quote]

Nope, but it is just plain common sense — you catch more flies with honey than vinegar.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 22nd, 2014 at 12:31 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
LionelTeo said:
What is most important is everyone becomes a better person at the end is all that matters.


Malcolm wrote:
One does not need Buddhism to become a better person.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 22nd, 2014 at 12:29 AM
Title: Re: why is Vajrayana considered the fasted way to buddhahood
Content:
kirtu said:
However just following Cittimatra in some form is sutric.  But if you take a Cittamatra POV of emptiness for tantra, then that is tantra.  Someone like Mipham Rinpoche *may* have then teased out the results of tantric practice following the Cittamatra in his writings.

Malcolm wrote:
We already know what happens when Cittamatrins practice Vajrayāna, they become Virupa.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 22nd, 2014 at 12:26 AM
Title: Re: Is Rebirth Unscientific?
Content:
Andrew108 said:
I was talking about tha mal gyi shes pa. Which is very close.

asunthatneversets said:
Sems and tha mal gyi shes pa are only 'close' in the same sense that gold and pyrite are 'close', in appearance. However they are not 'close' at all in fundamental characteristic or constitution.


Malcolm wrote:
Yes, in the sense that thoughts (citta) are contaminated consciousness, and "ordinary mind" is an untainted consciousness, i.e. ye shes. So the difference is more like gold in gold ore and refined gold, rather than a substantial difference. The shes pa is the same in both.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 22nd, 2014 at 12:22 AM
Title: Re: Is Rebirth Unscientific?
Content:
dharmagoat said:
The apparent contradiction is due to the fact that I attribute the Buddha's teaching of literal rebirth to skillful means on his part. But that is a point of contention that I feel it best not to elaborate on.

Malcolm wrote:
There is actually no evidence that this is the case. There is piles of evidence that Buddha took rebirth literally himself.

dharmagoat said:
Then maybe I don't have complete faith in the Buddha after all. Arrgh!

Malcolm wrote:
My advice is that you should practice as if you accept rebirth. A Buddhist version of Pascal's wager, as it were.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 22nd, 2014 at 12:11 AM
Title: Re: Is Rebirth Unscientific?
Content:
dharmagoat said:
The apparent contradiction is due to the fact that I attribute the Buddha's teaching of literal rebirth to skillful means on his part. But that is a point of contention that I feel it best not to elaborate on.

Malcolm wrote:
There is actually no evidence that this is the case. There is piles of evidence that Buddha took rebirth literally himself.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 22nd, 2014 at 12:10 AM
Title: Re: Is Rebirth Unscientific?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Praṇā and warmth are the supports for consciousness.

Andrew108 said:
But it has energy. Warmth? What do you mean warmth? If it had no mass how could it have warmth? Bizarre.

Malcolm wrote:
Consciousness does not have warmth, warmth is a support for consciousness, as is lifeforce.
The preceding moment of consciousness, i.e. the mental organ (manendriya) acts as the support for consciousness the same way that a son becomes the father of another; a fruit, the seed of another.
The preceding moment of consciousness is as massless as the following moment? So how does a massless mental organ exist? The examples you give all have mass.
Well, "organ" is not a completely adequate translation of indriya. Indriya really means "faculty" or power. The mental organ is not an organ like cakṣuendriya, for example, i.e. the eye faculty.
No substrate is necessary, according to Madhyamakas. The Yogacara sūtras propose the ālayavijñāna to account for memory, continuity and so on.
But a mental organ is necessary or is the mental organ something that is made at the same time as the following moment of consciousness?
No, the mental faculty (lets not call it an organ since that is really not the right term) is the immediately preceding moment of consciousness.
The point here is that the mental organ and the moment of consciousness can't exist at the same time. So one must precede the other and therefore you have continuity based on a continuing mental organ and moment of consciousness. Here continuing mental organ is no other than functional 'substrate' for continuing moment of consciousness.
There is a continuing mental faculty in as much as this moment of consciousness always arises on the basis of the previous moment; the immediately antecedent moment of consciousness is always the mental faculty.

Seeds and sprouts cannot exist at the same time, still, sprouts come from seeds, and produce other seeds all in good time, when there is proper cause and condition.
So this doesn't accord with Madhyamaka reasoning or the definitive teachings of Buddha.
It obviously corresponds with Madhyamaka teachings since Candrakirti instructs us that the functions of memory and so on are worldly conventions, and as such should not be examined. Or did you just choose to ignore the citation about memory taken from his commentary on MAV 6:75. Ultimately, of course, it cannot bear analysis -- but then, neither can any conventional phenomena. Still, since we are deluded, in the refined sense of not being free from grasping at self, for us conventional truth is where we live.
Consciousness is driven by thirst for existence.
So it has that kind of characteristic? How does it know to strive for existence? Or is it like a seed striving to find the light? Is it instinctive? If so then how can a massless thing like consciousness also have instinct and striving?
As before, consciousness is that which knows objects. When it is contaminated, it experiences craving.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 21st, 2014 at 11:58 PM
Title: Re: Is Rebirth Unscientific?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The Buddha framed his entire teaching in terms of rebirth. If this is discarded, then Buddha's teachings collapse like an old house.

dharmagoat said:
I have complete faith in the Buddha...

Malcolm wrote:
Apparently you don't because you say:
I do not believe in past lives...
This is fine, you do the best you can. Practice the four brahmaviharas, if you do, then in this life you will be more relaxed.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 21st, 2014 at 11:53 PM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
LionelTeo said:
the subconscious mind...

Malcolm wrote:
...does not exist.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 21st, 2014 at 10:53 PM
Title: Re: Is Rebirth Unscientific?
Content:
dharmagoat said:
There is a fundamental contradiction in Buddhism:

The Buddha is known as an independent thinker and innovator. We are encouraged to emulate him, yet are obliged to follow his teaching without question and without making any compensation for the enormous social and cultural changes that have occurred over the 2000+ years since it was written down.

Malcolm wrote:
You are obliged only to understand what the Buddha himself meant by suffering, the cause of suffering, it's cessation, and the path.

Despite all the enormous cultural changes, there is one thing that is still true: there is suffering because of karma, and there is karma because of affliction.

The Buddha framed his entire teaching in terms of rebirth. If this is discarded, then Buddha's teachings collapse like an old house.

There is no point in teaching a path to nirvana if there is no rebirth in samsara.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 21st, 2014 at 10:21 PM
Title: Re: Is Rebirth Unscientific?
Content:
oushi said:
There is always this small chance that Buddhas true path was lost long time ago, and we are only juggling with ideas created by fanatic believers.

Malcolm wrote:
I don't believe this.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 21st, 2014 at 10:17 PM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
T. Chokyi said:
Secondly, you might want to address directly what Dzongar Khentse Rinpoche has to say or not say about who is Buddhist or not.

Malcolm wrote:
As Sakya Pandita points out, and as Dzogzar Khyentse, A Sakya educated man, knows, acceptance of the four seals is not sufficient to be called a Buddhist. Why? Because the largest monastic school in India, the Pudgalavadins, believed in an inexpressible self that was neither the same as nor different from the aggregates which underwent rebirth.

Instead Sapan opines that in order to be called a "Buddhist" one must have taken refuge in the Three Jewels, be training on the path [implicit in going for refuge] or have realized the fruit of the path.


T. Chokyi said:
"Buddhist" as you know, is a label. It is a word describing something you yourself said you weren't not that long ago...
when you had a kind of "realization" about that...

Malcolm wrote:
Well, what I am is a follower of Buddhadharma. One of the reasons that I eschew the label "Buddhist" for myself is that I am not any particular kind of Buddhist. The term "Buddhist" in many ways is too limiting. I have met "Buddhists" who imagine that because they are Buddhists they cannot take teachings from teachers in other streams of Dharma outside Buddhadharma. I personally have no problem with it. That is why I follow Dharma, and Buddhadharma in particular. All Dharma religions, incidentally, accept rebirth.

However, I have also found that conventionally, it is easier to resort to the term Buddhism and Buddhist in common conversations with others.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 21st, 2014 at 9:59 PM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
T. Chokyi said:
Secondly, you might want to address directly what Dzongar Khentse Rinpoche has to say or not say about who is Buddhist or not.

Malcolm wrote:
As Sakya Pandita points out, and as Dzogzar Khyentse, A Sakya educated man, knows, acceptance of the four seals is not sufficient to be called a Buddhist. Why? Because the largest monastic school in India, the Pudgalavadins, believed in an inexpressible self that was neither the same as nor different from the aggregates which underwent rebirth.

Instead Sapan opines that in order to be called a "Buddhist" one must have taken refuge in the Three Jewels, be training on the path [implicit in going for refuge] or have realized the fruit of the path.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 21st, 2014 at 9:28 PM
Title: Re: China expands new measures to directly control Tibetan m
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Chinese policies towards Tibetans are brutal and crimes against humanity.

Indrajala said:
I agree, but when you're rich and powerful your "crimes against humanity" are seldom punished (recall Bush and Blair).

Malcolm wrote:
Finally. It is like pulling your teeth to get you to admit that Chinese policies towards Tibetans are inhumane and savage.

Indrajala said:
...there are millions of lives at stake and the political stability for the PRC.

Malcolm wrote:
There is no political stability at stake for the PRC if they left the Tibetans alone to do their thing. And that they do not do. There is no necessity for the Chinese Govt. to act with such swift brutality against a people who are culturally averse to organized military violence. If the Chinese Govt., had an ounce of sense they would bring back HHDL, restore Tibet, restore Tibetan culture, and turn Tibet into their new best friend.

Indrajala said:
I don't think "we" can change China's policies. Do you think "we" can? I don't think dozens of years of activism has done much to change their minds.

Malcolm wrote:
Actually, it has made the Chinese Govt. very uncomfortable, which is why they keep shifting their policies towards Tibet. So this signals to me that the pressure of international criticism of the policies of the Chinese Govt. with regards to Tibet are in fact effective.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 21st, 2014 at 9:15 PM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:


pensum said:
Indeed, it is a pretty safe assumption that rebirth was widely accepted amongst his audience, and even among the general population in 13th century Japan. Luckily several of his most famous texts are dedicated to the notion of life-and-death, which i personally find to be rather profound and inspiring reads.

Malcolm wrote:
You will note however he does exercise some attention to refuting those who reject rebirth.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 21st, 2014 at 9:14 PM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
T. Chokyi said:
http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/science/3631/for_buddhism__science_is_not_a_killer_of_religion

Malcolm wrote:
Big problem with this article:
This cosmology held until the 16th century, when European explorers arrived in India with a new religion and a new cosmology. The Earth, these visitors insisted, is not flat or disc-shaped, but is instead an enormous ball. This idea met with stiff resistance from the natives.
Actually, this is false. Indians understood the earth was a round ball, as explained in the Surya Siddhanta.

T. Chokyi said:
it peels away all the claptrap

Malcolm wrote:
This is offensive.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 21st, 2014 at 8:41 PM
Title: Re: why is Vajrayana considered the fasted way to buddhahood
Content:
saraswati said:
Ah, thank you very much Malcolm.

Do all the schools of Tibetan Buddhism share the same interpretation? I must say I haven't tuned in to the subtle differences between the vows I have heard chanted. (So far I have been to Gelug and Kagyu centres.)

Malcolm wrote:
Yes they do. The shepherd-like vow is considered the most superior, but the king-like vow the most practical.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 21st, 2014 at 8:34 PM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Here is a random sampling, running a quick word search on the pdf you provided from Shasta Abbey. From these samplings you can Dogen was a follower of Mainstream Buddhism, and took the idea of rebirth quite literally.

pensum said:
Thanks Malcolm. I am familiar with those passages (and others). It is interesting that out of the thousands of pages that Dogen wrote he does not appear to have ever penned a sustained treatment of rebirth. Focusing instead on actual practice here and now in this life, he merely makes the occasional passing reference to rebirth in order to spur one's practice.

Malcolm wrote:
Why would he have to? He was in a monastic environment training educated monks, not lay ignoramuses. However the Karma chapter can be understood as just that. Context is everything in understand the authors of these texts.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 21st, 2014 at 8:31 PM
Title: Re: China expands new measures to directly control Tibetan m
Content:
Indrajala said:
What I see in this thread is the general theme of "China is really bad and needs to be nicer to Tibetans" which is far too simplistic and fails to address a number of details and geopolitical concerns.

Malcolm wrote:
Chinese policies towards Tibetans are brutal and crimes against humanity. Stating that we who live in Western countries have nothing to say against the Chinese Government's treatment of Tibetans because our governments, yours included, are engaged in various nefarious deeds is a non-sequitar. It sounds just like the Chinese Government's justification of their treatment of Tibetans because we in the US and Canada drove our native peoples here to the brink of extinction.

Your geopolitical concerns are just excuses. You never once condemn the Chinese Government for their actions, you merely say "I don't condone them". That is not a condemnation.

Indrajala said:
This doesn't justify anyone's misdeeds, but to really come to viable solutions for the human suffering in Tibet requires a bit more developed ideas that factor in everything I've attempted several times to outline above (particularly long and short term strategic issues).

Malcolm wrote:
The first step is to recognize that what the Chinese Government is doing and has been doing to the Tibetan people is a crime against humanity. Until you cross that bridge, you just continue to apologize for Chinese geopolitical concerns. It's like saying, "Well, there is abuse in Tibetan monasteries, but you have to understand the situation, and because of this and that reason, we really can't change it, so the little kids should just suck it up and try to assimilate."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 21st, 2014 at 8:22 PM
Title: Re: Is Rebirth Unscientific?
Content:
Wayfarer said:
Well I for one am trying to combat it with reasoned argument and analysis. If we can't do that then what is the point of being here?

Malcolm wrote:
You think you are alone? The reasoning is very simple. The Buddha demonstrated a path to awakening which involve certain assumptions. If those assumptions are true, so is the Buddha's path, and the Buddha's awakening is validated. If not. then not.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 21st, 2014 at 8:15 PM
Title: Re: why is Vajrayana considered the fasted way to buddhahood
Content:
saraswati said:
I am somewhat confused with this idea of reaching Buddhahood in this very lifetime: I've learned that part of Vajrayana is taking the Bodhisattva vows, where we pledge to *not* take up Buddhahood asap but to postpone it until all beings all liberated. If this is so, how does it fit in with the fast path to Buddhahood? Or is it the case that Vajrayana is not always a Bodhisatva-based approach?



Malcolm wrote:
There are three different types of bodhisattva vows: like a king, like a captain, and like a shepherd.

The king-like bodhisattva vow involves the wish to achieve buddhahood as soon as possible, in order to guide others to that state, like a king ruling a country.
The captain-like bodhisattva vow involves the wish to achieve buddhahood at the same time as all other sentient beings, like a captain arriving in port at the same time as his passengers.
The shepherd-like bodhisattva vow involves attaining buddhahood only after all sentient beings have attained buddhahood, like a shepherd who only rests after his flock is safely penned for the night.

Vajrayāna uses the first of these. In other words, our bodhisattva vow states " May I attain the state of Buddhahood in order to place all other sentient beings in that state."

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 21st, 2014 at 8:08 PM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
pensum said:
So if you do come across the chapter you mention please pass it along, as obviously i'd be interested in reading it.

Malcolm wrote:
Here is a random sampling, running a quick word search on the pdf you provided from Shasta Abbey. From these samplings you can Dogen was a follower of Mainstream Buddhism, and took the idea of rebirth quite literally.

The kesa, from ancient times, has been called ‘the garment of liberation’, for
it can free us from all our obstructions, be they from the karmic* effects of our past
deeds, from our defiling passions, or from the effects of our rebirth in one of the
six worlds* of existence.


What we call the three temporal periods are the three time periods in which
we receive the retribution from our good and evil acts. These are, first, the
retribution experienced in one’s present life; second, the retribution experienced in
one’s next life; and third, the retribution experienced in some later future life.
Through your practice of the Way of the Buddhas and Ancestors you learn, first
off, to clarify what the principle of karmic retribution in these three time periods is.
If you do not do so, you will make many errors and fall into false views. You will
not just fall into false views, you will also give rise to evil ways and undergo
suffering for a long time. By failing to continue developing your good roots, you
will lose much spiritual merit and will have long-standing obstructions on your
path to enlightenment.
The karmic retribution experienced in these three temporal periods comes
from both good and evil acts.

Right view is a gate to what the Dharma illumines, for by
means of it we can realize the Saintly Path and
exhaust the stream of rebirths.
Right thought is a gate to what the Dharma illumines, for
by means of it we eliminate all discriminatory
judgments, as well as any lack of discernment.
Right speech is a gate to what the Dharma illumines, for
by means of it we will recognize that all names,
voicings, and words are simply like vibrations.
Right livelihood is a gate to what the Dharma illumines,
for by means of it we rid ourselves of all our evil
ways.
Right action is a gate to what the Dharma illumines, for
by means of it we arrive at the Other Shore.
Right mindfulness is a gate to what the Dharma
illumines, for by means of it we do not
intellectualize all thoughts and things.
Right concentration is a gate to what the Dharma
illumines, for by means of it we can attain the
meditative state that is beyond scattered thoughts.

It is clear that the desire to be reborn within the human world is something longed
for even by a Lord Yama. Once someone has been reborn as a human being, he or
she should forthwith have their head shaved, don the kesa of the Three Treasures,
and take up the study of the Way of the Buddha. These are the merits of being
within the world of humans, which surpasses the other five worlds of existence.
But to be born in the human world and then to wantonly seek out the path to
political power or some other worldly career, vainly spending one’s life as a toady
to ministers and kings, wrapping oneself up in fantasies and dreams, only to
proceed in later times towards pitch darkness without anything to rely upon, that is
folly indeed! Not only have you received the body of a human being, which is hard
to come by, but you have also encountered the Buddha Dharma, which is hard to
encounter. You should forthwith cast aside all your involvements and quickly leave
home life behind in order to study the Way. Rulers and ministers, along with their
wives and children, their relatives and households, are encountered everywhere,
but the Buddha Dharma, like the rare udumbara blossom, is hard to meet up with.
In short, when impermanence suddenly arrives, there is no ruler or minister, friend
or relative, spouse or child, or any precious treasure that will save us, for each of us
simply returns to death’s Yellow Spring alone.24 What follows along with us is
simply our good and bad karma. When we are about to lose our human body, our
feelings of regret for our human body may well be deep indeed! So, while we still
have our human body, we should quickly leave home life behind. Just this alone
will be the true Teaching of the Buddhas of the three temporal worlds.

When all bodhisattvas who are bound to be reborn one final time are
about to descend from the Tushita Heaven to be born in the land of Jambudvipa,*
they invariably proclaim the one hundred and eight gates to what the Dharma
illumines for the sake of the celestial multitudes in the Tushita Heaven, and thereby
pass on the Teaching to those celestial ones, for this is the invariable method of
Buddhas.

After darkness has come before our eyes, we should, right off, strive to recite
the Three Refuges, not shirking from this even during our entering the intermediate
world or our next birth. In this way, we should thoroughly expend life after life
and, in age after age, reverently recite Them.

Once you have given rise to the intention to seek enlightenment, even
though you are spinning about through the six worlds* of existence, being born
through any of the four modes of birth, the very causes and conditions of your
spinning will become your heartfelt practice of enlightenment.

We do not know how many rounds of birth and death we have already spent
returning again and again to various useless delusions, even while possessing this
wisdom. It is like rocks covering up a jewel: the jewel is unaware that it is covered
up by rocks and the rocks are unaware that they are covering up a jewel. When
human beings recognize this jewel, they seize upon it. This is not something that
the jewel expectantly awaits nor is it something that the rocks have been waiting
for, and it does not depend on a spiritual awakening on the part of the rocks nor is
it something that the jewel thinks about. That is to say, even though a human being
and wisdom are unaware of each other, the Way is invariably overheard by the
person’s wisdom.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 21st, 2014 at 7:29 PM
Title: Re: Death at Tibetan Buddhist meditation retreat in Arizona
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
It's a problem that so many people find their Buddhism on the shelves of Barnes and Noble's.

Sherab Dorje said:
Don't be so judgmental, we all have to start somewhere.  The problem is where do we go from there.  I have run into my fair share of bogus teachers too (as have you, I imagine).  Some compassion is needed at this point, as the lemmings rush towards the cliff.

Malcolm wrote:
What I am implying is that when one goes into a Barnes and Noble's, one sees books of various authors, and there is no guide to which authors are more legit, less legit and so on. Then people read a book, they like what it says, and they decide to make a Dharma connection with the author. It's a bit of a crap shoot.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 21st, 2014 at 7:26 PM
Title: Re: why is Vajrayana considered the fasted way to buddhahood
Content:
frank123 said:
I'm new to Buddhism and exploring various traditions and schools.im wondering If it takes incalculable eons to reach buddhahood through sutra approach what makes it possible to achieve buddhahood in one lifetime through vajrayana methods?why is there such a vast difference in time?seems so extreme.

Malcolm wrote:
Mahāyāna etc., are paths of renunciation.
Vajrayāna is a path of non-renunciation.

Mahāyāna has no special methods.
Vajrayāna is the vehicle of methods.

Mahāyāna has no system of coordinating the basis, the five aggregates, with the result.
Vajrayāna is the vehicle with the basis, the five aggregates is coordinated with the result through the empowerment rites.

Mahāyāna is a causal vehicle in that they practice creating the causes for awakening for three or more, i.e. the cause is taken as the path.
Vajrayāna is the resultant vehicle because here, the result, the three kāyas, is take as the path.

Mahāyāna and so on are for people of lower intelligence.
Vajrayāna is for people of sharper intelligence.

Mahāyāna is for people who have less afflictions and can easily give up desires and so on.
Vajrayāna is for people who are highly afflicted and cannot easily give up desires and so on.

Mahāyana is the practice for past ages when the five degenerations were not so rampant.
Vajrayāna is the practice for this age, when the five degenerations are very rampant.

And so on. These are the usual reasons given in Vajrayāna texts.

frank123 said:
Thank you for the reply.
There is such as fast difference between three incalculable eons and one human lifespan,even is the methods are faster etc i am still perplexed with this extraordinary difference in time


Malcolm wrote:
Fundamentally, speaking, according to Vajrayāna texts, the extraordinary difference in time is due to the fact that Vajrayāna pratices uses the body as the vehicle for liberation, as well as other special methods, that allow a very serious practitioner to gather the two accumulations that normally require three eons in a single lifetime.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 21st, 2014 at 10:28 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Actually, in another chapter Dogen states very strongly that rejecting literal rebirth impugns the four kinds realzed persons, i.e, stream entrants and so on.

Lindama said:
]I have never heard it discussed in zen.

Malcolm wrote:
You may have never heard it discussed in Western Zen circles you are familiar with -- Dogen on the other hand, strongly criticizes those who discard it.

pensum said:
However, Dogen's views on life and death are somewhat more nuanced than that found in typical discussions of "literal rebirth"; to wit, this excerpt from the Bendowa, the first chapter of Dogen's Shobogenzo: Question: Someone has said, "Do not reject life and death. There is an
easy shortcut to freedom from life and death. This is knowing that the
essence of the mind is eternal. This means that although this body is born
and inevitably progresses towards death, this mental essence does not
perish. If you understand that this mental essence that is not subject to
arising and ceasing resides in my body is the original mental essence; and
so, while the body takes a temporal form but is always inconstant, born here
and dying there, this mental essence is eternal and does not change in past,
present, and future. To know this is to be free from birth and death. For
those who know this, the birth and death they have known up to now vanish,
and they enter into an ocean of the mental essence. Entering this ocean,
they have wonderous virtues like the Buddhas and Tathagatas. Even if you
know this now, because your body is the result of former delusive actions,
you differ from the sages. Those who do not know this principle turn in the
cycle of life and death eternally. So you only need to know this principle of
the eternal mental essence. If you sit in vain you waste your whole life. What
can you possibly hope for?"
Does this view conform to the Way of the Buddhas and Ancestors?
Answer: This view is not the Buddha Dharma at all. It is the Senika view
which is skewed outside of the Way. This skewed view says: "In our body
there is a ghostly intelligence and it is through this that, as conditions
occur, we have the capacity to distinguish between like and dislike, right
and wrong, pain and stimulation, and suffering and pleasure. When the body
dies, this ghostly intelligence is released from here and is born some place
else. Therefore, though it seems to die here, it is born there, it is immortal
and eternal." This is that view skewed outside the Way.
If you learn about this and think it is the Buddha Dharma, it is sillier
than holding a tile or pebble and thinking it to be golden treasure. This
foolishness is beyond anything to compare it to and is an embarrassment.
The National Master Huizhong of Tang China strongly warned against this view.
Those who hold this delusive view think that "the mind is eternal and
that appearance is transitory" and equate this with the wonderous Dharma
of the Buddhas and think that they have broken free from life and death; but
this is the original cause of life and death. Isn't this shamefully silly? This
is nothing but a deluded view skewed outside of the Way. Don't let your ears
touch it.
Still, I need to address this issue, and so I will now rectify this
delusion out of compassion. Understand that in the Buddha Dharma body
and mind are single; nature and form are spoken of as not-two. This is
known throughout both the Western heavens and Eastern lands and is
beyond any doubt. In a school that talks about eternity, the myriad things
are all eternal and body and mind is undivided. In a school that talks about
cessation, all things are ceasing and nature and form are not divided.
How can you say that the body ceases while the mind is eternal in
contradiction to this true principle? You must further realize that life and
death itself is nirvana. We cannot talk about nirvana without life and death.
It is wrong to think that the view that "the mind becomes eternal when it is
free from the body" is the Buddha’s wisdom that is free from life and death,
when the mind that thinks this is itself arising and ceasing and is not
eternal. Could this be relied upon? Understand thoroughly that the
singleness of body and mind is always upheld in the Buddha Dharma. And
so, how could the mind go off from the body to be eternal when the body
arises and perishes? If you say that body and mind are sometimes one and
sometimes not, this would mean you are saying that the Buddha's words are
false. To think that birth and death can be avoided is guilty of despising the
Buddha Dharma. Caution is needed here.
The Buddha Dharma, especially the Lineage that speaks of "the
Dharma Gate of the totality of the nature of Awareness as the vast array"
of the total world of events and experiences does not divide suchness from
appearance, nor arising from vanishing. Even bodhi and nirvana are
nothing but this nature of Awareness. All things and appearances without
exception are totally and only this single Awareness and are embraced
without disarray. The various Dharma Gates are all equally this single
Awareness. This is how the nature of mind is understood in the Buddha
Dharma. How can you divide this into body and mind or life and death from
nirvana? You are already a child of the Buddha so do not listen to madmen
who preach views that are skewed outside of the Way.
(this translation by Ven. Anzan Hoshin roshi and Ven. Yasuda Joshu Dainen roshi at http://wwzc.org/dharma-text/bendowa
another English version is available from Shasta Abbey http://www.shastaabbey.org/pdf/shobo/001bendo.pdf )


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 21st, 2014 at 10:22 AM
Title: Re: why is Vajrayana considered the fasted way to buddhahood
Content:
rory said:
I'd love if you could explain to me, if you follow Yogacara philosophy how can Vajrayana be a quick path? Supposedly it takes 3 aeons to extirpate the seeds, so how does it work?
gassho
Rory

Malcolm wrote:
Who said i follow Yogacara? Certainly not me.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 21st, 2014 at 7:57 AM
Title: Re: Death at Tibetan Buddhist meditation retreat in Arizona
Content:
Tom said:
Diamondsutra,

I would like to know exactly what you know is made up.

dzogchungpa said:
Apparently the sutra is silent on this question.


Malcolm wrote:
It's a problem that so many people find their Buddhism on the shelves of Barnes and Noble's.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 21st, 2014 at 7:56 AM
Title: Re: China expands new measures to directly control Tibetan m
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
China is by no means a Buddhist nation.

Indrajala said:
It is a secular state with many many Buddhists. More Buddhists than any other country in the world.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, I understand this. However China destroyed a Buddhist country, one Buddhist through and through. It's different.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 21st, 2014 at 7:43 AM
Title: Re: China expands new measures to directly control Tibetan m
Content:
Indrajala said:
China is also partly a Buddhist nation and there's a massive ongoing Buddhist revival there. There's statistically more Buddhists in China than all Tibetan Buddhists in the world combined probably.

Malcolm wrote:
China is by no means a Buddhist nation.

Perhaps, however, if enough Chinese people become Buddhists, Tibetan Buddhists in particular, they will realize that China's policies towards Tibet are environmentally unsound, racist, and criminal.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 21st, 2014 at 7:40 AM
Title: Re: why is Vajrayana considered the fasted way to buddhahood
Content:
frank123 said:
I'm new to Buddhism and exploring various traditions and schools.im wondering If it takes incalculable eons to reach buddhahood through sutra approach what makes it possible to achieve buddhahood in one lifetime through vajrayana methods?why is there such a vast difference in time?seems so extreme.

Malcolm wrote:
Mahāyāna etc., are paths of renunciation.
Vajrayāna is a path of non-renunciation.

Mahāyāna has no special methods.
Vajrayāna is the vehicle of methods.

Mahāyāna has no system of coordinating the basis, the five aggregates, with the result.
Vajrayāna is the vehicle with the basis, the five aggregates is coordinated with the result through the empowerment rites.

Mahāyāna is a causal vehicle in that they practice creating the causes for awakening for three incalculable eons or more, i.e. the cause is taken as the path.
Vajrayāna is the resultant vehicle because here, the result, the three kāyas, is take as the path.

Mahāyāna and so on are for people of lower intelligence.
Vajrayāna is for people of sharper intelligence.

Mahāyāna is for people who have less afflictions and can easily give up desires and so on.
Vajrayāna is for people who are highly afflicted and cannot easily give up desires and so on.

Mahāyana is the practice for past ages when the five degenerations were not so rampant.
Vajrayāna is the practice for this age, when the five degenerations are very rampant.

And so on. These are the usual reasons given in Vajrayāna texts.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 21st, 2014 at 7:32 AM
Title: Re: China expands new measures to directly control Tibetan m
Content:
Indrajala said:
I've never condoned such killings.

Malcolm wrote:
I see, so now you change your tune -- first it was, "I have no idea if there is..."to "I don't condone..."

Well it is good you don't condone it, since a Buddhist monk is forbidden to condone the killing of any human being, otherwise, they commit a parajika.

Indrajala said:
I'm just saying things are not going to change and passive-aggressive resistance against an unforgiving authoritarian state is not going to solve much, especially when that state is largely left unchallenged by other world powers. Not even your country the USA with all its talk of human rights and liberty will lift a finger to really help Tibet.

Malcolm wrote:
Our leaders meet with HHDL regularly, and disregard China's temper tantrums over the issue. Tibet has major sympathy in the house and senate. And, you have to remember, the US did not even recognize China diplomatically until 1972.

Indrajala said:
What exactly do western converts to Tibetan Buddhism do other than condemn China and maybe protest, meanwhile buying Made-in-China products?

Malcolm wrote:
We keep people aware of what the Chinese are doing to Tibetans and to Tibetan Buddhism.

Indrajala said:
Are you willing to arm yourself and launch a guerrilla campaign in Tibet to "drive out" the Chinese from the Tibetan homeland? How about at least helping to pay for it?

Malcolm wrote:
Of course not. I do not believe that armed struggle will result in anything other than the annihilation of Tibetans forever.

Indrajala said:
Even if you insist on non-violence, self-immolation and international awareness campaigns clearly have had little effect.

Malcolm wrote:
Of course we insist on non-violence. Actually the proof it is having effect is the increased brutality of Chinese security forces against Tibetans.

Indrajala said:
China is still in control of Tibet and nobody is stopping them.

Malcolm wrote:
The non-virtue of China's destroying a Buddhist nation will do them in. We just don't know how long it will take before China's karma ripens. Sadly, it will be bad.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 21st, 2014 at 7:24 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:


daverupa said:
This means that one can be a Buddhist without accepting rebirth as described by this or that source text, since one simply accepts that it's to be seen, not that it's to be seen as X right now, first, before beginning, otherwise I'm a faker or something equally silly.

Malcolm wrote:
Then Buddha certainly wasted his time talking to a lot of folks about rebirth who had not seen it for themselves, didn't he?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 21st, 2014 at 7:23 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
Lindama said:
]I have never heard it discussed in zen.


Malcolm wrote:
You may have never heard it discussed in Western Zen circles you are familiar with -- Dogen on the other hand, strongly criticizes those who discard it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 21st, 2014 at 7:19 AM
Title: Re: Is Rebirth Unscientific?
Content:
Prasutagus said:
This is amazing really.  Epic.

I've never seen someone theoretically committed to
dharma practice so dead set at proving it's foundations
are invalid, and to be so dead sure about it.

Maybe that's a new practice these days.  Point out
all the ways Buddhism is f'd...


Malcolm wrote:
Buddha once remarked that the Dharma could never be destroyed from without, only from within. This is how the Dharma is destroyed, i.e., when people who are nominally Buddhist set out to destroy the foundations of Buddhist teaching.

Epic indeed.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 21st, 2014 at 7:13 AM
Title: Re: China expands new measures to directly control Tibetan m
Content:
JKhedrup said:
Geshe Sonam's uncle was thrown in jail for 6 months due to too many calls coming to his cellphone from India. There was no charge laid, no trial, he was just sent to jail.

Geshe la's cousin endured similar treatment for sending back and forth photos of HH Dalai Lama on Wechat.

I really wonder how you don't hear this information considering it is widely known in the HP Tibetan community.

Indrajala said:
I agree it is morally wrong to arbitrarily imprison people, but do you think responding to such treatment with aggressive protesting or passive-aggressive resistance will make the Chinese authorities change their ways when there is negligible international pressure for them to stop?

Malcolm wrote:
That is why people who live outside of Tibet must continue to voice their opposition to atrocities committed by the PRC against Tibetans. If people are silent, the Chinese will merely take this as assent. This is why HH Dalai Lama is so important, he is living testament to the 55 years of utter brutality to which Tibetans have subjected in their own land.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 21st, 2014 at 7:10 AM
Title: Re: China expands new measures to directly control Tibetan m
Content:
JKhedrup said:
It was the second such incident to be reported in recent days from the TAR’s Chamdo (in Chinese, Changdu) prefecture. On Feb. 28, Chinese authorities detained and fatally beat another monk after finding him in possession of banned writings and videos.

Malcolm wrote:
Or would you like more proof of Chinese oppression of Tibetan people, Jeff? Because really, there is bucket loads. Far more examples of Chinese authorities beating, torturing, raping and killing Tibetans than there is of sexual abuse in Tibetan monasteries in India.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 21st, 2014 at 5:57 AM
Title: Re: Is Rebirth Unscientific?
Content:


Andrew108 said:
What do you mean by non-material? Do mean that it has no mass?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, consciousness has no mass. It is not composed of the four elements, nor by anything in the table elements.


Andrew108 said:
Does this mean that it is 'on' and has energy? What is the source of this 'on' state? What sustains it?

Malcolm wrote:
Praṇā and warmth are the supports for consciousness.

Andrew108 said:
How can a preceding moment act as a support and organ for mental consciousness?

Malcolm wrote:
The preceding moment of consciousness, i.e. the mental organ (manendriya) acts as the support for consciousness the same way that a son becomes the father of another; a fruit, the seed of another.

Andrew108 said:
Surely there must be some underlying continuity?

Malcolm wrote:
No substrate is necessary, according to Madhyamakas. The Yogacara sūtras propose the ālayavijñāna to account for memory, continuity and so on.

Andrew108 said:
Also how can memories be recalled if the preceding moment acting as support is no longer present?

Malcolm wrote:
Candrakirti weighs in:

"The consciousness of the memory is not different than the consciousness (experiencing the object) by which an object is experienced, as has already been explained. Why? Because the memory isn't a different thing. Since there was an experience, the memory arises with the object since the consciousness recalling that experience is not different than the experience. Since whatever is encompassed by the consciousness of the experience is encompassed by the consciousness of the memory, it is said "I saw". This is also a worldly convention and is not something to examine, since it is worldly convention of those who possess deluded objects."

Andrew108 said:
How is it that we can hold thoughts and experience connectedness between moments if the preceding consciousness is always changing?

Malcolm wrote:
See above.
This also accounts for rebirth, why, when this body breaks up, the series of consciousness can appropriate a new series of aggregates through one of the four modes of birth.
Why would this account for rebirth? How does consciousness actually appropriate aggregates?
[/quote]

Consciousness is driven by thirst for existence.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 21st, 2014 at 5:02 AM
Title: Re: karma bully
Content:
Vajrasvapna said:
I do not have a positive opinion about the Western Buddhist teachers, I remember of a certain lama who, after I commented about my health, began making accusations about my 'bad karma'. I never saw any Asian teachers have such an attitude, they are always friendly and benevolent.

Malcolm wrote:
Well you should not infer that all Western Buddhist teachers are cut from the same mold that "lama".


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 21st, 2014 at 5:00 AM
Title: Re: karma bully
Content:
Vajrasvapna said:
Actually, I just express myself in a way that was not clear what I meant, but this debate was positive, because I learned how to express myself better. I do not believe that karma is just a Buddhist or a Hindu theory, all religions and materialistic philosophies speak of causality somehow. Buddhist philosophy explains karma in order to help people to achieve enlightenment, then it seems to me to be something dangerous to use karma in other context.

Malcolm wrote:
Buddha used karma to explain why some people are born rich, others poor, why some are famous, others not, why some are healthy, others ill, and so on. The point of teaching about karma is that afflictions cause karma, all karma, even positive karma, is rooted in affliction -- which is why positive karma, aka, merit, is exhaustible (unless it is dedicated with a dedication free from the three wheels).


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 21st, 2014 at 1:47 AM
Title: Re: karma bully
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Of course Buddhism is a tradition of reason. We do not accept things merely on blind faith. On the other hand, we also accept śabda pramāṇa, which mean that once we have accepted the Buddha as an authority, we now can accept what he says in the sūtras as being true. Prior to accepting the Buddha actually shows the way to nirvana, of course one can be skeptical.

Vajrasvapna said:
The problem is that different Buddhist scripture make different statements, then each person must develop their own understanding of the Buddhist scriptures, avoiding intolerance.

Malcolm wrote:
This is why one must rely on a qualified teacher, to make things clear to one.

Vajrasvapna said:
Because they can then understand that also their practice can help alleviate their disease. Reduction of bile diseases comes from reducing anger, etc. It really works.
I have health problems and the reason I still alive are my practices of meditation and mantra recitation, only medical treatment would not suffice. However it is because of my poor health I became interested about Buddhism, then my poor health ended up being something auspicious.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, this a good thing for you. As it say in mind training teachings, suffering is our friend.

Vajrasvapna said:
This is why I consider using karma to accuse someone
Whoever suggested that?
It is a very common practice among Western Buddhist teachers, maybe someone should go and tell that to them.

Malcolm wrote:
Honestly, I have never ever heard any teacher of any merit whatsoever treat karma in the way in which you describe. Maybe you or someone you know had a bad experience with an unqualified western teacher.

Vajrasvapna said:
To add to what I said about the vision of Mahayana about karma, the ideas of Yogacara school, if understood correctly, expression well as karma works from the individual point of view...

Malcolm wrote:
Khenpo Palden Sherab was an awesome lama, someone for whom I have great respect, but nothing you are saying is really brand new to me. Each teaching has its specific context. You cannot expect people who are not Vajrayāna practitioners, for example, to cultivate pure vision in the Vajrayāna sense of the word because they have not been ripened by empowerment nor granted liberating instructions.

Karma is always taught subsequent to dependent origination, for while dependent origination explains the how and why of being reborn; karma explains the what and where of being reborn.

It is fine to say this is all an illusion, a mirage, its unreal, and so on. But it is also necessary to recognize, such as you do, then we need to deal with all these unreal conditions like illness, floods, death, meals, sleeping, waking and so on, and we have to bear in mind that we generally deal with them, 99.999 percent of the time as if they are real. For example, if you are shot, you not sit on your cushion reciting mantras, telling yourself that it is all unreal and it will go away. Not only does one's own karmic traces have the ability to generate appearances for oneself, but also the karmic traces of others can do so as well, as Shabkar points out in Flight of the Garuda. Given this situation, we have to be practical and understand and remind ourselves that having a profound view and realizing it are totally different.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 21st, 2014 at 1:18 AM
Title: Re: Is Rebirth Unscientific?
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
The idea of consciousness and rebirth are extremely precise.

Andrew108 said:
Go on then. Describe them precisely.

Malcolm wrote:
Consciousness is one of the four non-material aggregates. It is the knower and perceiver of objects. The six consciousness are supported on the their respective sense organs; five are supported upon their respective material organ, the eye and so on; the sixth consciousness is supported on its organ, the mental organ, which is in fact the immediately antecedent consciousness. This also accounts for rebirth, why, when this body breaks up, the series of consciousness can appropriate a new series of aggregates through one of the four modes of birth.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 21st, 2014 at 12:18 AM
Title: Re: Is Rebirth Unscientific?
Content:
Sönam said:
Holy crap! what a cloudy lemonade ...

Sönam

Andrew108 said:
It seems cloudy because the idea of consciousness and rebirth is cloudy. May be you could add something to the discussion?

Malcolm wrote:
The idea of consciousness and rebirth are extremely precise.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 21st, 2014 at 12:07 AM
Title: Re: China expands new measures to directly control Tibetan m
Content:
kirtu said:
No, the Chinese ruling class holds all the cards.

Indrajala said:
They're not omnipotent. The geopolitical situation in the region brings with it a lot of limitations. India would be at an advantage if China let its guard down for instance.

Malcolm wrote:
Poor China, always has to defend itself against its enemies...boo hoo.

Indrajala said:
It doesn't indicate they're being oppressed if they can leave and return unsupervised. The lines of communication are not necessarily cut either. Again, WeChat is used to constantly communicate with family back home.

Malcolm wrote:
Where everything they say is constantly being monitored. So they speak in codes and so on. Really, your level of apology for the PRC is astonishing compared with your bile vented towards Indians and Tibetans in general. So much for equanimity.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 20th, 2014 at 11:59 PM
Title: Re: Death at Tibetan Buddhist meditation retreat in Arizona
Content:
Clarence said:
I am surprised no one got back to the THREE drupons that got stroked out of the retreat. If we follow traditional paradigm, there are some serious Samaya issues going on there.

Malcolm wrote:
Not necessarily.

Clarence said:
Could you elaborate? I always heard strokes in comparison with practice means Samaya issues. Of course, nowadays, with all the diabetes, strokes are a lot more common.


Malcolm wrote:
It depends on the kind of stroke. Whether there is a provocation involved or not.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 20th, 2014 at 11:14 PM
Title: Re: Death at Tibetan Buddhist meditation retreat in Arizona
Content:
Clarence said:
I am surprised no one got back to the THREE drupons that got stroked out of the retreat. If we follow traditional paradigm, there are some serious Samaya issues going on there.

Malcolm wrote:
Not necessarily.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 20th, 2014 at 11:04 PM
Title: World's largest hydropower project in Tibet
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The cascade of dams planned for the Yarlung Tsangpo river and its tributaries – including one three times the size of the Three Gorges Dam – threatens an already fragile environment

https://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/6781-World-s-largest-hydropower-project-planned-for-Tibetan-Plateau


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 20th, 2014 at 10:43 PM
Title: Re: Vajrasattva practice books/articles
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
Recommend some good ones. I know the basic stuff, just would like pointing to some good commentaries or similar.

Malcolm wrote:
At some point my translation of the Sakya ngondro text will be out, this has a comprehensive section on Vajrasattva practice,


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 20th, 2014 at 10:01 PM
Title: Re: Is Rebirth Unscientific?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
All of these questions are answered in the texts.
No they are not.
Yes, actually they are.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 20th, 2014 at 9:45 PM
Title: Re: China expands new measures to directly control Tibetan m
Content:
Indrajala said:
I'm basically suggesting everyone be realistic and broad minded rather than simply saying what China is doing is wrong and they should stop because we feel they should. The actual options available to the parties involved are actually quite limited.

Malcolm wrote:
I suggest you apply that attitude towards India and Tibetan Monasteries.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 20th, 2014 at 9:32 PM
Title: Re: Is Rebirth Unscientific?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
All of these questions are answered in the texts.

My advice to you is to start over at the beginning. You have gotten yourself completely stuck in a morass of vapid intellectualism.

Andrew108 said:
If rebirth were to be established scientifically...

Malcolm wrote:
Rebirth can never be established scientifically because it cannot be verified by ordinary persons directly in anyway other than inferentially.
...

Andrew108 said:
All of these issues are ignored.

Malcolm wrote:
All of these issues have been addressed. You simply do not find the answers satisfactory because you accept and have faith in a different authority than the Buddha. You have faith in science and accept, without personal verification, the claims that scientists make about this or that phenomena.

It is a good thing to know with what one agrees and with what one disagrees. What you have come to discover is that you fundamentally do not agree with the Buddha's own teachings on liberation, the purpose of liberation and the results of liberation, in toto. That must be a sad thing for you, considering all the years you have put in studying and practicing.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 20th, 2014 at 9:20 PM
Title: Re: China expands new measures to directly control Tibetan m
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Therefore, you are pro-China and anti-Tibet.

Indrajala said:
No.

Malcolm wrote:
Definitely. We are all well aware of the the real politik goals of China, and why they do what they do. You have offered no special insight to that in anything you have posted anywhere. Instead, while libeling Tibetan monasteries for systematic child abuse with little proof, when it is pointed out to you that Chinese have a systematic policy of the cultural annihilation of Tibetans which includes systematic forced abortions and sterilization, you aver and ask for similar proofs (and there is plenty, entire movies in fact). Your sentiments are not nearly as opaque as you seem to think.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 20th, 2014 at 9:11 PM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
As far as I can tell, you do not regard the Buddha as a special witness, and consider him to be an ordinary man, just like anyone else.

Andrew108 said:
I don't regard the Buddha as a special witness because there are contradictions in what he is reported to have said. Also there are historical/cultural reasons why he might have said what he said. It seems that he was working with circumstances within his own cultural milieu just like us ordinary folks.

Malcolm wrote:
Hogwash. This is your weak argument. The Buddha's essential message is entirely consistent through Mainstream Buddhism, Mahāyāna and all Vajrayāna teachings including Dzogchen. Beings take continual rebirth samsara, dying here, reappearing there for as long as they are under the control of the three afflictions produced by self-grasping. When that self-grasping is eradicated, beings stop taking birth in beginningless samsara. Dependent origination exists solely for the purpose of explaining that process and how to end that process. It is not, as it is commonly misapplied today, to be taken as a general commentary on external phenomena such as the formation of galaxies and so on, though it can of course be applied to such external phenomena as well. The primary reason Buddha taught dependent origination was so that people would stop asking him who they were in past lives. So his reply is fundamentally: our origin is rooted in affliction, which is the cause of karma, and karma is the cause of suffering. When we remove those afflictions, we cease creating karmas, the cause of suffering. This process occurs for living beings from beginningless time.  All valid Buddhist traditions accept this. This is the Dharma of the Buddha we are taking refuge in. If someone does not accept this, they are not really taking refuge in the Dharma, I am sorry to say.

Andrew108 said:
Then in terms of direct perception - I guess you are talking about yogic direct perception. I'm not sure this is really reliable. There are some meditators who have claimed to be able to access past lives but who really knows?

Malcolm wrote:
No, I was talking about common direct perception.

Andrew108 said:
Then inference based on logic. Well according to you I don't really need that because it's enough to take the words of the Buddha as gospel. And if I don't then I'm not Buddhist. The logic you have put forward I regard as being weak. It's such weak logic that the only thing you can do is say that I have to base my conviction on what the Buddha is said to have said.

Malcolm wrote:
Actually what I said was that the phenomena under discussion, rebirth, liberation and so on cannot be verified by the perceptions of ordinary persons, such as scientists engaged in empirical research. I fully allow that things like rebirth, liberation, and so on can neither be proven nor disproven by means available to empirical research. These things are non-falsifiable. Buddha addresses this issue in the Eastern Gatehouse Sūtta I previously cited above.

Andrew108 said:
But anyway I have agreed with you that I can't call myself Buddhist. So I'm no longer a Buddhist because I don't accept a literal interpretation of rebirth.

Malcolm wrote:
I didn't say you could not call yourself a Buddhist, I said the views you enunciate are not Buddhist and are not consistent with what the Buddha clearly taught in Mainstream Buddhist texts, Mahāyāna and Vajrayāna as well.

Andrew108 said:
You might also read the Gendun Chopel book that Lopez published. In it there are some interesting passages regarding appeal to authority.

Malcolm wrote:
Of course it does. The most interesting one is that he points out that in the end, one is the only authority for oneself. But the promise of Buddhadharma is that if you bother to do the work, instead of relying on intellectual reason, as you do, you will personally verify the claims the Buddha has made about rebirth, liberation, etc. As for myself, I have verified enough of the claims of the Buddha and the awakened masters that have followed, including our mutual guru, ChNN, to have confidence in the other claims put forward by the tradition.

Look, if you wish to hammer out your own doctrine with logic and reason, be my guest. But don't conflate it with Siddhartha's intent.


