﻿Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 17th, 2014 at 7:39 PM
Title: Re: A Physicalist Theory of Mind
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The Buddhist definition of mind is that the mind is an impermanent serially caused entity that is clear and knowing.

dzogchungpa said:
OK, what are the Buddhist definitions of 'clear' and 'knowing'?

Malcolm wrote:
Clear means that mind is unimpeded and open; knowing means that a mind has the capacity to know.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 17th, 2014 at 7:28 PM
Title: Re: Mahamudra meditation problem: locating the mind
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Outside of sentience, proofs are not possible.

Andrew108 said:
You don't need proof. You just need to measure something. Of course theories are part of sentience. I am not denying sentience. I have also said that reality has no theory within it. But there are characteristics that can be measured and that are measured by non-sentient apparatus.

Malcolm wrote:
That which is non-sentient cannot measure anything.
There is no such thing as a non-sentient measurement. Manas, the word for mind in Sanskrit, means "to measure" as well .
I would disagree. I don't think fMRI scanners are sentient. In what way does the 'mind' make a measurement? As I understand it the 'mind' interprets measurements. Measuring the measurements.
All measurements are based on judgments, long, short, thick, thin, etc. It is a fundamental characteristic of the conceptual mind to judge and measure. Instruments of measurement merely extend the capability of the mind's capacity to judge, but are not themselves capable of measuring anything.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 17th, 2014 at 8:10 AM
Title: Re: Mahamudra meditation problem: locating the mind
Content:
PadmaVonSamba said:
and it doesn't make any sense to say that something is a product of consciousness but that there is no awareness of it.
. . .

Malcolm wrote:
Sure it does; such phenomena are called traces; and when a trace is activated, a given consciousness becomes aware of the phenomena produced by that trace. Further, traces are created by actions of consciousness.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 17th, 2014 at 8:03 AM
Title: Re: Mahamudra meditation problem: locating the mind
Content:
Andrew108 said:
All we need to prove is that the mountain has an existence outside of sentience.

Malcolm wrote:
Outside of sentience, proofs are not possible.


Andrew108 said:
So the fact that it can be measured by a non-sentient device and has a series of values (height, mass, dimension and so on) mean that it has an existence outside of sentience.

Malcolm wrote:
There is no such thing as a non-sentient measurement. Manas, the word for mind in Sanskrit, means "to measure" as well


Andrew108 said:
Another example would be using a non-sentient device to measure phenomena that don't appear to the senses.

Malcolm wrote:
As above.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 16th, 2014 at 7:46 PM
Title: Re: A Physicalist Theory of Mind
Content:
LastLegend said:
Can you point to text or source that says it?

jeeprs said:
Not really, but see if you can find an agreed definition of the meaning of the term 'mind' according to the discipline of psychology.

Malcolm wrote:
Who cares?

The Buddhist definition of mind is that the mind is an impermanent serially caused entity that is clear and knowing.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 16th, 2014 at 7:45 PM
Title: Re: A Physicalist Theory of Mind
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
What I am saying is that you do not understand Dharma language because you have never studied it.

Andrew108 said:
I've studied it.

Malcolm wrote:
What texts, under what teacher, for how long, where?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 16th, 2014 at 7:42 PM
Title: Re: Mahamudra meditation problem: locating the mind
Content:


Andrew108 said:
He is saying that the universe is brought into being through the collective karma of all beings. Karma, like consciousness, doesn't exist outside of the skandhas. There is no collective karma. There is only 'individual' karma. So to say that there is collective karma (even as a convention of speech) is still an assertion of collective consciousness.

Malcolm wrote:
Not so. For example, Vasubandhu goes the example of a soldier in an army. All who share in the goals of that army (killing enemies) share in the karma of every action undertaken by the members of that army times the number of people who belong to that that army, whether or not they directly engage in killing enemies.

Andrew108 said:
This 'objective condition' wasn't made bit by bit due to the karma of individual beings and neither was it made in one go due to a singular consciousness and neither was it made by a multitude of consciousness. So the model that Malcolm has posted as to how the universe forms is illogical.

Malcolm wrote:
"The variety of the world is due to action"
-- Vasubandhu.

If you are a realist dualist Buddhist, i.e. you belong to one of the two lower tenet systems (and your views are very much in line with those apart from the fact that you reject rebirth, and thus in reality you are a Carvaka in your view), the differentiation in the world that you observe comes about because of the actions of intelligent creatures acting in the world.

The universe was formed by the multitude of consciousnessess in the following manner — to put it in more modern terms, it is the affliction in the consciousness of sentient beings that caused the instability in the proposed singularity at the observable beginning of this universe.

Until physics can model the general role of consciousness in the formation of the universe mathematically, its explanation of cosmology will always be incomplete and there will always be unanswered questions.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 16th, 2014 at 7:32 PM
Title: Re: Mahamudra meditation problem: locating the mind
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
It already exists, but was brought into existence through the collective karma of all beings. Really, this is non-controversial and is explained in Abhidharma as well as Yogacara and Vajrayāna.

Andrew108 said:
A term like collective karma is fundamentally useless. If you assert collective karma then you are asserting collective consciousness. It is a highly controversial idea.

Malcolm wrote:
It is a convention used to describe the aggregate of similar karmas belonging to individual beings. It is only in this sense that the term "collective" is used. It does not mean there is a collective consciousness, because of course, there is not.

Of course, when people do not take the time to study the fundamentals of Buddhadharma as presented in Abhidharma and so on, it is very likely they will misunderstand terms like "collective karma" to refer to karma generated by a collective consciousness.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 16th, 2014 at 11:00 AM
Title: Re: Mahamudra meditation problem: locating the mind
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
We all inhabit the same universe, the universe comes about because of our collective actions. It is as if we all build one house, but then we live on separate floors, using separate entrances.

PadmaVonSamba said:
If all beings inhabit the same universe,
Yet experience different 'realities' of different realms,
some pleasant, some torturous, and so on,
then what they experience cannot be the result of any sort of combined consciousness

Malcolm wrote:
I never said it was.

PadmaVonSamba said:
but rather, due to their own karma,

Malcolm wrote:
Yes.

PadmaVonSamba said:
each being experiences the same basic properties of an already existing physical universe in their own way

Malcolm wrote:
It already exists, but was brought into existence through the collective karma of all beings. Really, this is non-controversial and is explained in Abhidharma as well as Yogacara and Vajrayāna.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 16th, 2014 at 9:49 AM
Title: Re: Can Westerners truly become Buddhists?
Content:
JKhedrup said:
I am suprised people don't think Westerners are responsible for supporting monasteries. Whenever I come to India with the geshe I translate for I also use some if my meager resources to make donations to monks who study well, for pujas, and to my teachers.

I am not a maverick who keeps it all for myself, and believe me it is a struggle to make those donations.

Indrajala said:
The reality it seems is that in the context of Tibetan Buddhism there is a widespread sense that western monks/nuns are unnecessary and even undesirable. Your own experiences as a translator who people have to begrudgingly tolerate is suggestive of this.

Malcolm wrote:
The majority of western Mulasarvastivada monks and nuns have very little value to add. Very few are qualified to be Dharma teachers, even less to act as Vajrayāna preceptors (a handful at best). You might argue they are objects of merit accumulations, and there is some truth to this, but mainly they are an economic drain since they have little to return in value (at this point) to the lay practitioners. If they can join a Dharma center where they can do useful work, great, but there are very few of these indeed.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 16th, 2014 at 9:04 AM
Title: Re: Mahamudra meditation problem: locating the mind
Content:
PadmaVonSamba said:
Malcolm, are you saying that all realms share the same universe,
or that each realm creates its own universe?

If you say that all realms share the same universe,
then the universe cannot be said to be created by the consciousness of beings in a particular realm.

If you say the realms exist in separate universes,
then humans and animals could not share the same sense of reality.

Which is it?
. . .

Malcolm wrote:
It is like a house with separate floors. Not all inhabitants can know whether the others are home.

We all inhabit the same universe, the universe comes about because of our collective actions. It is as if we all build one house, but then we live on separate floors, using separate entrances.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 16th, 2014 at 8:59 AM
Title: Re: A Physicalist Theory of Mind
Content:
Sherab said:
But aren't you implying by your post that the six elements were equally basic while in yogacara and vajrayana systems, consciousness would be more basic than the physical elements even in the conventional sense?

Malcolm wrote:
No, even in Yogacara and Vajrayāna conventionally understand the six dhātus in the same way they are understood in the lower yānas. However, at the level of analysis, in the Yogacara systems and Vajrayāna, consciousness is understood to be more fundamental, and luminosity more fundamental still.

M

Sherab said:
Your reply seems to contradict what you said earlier.  I guess that you have forgotten the discussion that led to this.

Malcolm wrote:
If you think so, you will have to remind me.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 16th, 2014 at 6:43 AM
Title: Re: A Physicalist Theory of Mind
Content:
jeeprs said:
I have noticed that you frequently encounter passages which explicitly state the difference between 'insentient matter' - the aggregates - and 'formless mind'.

Malcolm wrote:
It is a conventional distinction (and a hard distinction drawn in Abhidharma and so on) that is gradually abandoned in later Indian Mahāyānā and especially Vajrayāna.

jeeprs said:
You can say that if you wish. Once you start to be able to draw in the polemical sleights-of-hand offered by the distinction between relative and ultimate, there is practically nothing that you can't say.

In this case, I opt for a literalist interpretation.

Malcolm wrote:
Then you are opting for an essentialist interpretation, which is of course the reason this hard distinction was eventually abandoned as being incoherent beyond a certain convenience for conversation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 16th, 2014 at 6:06 AM
Title: Re: A Physicalist Theory of Mind
Content:
jeeprs said:
I have noticed that you frequently encounter passages which explicitly state the difference between 'insentient matter' - the aggregates - and 'formless mind'.

Malcolm wrote:
It is a conventional distinction (and a hard distinction drawn in Abhidharma and so on) that is gradually abandoned in later Indian Mahāyānā and especially Vajrayāna.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 16th, 2014 at 5:05 AM
Title: Re: Mahamudra meditation problem: locating the mind
Content:
PadmaVonSamba said:
Since at this early point, there are no objects of attachment, with only consciousness functioning, what possible action of the mind can take place which would generate karma?

Malcolm wrote:
When the previous universe is destroyed, it is destroyed only up to the level of the third form realm. All remaining sentient beings exist in the upper highest form realm (those who are not in the formless realm, that is). Eventually, as their merit is exhausted, the winds created by their traces of karma generate an air mandala which begins the formation of a new container universe. As sentient beings have karma to be reborn in this and that place, this or that place appears to receive them.

M

Andrew108 said:
This has to be proven. Otherwise it is a fairy tale.

Malcolm wrote:
You can prove it for yourself by developing the devacakṣu, the divine eye. You will never be able to prove it to anyone else.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 16th, 2014 at 4:45 AM
Title: Re: Climate Change: We're Doomed
Content:
Zhen Li said:
There's nowhere along the line any sensible person can hang their coat. However, if one is looking for credible pricing, only the market can provide credible pricing - if the cost doesn't come up in the market place, it doesn't really exist.

Malcolm wrote:
This is because the market externalizes the costs of cleaning up after itself onto the consumer. As the cost of cleaning up after the market becomes higher and more costly, eventually the consumer have no choice but to enact legislations which limit the markets power to sell highly polluting commodities, and to impose fees on those who use them.

It is similar to drugs — the human cost of cleaning up after drugs such as cocaine, meth and heroin are too high -- therefore, these commodities are strictly controlled markets in which a class of professionals is licensed to dispense them. Governments exist because markets exist. Markets exist because governments exist. Markets must be controlled and regulated (rather than planned), and carbon taxation is one way for governments to control the market in petrochemicals.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 16th, 2014 at 2:33 AM
Title: Re: A Physicalist Theory of Mind
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
As I have pointed out before, consciousness, in the Buddhist system, is considered an element [dhātu], one of six that make up everything in the universe. As such, it is also defined as a dravya, usually translated as a substance or an ingredient, along with the other five.

Most of these discussions with people like A108 breakdown because they fundamentally never take the time to understood Buddhist principles.

M

Andrew108 said:
You think that the Buddhist system explains subjectivity? It does not. You are assuming that Buddhism explains subjectivity. Saying that matter is based on consciousness (serial/clarity) is not telling me anything about subjectivity at all. In fact, for all those that are criticizing Science because it can't explain subjectivity, remember that when Buddhism tries to explain subjectivity it invariable sees it as illusory.

Malcolm wrote:
What I am saying is that you do not understand Dharma language because you have never studied it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 16th, 2014 at 2:31 AM
Title: Re: A Physicalist Theory of Mind
Content:
Sherab said:
But aren't you implying by your post that the six elements were equally basic while in yogacara and vajrayana systems, consciousness would be more basic than the physical elements even in the conventional sense?

Malcolm wrote:
No, even in Yogacara and Vajrayāna conventionally understand the six dhātus in the same way they are understood in the lower yānas. However, at the level of analysis, in the Yogacara systems and Vajrayāna, consciousness is understood to be more fundamental, and luminosity more fundamental still.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 15th, 2014 at 9:12 AM
Title: Re: A Physicalist Theory of Mind
Content:
Jikan said:
I'm rereading the OP and trying to understand how this new theory overcomes the obvious objections to Daniel Dennett's Consciousness Explained from twenty years ago.  I remember that I was not the only one who thought Dennett's argument was preposterously reductive, and that the best-warranted evidence in support of his claims is not yet available, leading him essentially to write a series of bounced checks with each claim he makes.  Am I reading this new work reductively, or does it seem that it represents the same old wine in newly-labelled bottles?

Malcolm wrote:
As I have pointed out before, consciousness, in the Buddhist system, is considered an element [dhātu], one of six that make up everything in the universe. As such, it is also defined as a dravya, usually translated as a substance or an ingredient, along with the other five.

Most of these discussions with people like A108 breakdown because they fundamentally never take the time to understood Buddhist principles.

M

Sherab said:
If Buddhist system holds that consciousness is one of the six substances that make up everything in the universe, then you are saying that everything in the universe is reducible only to these six and therefore these six are not reducible to each other and are therefore fundamental substances.  Assuming that I understand you correctly, then where do the Mind Only System and Tantric and Dzogchen system fit in the Buddhist system as described by you?

Malcolm wrote:
This is still conventionally true in both [Yogacara and Vajrayāna] systems.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 15th, 2014 at 6:37 AM
Title: Re: A Physicalist Theory of Mind
Content:
Jikan said:
I'm rereading the OP and trying to understand how this new theory overcomes the obvious objections to Daniel Dennett's Consciousness Explained from twenty years ago.  I remember that I was not the only one who thought Dennett's argument was preposterously reductive, and that the best-warranted evidence in support of his claims is not yet available, leading him essentially to write a series of bounced checks with each claim he makes.  Am I reading this new work reductively, or does it seem that it represents the same old wine in newly-labelled bottles?

Malcolm wrote:
As I have pointed out before, consciousness, in the Buddhist system, is considered an element [dhātu], one of six that make up everything in the universe. As such, it is also defined as a dravya, usually translated as a substance or an ingredient, along with the other five.

Most of these discussions with people like A108 breakdown because they fundamentally never take the time to understood Buddhist principles.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 15th, 2014 at 4:30 AM
Title: Re: Mahamudra meditation problem: locating the mind
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
In fact, space arises from consciousness, and the four elements arise from space. This is a universal explanation of the arising of matter in Dharm texts.

dzogchungpa said:
Did the historical Buddha teach this?

Malcolm wrote:
Indeed.

dzogchungpa said:
Well, do you have a reference?

pensum said:
Bump.


Malcolm wrote:
You will have to wait until I get home.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 15th, 2014 at 3:47 AM
Title: Re: Mahamudra meditation problem: locating the mind
Content:
PadmaVonSamba said:
Since at this early point, there are no objects of attachment, with only consciousness functioning, what possible action of the mind can take place which would generate karma?

Malcolm wrote:
When the previous universe is destroyed, it is destroyed only up to the level of the third form realm. All remaining sentient beings exist in the upper highest form realm (those who are not in the formless realm, that is). Eventually, as their merit is exhausted, the winds created by their traces of karma generate an air mandala which begins the formation of a new container universe. As sentient beings have karma to be reborn in this and that place, this or that place appears to receive them.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 15th, 2014 at 2:39 AM
Title: Re: Do you believe in ghosts?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
I did an entire lecture on this subject recently in Mexico City.

AlexanderS said:
On the fact that we are imputations or on ghosts?

I woudn't mind seeing a recording of this lecture if it is possible.

Malcolm wrote:
On the fact that spirits are imputations which arise from afflictions.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 15th, 2014 at 2:21 AM
Title: Re: Mahamudra meditation problem: locating the mind
Content:
PadmaVonSamba said:
If those atoms are here because of our collective karma, then your karma is part of the reason my body is here...

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, and the problem is? That is covered under the principle of causation called katana-hetu, i.e., all things are the causes of all other things except for themselves.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 14th, 2014 at 7:52 PM
Title: Re: Do you believe in ghosts?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
I did an entire lecture on this subject recently in Mexico City.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 14th, 2014 at 7:51 PM
Title: Re: Mahamudra meditation problem: locating the mind
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
I do expect that people who call themselves Buddhist not substitute their own fantasies, whether derived from neo-plantonism, science, etc., for what the Buddha taught in issues such as cosmology and so on.

PadmaVonSamba said:
But you cannot prove that what is taught as Buddha's own words actually are. You cannot prove that the words he spoke have not been misinterpreted or distorted over the past 2500 years, or even during the century or so after he spoke them, before they were even written down. So, the difference is that some Buddhists rely on faith alone to validate the teachings, and other constantly weigh what is supposed to be the words of The Buddha against what is observable today that wasn't observable then.

I don't think you can say that one type is a true Buddhist and the other type is not.
.  .  .


Malcolm wrote:
We have a very good idea of what Buddha actually said. Reams and reams of texts which are repetitive and formulaic to the point where one cannot doubt they are recordings of the words of a single author.

Such things as the operations of karma, rebirth and so on are really beyond any doubt whatsoever. It is sheer sophistry to pretend otherwise.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 14th, 2014 at 7:48 PM
Title: Re: Mahamudra meditation problem: locating the mind
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Whatever the case may be; however, the teaching of the Buddha is that a given world system physically arises because of the collective action of the all the sentient beings who have the karma to be in it.

PadmaVonSamba said:
Are you quite positively, absolutely sure that...

...the teaching of the Buddha is that a given world system physically arises because of the collective action of the all the sentient beings who have the karma to be in it.
or, is it  that ...

...the teaching of the Buddha is that what we  experience  as a given world system physically arising is because of the collective action of the all the sentient beings who have the karma to be in it.

Because, to me anyhow, the first premise makes absolutely no sense
and the second premise makes perfect sense,
and there is a difference between the two.
The first premise is not directly observable.
The second premise is at least somewhat observable.
.  .  .

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, I am quite sure about the first.

For example, when beings no longer have karma to be reborn in the hell realms, the hell realms vanish.

This is all very clearly explained in such texts as Abhidharmakosha. Even if you take a Mahāyāna perspective, which does not accept that phenomena actually exist apart from the mind, nevertheless, it is very clearly explained in such texts as the Mahāyānasamgraha that the container universe exists because of the seeds which exist in the ālayavijñānas of sentient beings, thus all hell beings are experiencing the ripening of seeds for the hell realms in their ālayavijñānas together.

The variety of the world is created by karma.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 14th, 2014 at 7:31 PM
Title: Re: Mahamudra meditation problem: locating the mind
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
I am saying that the universe arises from karma and karma is created by the (afflicted) mind. If all sentient beings were to attain buddhahood, it is certain the (defiled) universe would vanish, never to reappear.

Andrew108 said:
So we have luminosity, then consciousness (serial/clarity), then space (unobstructed), then karmic formations of matter. With the universe appearing due to the karma of the collection of beings within it. And if we don't accept this, we are not Buddhists.

Malcolm wrote:
No, what I said was if you do not accept rebirth, you really have no understanding of Buddhism.

Andrew108 said:
I also don't believe that Buddhist scholars should use 'orthodoxy' to condition others.

Malcolm wrote:
Neither do I. I do expect that people who call themselves Buddhist not substitute their own fantasies, whether derived from neo-plantonism, science, etc., for what the Buddha taught in issues such as cosmology and so on. I.e., they can believe whatever they want, but they should be clear that they are abandoning Buddhist principles in favor of physics, idealism, etc.

Andrew108 said:
So I would ask you to engage in open debate about these issues without challenging posters' right to consider themselves Buddhists.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, I think you should reconsider what "open debate" means; since it is includes to right to challenge whether a given person's position X or not.

Andrew108 said:
If they don't accept what you (or apparently the Buddha) are saying there is no need for you to consider their views heretical.

Malcolm wrote:
There is no heresy in Buddhism, there is merely wrong view and right view. For example, your rejection of karma and rebirth.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 14th, 2014 at 8:14 AM
Title: Re: The clear light of pure reality experience
Content:
ConradTree said:
By the way, why did you change your th*g*l code word from lhun grub to clarity?

Most people won't get it.


Malcolm wrote:
because the nature, natural perfection, is clarity.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 14th, 2014 at 7:50 AM
Title: Re: Kalachakra practice in Sakya
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The Vajramala is collection of template empowerments, so it is a full empowerment, but less elaborate than the two main traditions of Kalacakra (Rwa and Dro).

pueraeternus said:
So would this upcoming book be something that would help?
https://www.amazon.com/The-Vajra-Rosary-Tantra-Vajramalatantra/dp/1935011189/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1397430839&sr=8-1&keywords=rosary+tantra

The synopsis indicates the text is mostly about the Guhyasamaja. Isn't this rather different from the Kalachakra (at least on the completion stage)? I am basing this on what I read from Daniel Cozort's book on Highest Yoga Tantra.


Malcolm wrote:
Vajramala is a tantra, it is also a collection of initiations by the Mahāsiddha Abhayakaragupta.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 14th, 2014 at 7:05 AM
Title: Re: Kalachakra practice in Sakya
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
I am not sure the text has been translated. But it is in the collection of main daily sadhanas used in Sakya.

pueraeternus said:
From these 2 websites, it seems HHST was transmitted the Kalachakra from both HHDL and Chogye Trichen Rinpoche (6 different lineages). Do you happen to know for the recent NYC transmissions, which lineage he transmitted?

http://sakyausa.org/h-h-sakya-trizin/
http://www.gemsofyogadubai.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=21&Itemid=117

Malcolm wrote:
The Vajramala is collection of template empowerments, so it is a full empowerment, but less elaborate than the two main traditions of Kalacakra (Rwa and Dro).


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 14th, 2014 at 6:22 AM
Title: Re: Mahamudra meditation problem: locating the mind
Content:
jeeprs said:
It is not anywhere within the Universe itself but is pre-existent. That is more neo-platonist than Buddhist, I acknowledge that.

Malcolm wrote:
It is not Buddhist at all. Which is fine, but there is nothing in Buddhism, even in Dzogchen, which remotely resembles this idea.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 14th, 2014 at 6:11 AM
Title: Re: Mahamudra meditation problem: locating the mind
Content:
jeeprs said:
The consequence of your view is that you are every bit as much a realist as A108.
No that is not the case but from experience it is most likely pointless to argue about it.

Malcolm wrote:
Whatever the case may be; however, the teaching of the Buddha is that a given world system physically arises because of the collective action of the all the sentient beings who have the karma to be in it.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 14th, 2014 at 6:02 AM
Title: Re: The clear light of pure reality experience
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
It might have to do with the fact that he did a seven year retreat on thogal.

ConradTree said:
That's exactly why I believe bardo of dharmata does not occur for everyone.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, you are wrong.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 14th, 2014 at 6:01 AM
Title: Re: Mahamudra meditation problem: locating the mind
Content:
smcj said:
I take note of the traditional reticence of the Buddha to discuss whether the Universe has a beginning or not. I might be completely mistaken in that regard, and if so, I will have to live with it.
Tibetan cosmology isn't shy like that. It has the universe ending and then reappearing anew endlessly. The causal factor for the reappearance is the leftover karma of sentient being from the previous universe. I think what Malcolm is saying is that if at the end of one universe everybody attained buddhahood, then the next universe would never appear.


Malcolm wrote:
Correct, that is what I am saying.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 14th, 2014 at 6:01 AM
Title: Re: Mahamudra meditation problem: locating the mind
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
I am saying that the universe arises from karma and karma is created by the (afflicted) mind. If all sentient beings were to attain buddhahood, it is certain the (defiled) universe would vanish, never to reappear.

jeeprs said:
Well, I can't understand that. I interpret 'the world' to be 'the umwelt', the 'life-world' or 'meaning-world'. I take note of the traditional reticence of the Buddha to discuss whether the Universe has a beginning or not. I might be completely mistaken in that regard, and if so, I will have to live with it.

Malcolm wrote:
No, he was not afraid to discuss whether a given universe cycle had a beginning or not. He was averse to discussing whether the whole process of arising and destruction of universes had a beginning, i.e. he refused to discuss first causes, considering such discussions as fruitless.

The consequence of your view is that you are every bit as much a realist as A108.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 14th, 2014 at 5:39 AM
Title: Re: The clear light of pure reality experience
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Because the visions are part of clear light.

ConradTree said:
Yes, but I'm curious why our sleep yoga's experience would be different than KDL's sleep yoga experience?

It must have something to do with channels and stuff.

Malcolm wrote:
It might have to do with the fact that he did a seven year retreat on thogal.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 14th, 2014 at 5:29 AM
Title: Re: The clear light of pure reality experience
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Well, the experience of clear light during sleep manifests differently depending on whether you are have developed the visions.

ConradTree said:
Yes I brought this up in the other thread.  Why does this occur?

Malcolm wrote:
Because the visions are part of clear light.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 14th, 2014 at 5:22 AM
Title: Re: The clear light of pure reality experience
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
It depends on whether you are emphasizing the emptiness aspect or the clarity aspect.

ConradTree said:
I emphasize relaxing in the state of knowledge, having definitively recognized ma bcos shes pa skad cig ma.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, the experience of clear light during sleep manifests differently depending on whether you are have developed the visions. But you should really hear this from a qualified teacher.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 14th, 2014 at 5:03 AM
Title: Re: The clear light of pure reality experience
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
For example, lucid dreaming and so on, are all techniques of being aware while falling asleep; but they will not necessarily lead to resting in the state of luminosity.

ConradTree said:
I don't follow that New Age stuff, so I wouldn't know.

But you do agree that clear light is about falling asleep with trekcho?

Because that's what I was trying to convey.

Malcolm wrote:
It depends on whether you are emphasizing the emptiness aspect or the clarity aspect.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 14th, 2014 at 4:52 AM
Title: Re: The clear light of pure reality experience
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
It is "awareness" of a very specific kind.

ConradTree said:
Would you even be able to be aware while falling asleep, if you did not have that specific kind of awareness?

Malcolm wrote:
For example, lucid dreaming and so on, are all techniques of being aware while falling asleep; but they will not necessarily lead to resting in the state of luminosity.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 14th, 2014 at 4:51 AM
Title: Re: More faith in Amitabha than bardo of dharmata
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
In any event, exhaustion of dharmatā happens more easily in the bardo. Only the very best of the best practitioners show any signs of rainbow body at all. Most practitioners get realization in the bardo of dharmatā. Please consult birth, life and death where this process is explained very well.

ConradTree said:
I get it.  It all about recognizing the bardo of dharmata.

My concern was whether bardo of dharmata really appears for everyone.

Malcolm wrote:
It really appears to everyone, down to the tiniest creature.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 14th, 2014 at 4:43 AM
Title: Re: More faith in Amitabha than bardo of dharmata
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Yes, there is no contradiction. At this point is impossible to revive the person. We can consider therefore the link between body and mind has been severed.

ConradTree said:
If the link has been severed, you wouldn't get rainbow body phenomena like shrinking.

Malcolm wrote:
If the link had not been severed, you could revive the person.

"Shrinking" is not rainbow body.

In any event, exhaustion of dharmatā happens more easily in the bardo. Only the very best of the best practitioners show any signs of rainbow body at all. Most practitioners get realization in the bardo of dharmatā. Please consult birth, life and death where this process is explained very well.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 14th, 2014 at 4:38 AM
Title: Re: The clear light of pure reality experience
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Its about falling asleep in a state of recognition of the nature of the mind while the winds withdraw into the heart cakra.
while falling asleep without distraction.

ConradTree said:
So you do agree its about falling asleep with some kind of awareness?

Because that's what I was trying to convey.

Malcolm wrote:
It is "awareness" of a very specific kind.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 14th, 2014 at 4:38 AM
Title: Re: More faith in Amitabha than bardo of dharmata
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
It occurs after.

ConradTree said:
See:


Malcolm wrote:
rainbow body you realize the exhaustion of phenomena while in the bardo of dharmatā i.e. during THUGDAM.
Yes, there is no contradiction. At this point is impossible to revive the person. We can consider therefore the link between body and mind has been severed.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 14th, 2014 at 4:31 AM
Title: Re: More faith in Amitabha than bardo of dharmata
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Sleep is like death, by analogy; but it is not death since one is still connected with this life's body.


ConradTree said:
If exhaustion of phenomena for regular rainbow body occurs at bardo of dharmata, then bardo of dharmata must occur before separation with body,

Malcolm wrote:
It occurs after.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 14th, 2014 at 4:00 AM
Title: Re: The clear light of pure reality experience
Content:
ConradTree said:
So you do agree its about consciously entering the sleep state?

Malcolm wrote:
Its about falling asleep in a state of recognition of the nature of the mind while the winds withdraw into the heart cakra.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 14th, 2014 at 3:54 AM
Title: Re: The clear light of pure reality experience
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Clear light is a state of wisdom; deep sleep is a state of ignorance. When you are sleeping in clear light, that is because you were able to recognize it while falling asleep. Only great practitioners can do this. We can just try.

ConradTree said:
So you do agree its consciously entering the deep sleep state from say the lions posture?

Malcolm wrote:
It does not depend on posture. It is most easily accomplished by going either guru yoga or meditating one's yidam at the heart while falling asleep without distraction.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 14th, 2014 at 3:49 AM
Title: Re: The clear light of pure reality experience
Content:
ConradTree said:
I'm going by the teachings, nothing else.

Denying that clear light has to do with deep sleep contradicts every book on the subject and Malcolm.

I can consciously enter deep sleep via the lion's posture after about 6 months of trying.  The mind is like a serene lake.

Malcolm wrote:
Clear light is a state of wisdom; deep sleep is a state of ignorance. When you are sleeping in clear light, that is because you were able to recognize it while falling asleep. Only great practitioners can do this. We can just try.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 14th, 2014 at 3:48 AM
Title: Re: More faith in Amitabha than bardo of dharmata
Content:
ConradTree said:
Then how come only at a certain point do the visions occur during sleep?

This is where my recent doubt stems from.

Malcolm wrote:
Sleep is like death, by analogy; but it is not death since one is still connected with this life's body.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 14th, 2014 at 2:53 AM
Title: Re: Kalachakra practice in Sakya
Content:
conebeckham said:
Taranatha wrote about Lam Dre, IiRC, and certainly about Kilaya and Vishuddha, right?

Also, Shangpa practices were and are obviously included in Jonang.

Malcolm wrote:
Sure, Jonang inherited a lot of Sakya practices, but it also went the other way. There are a lot of practice in Sakya from Jonang originally. HHST made the comment the other day that the Jonang schools was the original Rimed tradition.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 14th, 2014 at 2:47 AM
Title: Re: Mahamudra meditation problem: locating the mind
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Yes, but you have to understand what "space" means in Buddhist terms; in this case in refers to absence of obstruction. So space arises from consciousness, just as consciousness itself arises from luminosity [od gsal].

For example, I demonstrated to you before that the five "empty" atoms (meaning very subtle, i.e., the tanmatras actually) in Kalacakra arise from the karmic winds which are produced by consciousness; these then form the basis for the coarse particles and so on. The universe and the elements within it arise from the collective actions of all sentient beings. This is a principle that is very well established from Abhidharma up to Dzogchen.

It is never that case in Dharma that any one thing is produced from a single cause; all conditioned things are produced from causes and conditions conventionally speaking. When it is asserted in a Buddhist context that matter arises from mind it does not mean that one mind produces all matter; it means that all matter is produced by all minds.

M

Andrew108 said:
Just a quick comment. It seems that you are saying consciousness and space are both inside and outside the individual. There is the sense here that space and consciousness are pervasive.

Malcolm wrote:
I am saying that the universe arises from karma and karma is created by the (afflicted) mind. If all sentient beings were to attain buddhahood, it is certain the (defiled) universe would vanish, never to reappear.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 14th, 2014 at 2:44 AM
Title: Re: Kalachakra practice in Sakya
Content:
conebeckham said:
I suppose I should point out that the Jonang lineage, Kalacakra specialists certainly, grew out of the Sakya lineage...

Malcolm wrote:
The Kalacakra of Jonang is not a Sakya lineage, it did not pass through the five founder masters, nor through Tshar or Ngor.

conebeckham said:
Sure.  Never meant to imply otherwise.  But masters of the Jonang were originally Sakyapas, before they became Kalachakrapadas, right?  And later Jonang masters wrote authoritatively about Sakya practice, as well..including the Kama traditions of Kilaya and Vishuddha....

Malcolm wrote:
Only Dolbupa. The Sakyas and the Karma Kagyus both try and take credit for Jonang. The truth is that Jonang has influence from both.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 14th, 2014 at 2:38 AM
Title: Re: When did "mindfulness" become "mindfulness"?
Content:
Jikan said:
This is a historical or geneological question:  at what point was point #7 of the Eightfold Path first translated as "mindfulness" and not some other term (I mean first documented instance)?  At what point did "mindfulness" become the most common English word to use in such translations?  It seems to me that other words had been used as recently as the mid-20th century, but by the early 1970s, mindfulness was the industry standard.

Any guidance from those who are knowledgeable in the history of such translations will be warmly welcomed.  Thank you!


Malcolm wrote:
mindful (adj.) Look up mindful at Dictionary.com
mid-14c., from mind (n.) + -ful. Related: Mindfully; mindfulness. Old English myndful meant "of good memory." Old English also had myndig (adj.) "mindful, recollecting; thoughtful," which if it had lived might have yielded a modern *mindy.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 14th, 2014 at 2:15 AM
Title: Re: Mahamudra meditation problem: locating the mind
Content:
PadmaVonSamba said:
And what exactly experiences these aggregates, these moments of clarity, this consciousness?
.   .   .

Malcolm wrote:
Clarity/consciousness/mind, etc; that is the "what".


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 14th, 2014 at 2:06 AM
Title: Re: More faith in Amitabha than bardo of dharmata
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Because the bardo of Dharmatā is connected with thögal.

ConradTree said:
Yes that's my entire point.

Bardo of dharmata only appears for long dedicated thogal practitioners.

Malcolm wrote:
No, it appears to everyone. The explanation of the bardo of dharmatā however is connected with thogal. Thogal can be seen as a method to recognize this bardo  if you do not achieve rainbow body in this life (most won't).

Further, you don't have to be some long dedicated practitioner. If you have confidence in the experience of the first vision, this is sufficient for recognizing the bardo of dharmatā.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 14th, 2014 at 1:58 AM
Title: Re: Mahamudra meditation problem: locating the mind
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
What continues is the stream of aggregates, consciousness being the chief of them. Consciousness is defined as a (partless) moment of clarity. These moments are serial and independent from the serial moments of the consciousness of others.

Andrew108 said:
You have said that space arises from consciousness. Then you have defined consciousness as a partless moment of clarity that is serial and independent. So exactly, in what way does space arise from consciousness? Does it arise serially in the same way as consciousness and is it then independent of the consciousness of others?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, but you have to understand what "space" means in Buddhist terms; in this case in refers to absence of obstruction. So space arises from consciousness, just as consciousness itself arises from luminosity [od gsal].

For example, I demonstrated to you before that the five "empty" atoms (meaning very subtle, i.e., the tanmatras actually) in Kalacakra arise from the karmic winds which are produced by consciousness; these then form the basis for the coarse particles and so on. The universe and the elements within it arise from the collective actions of all sentient beings. This is a principle that is very well established from Abhidharma up to Dzogchen.

It is never that case in Dharma that any one thing is produced from a single cause; all conditioned things are produced from causes and conditions conventionally speaking. When it is asserted in a Buddhist context that matter arises from mind it does not mean that one mind produces all matter; it means that all matter is produced by all minds.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 14th, 2014 at 1:51 AM
Title: Re: Mahamudra meditation problem: locating the mind
Content:


PadmaVonSamba said:
What you propose is exactly what you refute elsewhere,
something permanent that constitutes an individual self (atman).

Malcolm wrote:
I did not suggest this.


PadmaVonSamba said:
The aggregates are not a self.

Malcolm wrote:
No kidding.

PadmaVonSamba said:
They are more like the leaves that are on a tree in spring and summer, arranged for a lifetime,
then blow apart in the autumn, when a person dies
only to regather again in a raked up pile, which is the next rebirth.

Malcolm wrote:
No, there is a serial continuity, albeit momentary in nature. Otherwise, there would be no causal continuity of traces.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 14th, 2014 at 1:48 AM
Title: Re: Mahamudra meditation problem: locating the mind
Content:


PadmaVonSamba said:
Essentially, it is what the Buddha taught:

What we are today comes from our thoughts of yesterday, 
and our present thoughts build our life of tomorrow: our life is the creation of our mind.
-The Dhammapada

Malcolm wrote:
Please see:

http://www.fakebuddhaquotes.com/our-life-is-the-creation-of-our-mind/


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 14th, 2014 at 1:47 AM
Title: Re: Mahamudra meditation problem: locating the mind
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
In reality, the Buddha taught that one's five aggregates continue into the next world. It is foolish to deny that this is what the Buddha taught.

dzogchungpa said:
Even the rupa skandha?

Malcolm wrote:
Of course. When your consciousness leaves this body at the moment of death in the very next moment you appropriate a subtle material body in the bardo. In other words, bardo beings also have all five aggregates.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, April 13th, 2014 at 7:40 PM
Title: Re: More faith in Amitabha than bardo of dharmata
Content:
ConradTree said:
Of course I believe in bardo of dharmata.   As Namdrol says, the realization of rainbow body occurs IN the bardo of dharmata:

Malcolm wrote:
rainbow body you realize the exhaustion of phenomena while in the bardo of dharmatā i.e. during thugdam.


ConradTree said:
Obviously rainbow body occurs, so obviously bardo of dharmata occurs.

However I have come to believe that bardo of dharmata only appears for long dedicated Dzogchen practitioners who have made significant progress.

Malcolm wrote:
Bardo of dharmatā occurs for everyone, but only experienced practitioners can recognize it.


ConradTree said:
Why is there no mention of bardo of dharmata before Dzogchen Menngagde for example?

Malcolm wrote:
Because the bardo of Dharmatā is connected with thögal.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, April 13th, 2014 at 7:37 PM
Title: Re: Kalachakra practice in Sakya
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
In Sakya, the main Kalacakra practice is the preliminary practice for the six yogas; it is a simplified form in one face and two arms. Chogye Trichen remarked this was all one needed.

M

pueraeternus said:
Noted, thanks. That should be easily found.

Malcolm wrote:
I am not sure the text has been translated. But it is in the collection of main daily sadhanas used in Sakya.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, April 13th, 2014 at 7:36 PM
Title: Re: Mahamudra meditation problem: locating the mind
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
In fact, space arises from consciousness, and the four elements arise from space. This is a universal explanation of the arising of matter in Dharm texts.

dzogchungpa said:
Did the historical Buddha teach this?

Malcolm wrote:
Indeed.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, April 13th, 2014 at 7:11 PM
Title: Re: Mahamudra meditation problem: locating the mind
Content:
PadmaVonSamba said:
[

...because if the idea is that there is some little invisible bubble of thoughts and personality that escapes the body of a dead person, and floats around, perhaps circling like a vulture, looking for people who are copulating so it can plant itself there, as though there is a sort of condensed version of a particular person, that's off base. But I think it is what a lot of people think rebirth means.

Malcolm wrote:
What continues is the stream of aggregates, consciousness being the chief of them. Consciousness is defined as a (partless) moment of clarity. These moments are serial and independent from the serial moments of the consciousness of others.


PadmaVonSamba said:
So, if one asks, "well, what exactly is it that gets reborn?" , it is exactly what is reborn moment to moment in one's daily life, that is not dependent on a never-changing body. If you start a fire in the woods, and then ext moment, you die, the fire does not die. It keeps burning. Yet, a fire is not the same thing from one second to the next either. each part of the wood causes another part of the wood to ignite. This is a poor analogy to how karma works, meaning how a set of habitual actions established at one time can continue to have a reverberating effect and remanifest themselves accordingly at a later time, even after the person's body is dead.
.  .  .

Malcolm wrote:
This sort of treatment is the post-modern version of "rebirth". It is not what the Buddha taught, however. In reality, the Buddha taught that one's five aggregates continue into the next world. It is foolish to deny that this is what the Buddha taught. You may not accept it, you may think it is nonsense, but if so, you are not really a student of the Buddha. It bears repeating that Buddha taught four kinds of liberated persons in terms of how many rebirths and in what realm (desire realm or form realm) it would take them to achieve final nirvana. Dzogchen tantras especially spend a great deal of time discussing rebirth and the bardo, and they do not mean this symbolically. To discard rebirth then is to discard the whole of the Buddha's Dharma and to replace it with some post-modern intellectualism as you have done here.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, April 13th, 2014 at 7:06 PM
Title: Re: Mahamudra meditation problem: locating the mind
Content:
jeeprs said:
So, the sense in which mind 'creates' space is also the sense in which it 'creates' matter..

Malcolm wrote:
Well, no. Matter arises from consciousness directly, i.e. consciousness is the efficient cause of matter, not merely a formal cause in the sense you provide. I already demonstrated this to Andrew that this was the Buddhist view (sutra as well as tantra).

When you understand that consciousness, like matter, is a "dravya", then it all makes sense.

M

jeeprs said:
Would you mind pointing out where you demonstrated that?

Malcolm wrote:
Some other thread.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, April 13th, 2014 at 9:36 AM
Title: Re: Mahamudra meditation problem: locating the mind
Content:
jeeprs said:
So, the sense in which mind 'creates' space is also the sense in which it 'creates' matter..

Malcolm wrote:
Well, no. Matter arises from consciousness directly, i.e. consciousness is the efficient cause of matter, not merely a formal cause in the sense you provide. I already demonstrated this to Andrew that this was the Buddhist view (sutra as well as tantra).

When you understand that consciousness, like matter, is a "dravya", then it all makes sense.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, April 13th, 2014 at 6:29 AM
Title: Re: Difference between consciousness and the mind
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
If you emphasize the emptiness aspect, you will err into annihilation.

odysseus said:
Do elaborate, are you pulling my leg?


Malcolm wrote:
Emptiness alone is insufficient to attain buddhahood.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, April 13th, 2014 at 6:28 AM
Title: Re: Kalachakra practice in Sakya
Content:
pueraeternus said:
Thanks Cone and Kirtu.

Malcolm wrote:
HHST wrote a short sadhana for the Kalacakra in NYC.

pueraeternus said:
Yes. It is a really short sadhana. It definitely something to start with, but I am also looking for more substantial texts.

There is this book on Geshe Ngawang Ghargyey's teachings on Kalachakra that he gave at the Sakya Tegchen Choling in Seattle in 1982. Would this be suitable for someone who had initiation from Sakya?


Malcolm wrote:
In Sakya, the main Kalacakra practice is the preliminary practice for the six yogas; it is a simplified form in one face and two arms. Chogye Trichen remarked this was all one needed.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 12th, 2014 at 10:43 PM
Title: Re: Mahamudra meditation problem: locating the mind
Content:
Andrew108 said:
So the teachings are heuristic? If so then fair enough. But there should be some transparency, because there are many practitioners who are invested in the belief that matter arises out of consciousness.

asunthatneversets said:
No one has suggested that matter arises out of consciousness.

Malcolm wrote:
In fact, space arises from consciousness, and the four elements arise from space. This is a universal explanation of the arising of matter in Dharm texts.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 12th, 2014 at 8:17 PM
Title: Re: Kalachakra practice in Sakya
Content:
kirtu said:
http://vajrasana.org/buddhism.htm is a teaching that HE Chogye Trichen gave on the Kalchakra.

In general Kalachakra practitioners can fairly openly use sadhana texts (from Berzin).  Most of the sadhana texts published are from the Gelug tradition and can be found at the http://kalachakranet.org/.  Most of the Kalachakra sadhanas are also pretty complex.  If you are a student of Khenpo Pema or Lama Kunga then ask them.

There is also a brief sadhana written by Jamgon Kongtrul.  This was given out at the Palyul Kalachakra empowerment and teaching that HH Penor Rinpoche gave in 2007.

You could also ask HHST for a Sakya Kalachakra sadhana.  HHST said in Kevelaer, Germany that it would be good to practice the Kalachakra but went on to basically note that the empowerment was mostly given as a blessing.  Nonetheless, practicing it in the Sakya tradition is in fact possible.

Kirt

Malcolm wrote:
When Chogye Trichen gave Kalacakra, he gave it from the Jonang tradition primarily.

HHST wrote a short sadhana for the Kalacakra in NYC.

I never said it was impossible to practice Kalacakra in Sakya, just that it is not a main practice in Sakya. However, since Chogye Trichen taught it fairly often, perhaps one of his successors will continue his teaching tradition.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 12th, 2014 at 8:16 PM
Title: Re: Kalachakra practice in Sakya
Content:
conebeckham said:
I suppose I should point out that the Jonang lineage, Kalacakra specialists certainly, grew out of the Sakya lineage...

Malcolm wrote:
The Kalacakra of Jonang is not a Sakya lineage, it did not pass through the five founder masters, nor through Tshar or Ngor.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 12th, 2014 at 8:14 PM
Title: Re: Mahamudra meditation problem: locating the mind
Content:


Andrew108 said:
I would prefer to say that Science posits truth rather than certainty. Certainty implies the end of the game. The realization itself. I don't trust science sufficiently to believe that it can provide me with realization just by itself. The type of truth science posits concerns the truth of how the world works. In that world objects obey rules. That by itself proves to me that there is an 'objective condition'. The truth of there being an objective condition has implications for my practice.

Malcolm wrote:
Science does no such thing. Scientific inquiry is a process of testing hypothesis, and that is all. There are no scientific truths, there are only the latest in scientific understandings, which are always subject to change and refinement.

Science is very subtle and detailed in its words, but its meaning is a coarse and rough as a pile of sand. By comparison, the words of Buddhadharma are very simple and easy to understand, but its meaning is very deep and profound.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 12th, 2014 at 8:05 PM
Title: Re: Ordaining as a monk or nun in the west
Content:
Indrajala said:
You could easily train them to do sand mandalas or elaborate pumas.

It would be easier logistically for example to have American monks accompanying some eminent teacher to America.


Malcolm wrote:
It would seem so. However, it takes many years of training to be a ritual attendant, as well as fluency in both spoken and literary Tibetan. Creating sand mandalas is not easy. It is a craft that takes a long time to perfect.


Indrajala said:
Again it just suggests to me that Tibetan Buddhism in general neither wants nor needs monastics from outside their fold, and such sentiments are only reproduced amongst western Tibetan Buddhists who wouldn't spit on you if you were burning on the side of the road.

Malcolm wrote:
Tibetans monasteries are quite happy to take in Westerners in general. What you don't understand is that Tibetan Monasteries in general do not really provide everything for their monks, who depend on families and benefactors for much of their needs. This is one of the sociological reasons for having monks do prayers on one's behalf, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 12th, 2014 at 7:55 PM
Title: Re: Difference between consciousness and the mind
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
In some higher Dzogchen texts, it is suggested that even a division of sentient vs. non-sentient is merely conventional and not actual, not to be believed.

odysseus said:
Sure, but this does´t mean that plants etc. are sentient. It means that there is no duality between sentience and non-sentience as one realizes emptiness.

Malcolm wrote:
It means that everything is the state of wisdom (jñāna) right from the beginning.

odysseus said:
Looks like both meanings are valid, no discrepancy.

Malcolm wrote:
If you emphasize the emptiness aspect, you will err into annihilation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 12th, 2014 at 7:43 PM
Title: Re: Mahamudra meditation problem: locating the mind
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
If you don't accept this point, than no matter what you think you understand of the Buddha's teaching you cannot be considered someone who truly grasps its import and meaning. There are many refutations of your point of view even in Dzogchen.

Andrew108 said:
Stay on topic. This thread isn't about me.

Malcolm wrote:
The point is that you have made many statements about what Dzogchen is, about what reality  is, which are in deep conflict with Buddhadharma, Dzogchen included.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 12th, 2014 at 7:42 PM
Title: Re: Mahamudra meditation problem: locating the mind
Content:
Andrew108 said:
For some people it is difficult to accept that consciousness has a physical basis. For others it is axiomatic.

Malcolm wrote:
For some people it is difficult to accept that matter has a basis in consciousness. For others it is axiomatic.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 12th, 2014 at 7:40 PM
Title: Re: Mahamudra meditation problem: locating the mind
Content:


Andrew108 said:
At it's most fundamental level, science is saying that objects obey rules. This isn't an assumption. It's not just a construct either. These rules are not conventions or formed by consensus. They are  universal. It means that these rules are always applicable even without a consensus.

Malcolm wrote:
Hence for you they are an ultimate truth.

Andrew108 said:
What I have said about consciousness Is that it can't be something which is beyond the rules of the physical universe.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, its not physical, so therefore, your contention goes out the window.


Andrew108 said:
This idea that objects obey rules is proof that reality is not just a subjective experience.

Malcolm wrote:
Tell that to a Mahāsiddha.


Andrew108 said:
But the 6 realms model is largely a model where an individual suffers because they are not able to adapt to that environment.

Malcolm wrote:
No, the six realms model is a model which explains six different kinds of perception.

Andrew108 said:
There is no proof of the Buddhist reduction that consciousness exists as a separate entity - as a stream.

Malcolm wrote:
Sure there is: karma and liberation.

Andrew108 said:
The one thing they trust, that they must trust, is reality.

Malcolm wrote:
As long as they are relying ultimate truth (the sole reality), this is fine. But you are suggesting that the conventional truth of physics is ultimate truth, and this will never result in realization.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 11th, 2014 at 9:52 PM
Title: Re: Mahamudra meditation problem: locating the mind
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
A sentient being is a stream of consciousness that transmigrates through samsara. If you don't understand this point, you don't understand Buddhadharma, much less Dzogchen, Mahāmudra and so on.

M

Andrew108 said:
You mean that if I don't believe this point. I certainly understand the point, but at the moment I choose not to believe it.

Malcolm wrote:
If you don't accept this point, than no matter what you think you understand of the Buddha's teaching you cannot be considered someone who truly grasps its import and meaning. There are many refutations of your point of view even in Dzogchen.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 11th, 2014 at 7:57 PM
Title: Re: Mahamudra meditation problem: locating the mind
Content:


Simon E. said:
Indeed. The gnostic/duality view of the 'ghost in the machine' is found nowhere in Buddhadharma.

Malcolm wrote:
There are six dhātus, Simon, not just five. Consciousness is the sixth. The view you enunciate would indicate that there are only five dhātus, earth, water, fire, air and space.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 11th, 2014 at 7:56 PM
Title: Re: Mahamudra meditation problem: locating the mind
Content:


Andrew108 said:
The brain is not a being inhabiting a body. The body and the brain together make the being.


Malcolm wrote:
If you are a physicalist, yes. However, such a view is incompatible with Buddhadharma. There are five aggregates, not merely one. A sentient being is a stream of consciousness that transmigrates through samsara. If you don't understand this point, you don't understand Buddhadharma, much less Dzogchen, Mahāmudra and so on.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 11th, 2014 at 7:44 PM
Title: Re: Kalachakra practice in Sakya
Content:
pueraeternus said:
Recently I attended HHST's Kalachakra empowerment in NYC. I would like to further my study and practice, but could not find any books on Kalachakra specific to the lineage transmitted by HHST (majority are on the Gelugpa transmissions). Is there any book anyone familiar with the tradition can recommend? Or there is no great differences between the various Kalachakra lineages and I can just refer to any available in the market?

Malcolm wrote:
There is very little material by Sakya authors on Kalacakra. For the most part, only Lama Dampa, Takstang Lotsawa and Amyezhabs wrote anything of significance on Kalacakra, unless of course you count Buton as a Sakyapa -- the Gelug lineage comes from him.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 11th, 2014 at 7:40 PM
Title: Re: Ordination
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Secondly, Indians had concepts of debt and contracts, found in the Vedas on up. Buddha, for example, clearly refers to karma has a kind of a debt. Where there are debts, there must be means of keeping records of such debts, etc.

Indrajala said:
You can keep track of debts with colored stones in jars or ropes tied together.

You don't need writing to keep records. Some Mesoamerican civilizations managed fine with just ropes.

Malcolm wrote:
Indeed, but the fact that Indians were surrounded with people who had writing, and were in contact with people who had writing (Phoenicians, Greeks, Persians, Chinese) makes it unlikely that Indians were unaware of writing.

Basically, I find it unlikely that Indians all of a sudden adopted writing merely because of tenuous contacts with the Greeks. What I am suggesting as a more likely scenario is that Indians used writing for commercial documents, not religious texts, during this period. We have no paper documents at all from the Subcontinent that date earlier than Gandharan finds.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 11th, 2014 at 7:41 AM
Title: Re: Ordination
Content:
tingdzin said:
I suggest that the experts out there put their opinions in writing in a refereed journal and have them evaluated by other knowledgeable people. Until then , don't be too dogmatic about your opinions. An internet forum is a pretty small pond.


Malcolm wrote:
Personally, I am not that invested in the issue. I simply find it a little far-fetched to believe that Indians widely adopted a writing system based on a Phoenician script within the 150 year time frame.

Secondly, Indians had concepts of debt and contracts, found in the Vedas on up. Buddha, for example, clearly refers to karma has a kind of a debt. Where there are debts, there must be means of keeping records of such debts, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 11th, 2014 at 6:46 AM
Title: Re: Ordination
Content:


pueraeternus said:
Is there evidence that such bursaries were established during the Buddha's time? The Buddhist community wandered around as travelling mendicants most of the time (except during retreats), were supposed to only have the 4 requisites, cannot handle money, etc. So all these point the bursars towards a later phase in monastic Buddhism.

Malcolm wrote:
There is a difference between a monastic officer handling money and a monk handling money personally. You must recall, the Buddha was gifted with property during his lifetime. There is evidence that within 100 years of the Buddha's PN there were permanent Viharas.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 11th, 2014 at 6:22 AM
Title: Re: Ordination
Content:
Indrajala said:
I'm quite solid in my position stating that later developments in Vinaya literature where the Buddha is talking about drawing up loan contracts with people is in fact a much later development and moreover an indication of ignorance on the part of the author(s), who were unaware that writing didn't exist in the Buddha's day.

pueraeternus said:
Even if there were writing at the time of the Buddha, the loan contracts thingy would not make sense, since the Buddha expressively prohibited monastics from handling money (if we believe that part of the Vinaya to be Buddhavacana, which is very likely).

Malcolm wrote:
There were always bursars in monasteries, who were charged with managing money.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 11th, 2014 at 12:01 AM
Title: Re: Ordination
Content:


Indrajala said:
Megasthenes had very limited contact with Indian culture and civilization.
He did live there for some time. Your argument is silly.

Malcolm wrote:
He did not see very much of India. His fragments certainly do not constitute an accurate picture of Indian life in the 4th century BCE.



Indrajala said:
You're saying "it is quite likely that some form of writing existed in India during the time of Buddha." Well, you have no evidence for this.

Malcolm wrote:
There is also no evidence to the contrary apart from a single passage in a fragment by a Greek Ambassador in a book for which there is no original.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 10th, 2014 at 11:33 PM
Title: Re: Ordination
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Most scholars at one time agreed that Troy was a myth...further, Megasthenes is not a reliable witness.

Indrajala said:
And why wouldn't he have been a reliable witness? If writing existed you'd have had mention of it in the earliest stratum of Jain and Buddhist literature, but as far as I know there are no such references. You cannot dismiss him as a period witness.

In any case the Vinaya literature reveals multiple layers of historical development. Read Schopen and educate yourself.

Malcolm wrote:
The fact that Vinaya was composed in layers was known a long time before Schopen. Anyone who has studied the three vows literature is already well acquainted with this fact. Read Gorampa (for one) and educate yourself.

According to Schopen, there are no "earliest" records. As you know, he basically does not think anything is reliably datable based on text criticism alone.

Megasthenes had very limited contact with Indian culture and civilization.

We can say with certainty that Ashoka used writing. We cannot say with certainty when writing first was used in India and by whom. All we can really say with certainty is that it, like most other scripts in the ancient world, was based on Western Semitic, where aleph = an Ox.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 10th, 2014 at 10:14 PM
Title: Re: Ordination
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
It is quite likely that some form of writing existed in India during the time of Buddha.

Indrajala said:
Show us the evidence. There is no evidence of this as far as I know, and most scholars agree.

Malcolm wrote:
Most scholars at one time agreed that Troy was a myth...further, Megasthenes is not a reliable witness.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 10th, 2014 at 9:03 PM
Title: Re: Ordination
Content:
Indrajala said:
[ It was just a formality that orthodox Buddhist traditions demand.

Malcolm wrote:
Hardly.

Indrajala said:
(for example, like how to properly draw up loan contracts with laypeople which is actually attributed to the Buddha who lived in a time with no writing!).

Malcolm wrote:
It is quite likely that some form of writing existed in India during the time of Buddha. It may not have been used to record religious texts, but considering your recent speculations about a Mesopotamian/India connection, it would be absurd to suppose that Indians kept all their financial undertakings in their heads. And given that bark records don't survive long in India...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 7th, 2014 at 7:15 PM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
After the collapse of the previous universe, there are no buddhas and sentient beings -- and this is called the bardo of samsara and nirvana. Present in the latent basis however is a neutral awareness which does not know itself.

Because of traces of action and affliction remain from previous universe, the basis is stirred, lights shine out, and they are either recognized or not, resulting in samasara and nirvana.

This neutral awareness is what happens when someone acheives an incomplete full awakening, for example an arhat or some other form of lesser iberation that can "return to the cause". This is why Dzogchen makes such a big deal about Dzogchen Buddhahood being one that "does not return to the cause".

Emakirikiri said:
Do the atomic body, rainbow body and great transference body all constitute the "does not return to the cause" version of awakening?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 7th, 2014 at 7:12 PM
Title: Re: Difference between consciousness and the mind
Content:
PadmaVonSamba said:
The the idea that gender is determined by past karma is linked to the (cultural) notion that birth as a female is an unfortunate event somehow due to negative actions in the past.

Vajraprajnakhadga said:
That is not a universal perspective.  Nyingma in particular have yogini traditions where female birth is seen as auspicious.  The view that male rebirth is superior is rooted in patriarchal monasticism, nothing more.

PadmaVonSamba said:
True. It is not universal. But is that attitude the exception? Must a female be exceptional in some way, in order for it to be considered that her birth as a female was not the result of negative karma?
.   .   .


Malcolm wrote:
In general, in Indian Buddhism, female birth is considered a disadvantage. A term often seen in sutras is "skye dman", inferior birth, used frequently for women. It is based on a Sanskrit original, but I forget what it is, something like hinajati.

It does not mean that women cannot achieve awakening, it means however they have some obstacles men do not have.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 7th, 2014 at 7:10 PM
Title: Re: Difference between consciousness and the mind
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The classical division in Buddhadharma is that there is sentient life and non-sentient life. In some higher Dzogchen texts, it is suggested that even a division of sentient vs. non-sentient is merely conventional and not actual, not to be believed.

Gwenn Dana said:
Thank you. Models apparently are not always as unanimous as one  might think, even in a similar context.

odysseus said:
Sure, but this does´t mean that plants etc. are sentient. It means that there is no duality between sentience and non-sentience as one realizes emptiness.

Malcolm wrote:
It means that everything is the state of wisdom (jñāna) right from the beginning.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 7th, 2014 at 7:08 PM
Title: Re: Difference between consciousness and the mind
Content:
PadmaVonSamba said:
The the idea that gender is determined by past karma is linked to the (cultural) notion that birth as a female is an unfortunate event somehow due to negative actions in the past.

Vajraprajnakhadga said:
That is not a universal perspective.  Nyingma in particular have yogini traditions where female birth is seen as auspicious.  The view that male rebirth is superior is rooted in patriarchal monasticism, nothing more.


Malcolm wrote:
No, it is a practical observation. Women have more illnesses, they endure the hardship of childbirth, menstruation, etc. It is for this reason that there are many sutras where women are encouraged to desire rebirth as men in their next life.

On the other hand, as you note, in all highest yoga tantra traditions, the negative view of female birth is reversed because all women have the nature of prajñā. This is not an especially "Nyingma" perspective.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 7th, 2014 at 1:40 AM
Title: Re: Difference between consciousness and the mind
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
However, according to Tibetan Medicine and Ayurveda, gender is not fixed until the third week after conception, and can be changed using various medicines and rites.

dzogchungpa said:
That's not actually true though, is it?

Malcolm wrote:
As far as I am concerned it is.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, April 6th, 2014 at 10:57 PM
Title: Re: Difference between consciousness and the mind
Content:


alpha said:
Can a mother by manipulating the internal winds in the first three weeks of conception knowingly attract a particular type of conciousness ?

Malcolm wrote:
I don't think so. The moment of conception requires a viable sperm, egg and a consciousness seeking rebirth.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, April 6th, 2014 at 10:23 PM
Title: Re: Difference between consciousness and the mind
Content:


Sherab said:
Sorry Alpha, I misread your earlier post.
There can be the karma that ripens a being for rebirth is one that does not involve copulating couple, such as birth in the hell realm and birth in the gods realm.  Other births that do not involve copulating couples are also mentioned in Buddhist text such as birth from heat and moisture but I do not know how such a birth maps to birth as understood in modern biology.  But as I understand it, the karma for such a birth must ripen in a being for that being to take such a birth.

alpha said:
I meant the IVF process where in the absence of copulating couple,  there is no basis on which the conciousness that takes rebirth to generate feelings of revulsion or atraction.Since the basis (the couple copulating) on which the conciousness  usually generates attraction and revulsion is missing,  how does the conciousness chooses if it will be a male or a female?

Malcolm wrote:
It doesn't. Gender is determined mostly by past karma.

Bardo beings are clairvoyant. One presumes that they are aware of the intention of parents to conceive during the IVF process and take that chance.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, April 6th, 2014 at 9:56 PM
Title: Re: Difference between consciousness and the mind
Content:
PadmaVonSamba said:
Yes, it does.  Totally. It shows that consciousness can just as easily plop itself down into (or as you say, "appropriate" ) a petri dish or a test tube just as easily as a woman's abdomen.
You have suggested all sorts of reasons why consciousness is specifically this or that, or can only go here or there or arise with one kind of thing or another.
It seems that consciousness thinks otherwise.
.   .   .

alpha said:
The way i see it copulation is not a precondition for rebirth.
But  there is a question i don't  know  the answer for .In the absence of copulation on what basis does the conciousness chooses to become a male or a female  since   the male and female(as a couple copulating) are absent as a basis on which to feel attraction or repulsion ?

Malcolm wrote:
As mentioned above, there are four birth types.

Karma is the primary determinant of gender. However, according to Tibetan Medicine and Ayurveda, gender is not fixed until the third week after conception, and can be changed using various medicines and rites.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, April 6th, 2014 at 8:28 PM
Title: Re: Nature of awareness
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
When I discuss awareness as a mental factor, I am referring to the mental operation of taking note of an object.

jeeprs said:
I believe that is usually given in English as 'apperception':
The mental process by which a person makes sense of an idea by assimilating it to the body of ideas he or she already possesses.

Malcolm wrote:
No, I am referring to the act of taking note of an object, whether inner or outer; so it is a more basic cognitive function.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, April 6th, 2014 at 8:08 PM
Title: Re: Nature of awareness
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Which Tibetan word do you mean by the term "awareness"?

Vajraprajnakhadga said:
In this particular context it would be rigpa.


Malcolm wrote:
"Rigpa", vidyā means "to know". It is not a mental factor.

When I discuss awareness as a mental factor, I am referring to the mental operation of taking note of an object.

aware (adj.)
late Old English gewær, from Proto-Germanic *ga-waraz (cognates: Old Saxon giwar, Middle Dutch gheware, Old High German giwar, German gewahr), from *ga-, intensive prefix, + waraz "wary, cautious" (see wary).
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, April 6th, 2014 at 8:05 PM
Title: Re: Difference between consciousness and the mind
Content:
Gwenn Dana said:
Hmmmm. I just read this:
Outside of neuroscience biologists, Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela contributed their Santiago theory of cognition in which they wrote:

Living systems are cognitive systems, and living as a process is a process of cognition. This statement is valid for all organisms, with or without a nervous system.[5]

This theory contributes a perspective that cognition is a process present at organic levels that we don't usually consider to be aware. Given the possible relationship between awareness and cognition, and consciousness, this theory contributes an interesting perspective in the philosophical and scientific dialogue of awareness and living systems theory.
It would be interesting to hear Malcolm´s thoughts on this.

Best wishes
Gwenn

Malcolm wrote:
The classical division in Buddhadharma is that there is sentient life and non-sentient life. In some higher Dzogchen texts, it is suggested that even a division of sentient vs. non-sentient is merely conventional and not actual, not to be believed.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, April 6th, 2014 at 9:52 AM
Title: Re: Nature of awareness
Content:
Jesse said:
So what is it? Does it arise from our physical form (Brain, nervous system etc), Is it a natural phenomena of the universe (Gravity, Space, Time, etc).

What is the difference between my awareness, and everyone else's? Does it even exist separately for each individual?, if not why is my experience so seemingly separate from everyone else, then.


Malcolm wrote:
This is the Buddhist perspective:

Awareness is a mental factor. It belongs to consciousness and arises with it. A consciousness is not always aware, for example, when it is in a state of cessation.

Your awareness is a mental factor of your consciousness, it belongs only to you.

Vajraprajnakhadga said:
That seems to almost be the opposite of what I've been taught.  Dzogchen teachings essentially posit that mirror-like awareness is the very essence of what we are, and that it is not a thing ultimately.

Malcolm wrote:
Which Tibetan word do you mean by the term "awareness"?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, April 6th, 2014 at 9:34 AM
Title: Re: Difference between consciousness and the mind
Content:
PadmaVonSamba said:
...

Malcolm wrote:
No, it does not change anything at all about what Buddhism has to say about conception since there are generally four modes of conception according to the Buddha.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 5th, 2014 at 11:47 PM
Title: Re: Difference between consciousness and the mind
Content:




PadmaVonSamba said:
But YOU said:
Malcolm wrote:
Indeed, they have to be having sex. ...parents engaging in sex  (in the case of a human birth)

PadmaVonSamba said:
.   .   .

Malcolm wrote:
In general, when we are talking about the normal mode of conception for human beings. Test tube babies, cloning, etc., do not really alter what Buddhism has to say about conception.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 5th, 2014 at 11:44 PM
Title: Re: Difference between consciousness and the mind
Content:


Andrew108 said:
You need the consciousness of the mother and father to create the conditions for the entry of a third consciousness. Which is more important for life, the consciousness of the mother and father or the consciousness of the third party?

Malcolm wrote:
Indeed, they have to be having sex. That requires that they are conscious beings, of course. One has to have all three things. In other words, parents engaging in sex (in the case of a human birth), and a gandharva that seeks rebirth.


PadmaVonSamba said:
Science has long proved that actual sexual union is not needed (in other words, a "test-tube baby").
Furthermore, cloning can also produce another being.
.  .  .


Malcolm wrote:
Yes, we would call these moisture and heat births...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 5th, 2014 at 10:57 PM
Title: Re: Difference between consciousness and the mind
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
.. There is no conceivable way to avoid this as long as we are using words and concepts.

Sherab said:
So you agree that your holding of the two truths as merely cognitions is within a framework of subject-object duality.  If so, then there can be no objectivity of such a model of the two truths because such truths will disappear for beings in the two instances I mentioned earlier.  I don't think your quoting of Chandrakirti's take on the two truth support your view that the two truths are merely cognitions because it is equally applicable in the model that I have described.  In the model that I described, the two truths do not disappear for beings that are unconscious because unlike your model, the model is not tied to the perspective of individual beings.

Malcolm wrote:
First, I don't recall the model you described. This thread is complicated and our discussion has long since departed from the main body of the thread.

In the Madhyamaka model, the two truths are merely cognitions (veridical or false) of one and the same object.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 5th, 2014 at 9:52 PM
Title: Re: Nature of awareness
Content:
Jesse said:
So what is it? Does it arise from our physical form (Brain, nervous system etc), Is it a natural phenomena of the universe (Gravity, Space, Time, etc).

What is the difference between my awareness, and everyone else's? Does it even exist separately for each individual?, if not why is my experience so seemingly separate from everyone else, then.


Malcolm wrote:
This is the Buddhist perspective:

Awareness is a mental factor. It belongs to consciousness and arises with it. A consciousness is not always aware, for example, when it is in a state of cessation.

Your awareness is a mental factor of your consciousness, it belongs only to you.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 5th, 2014 at 9:33 PM
Title: Re: Difference between consciousness and the mind
Content:
Sherab said:
So does an unconscious being has a mind if there is no cognition whatsoever?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, it continues as the ālayavijñāna, for example, in nirodha-samapatti.

Sherab said:
Isn't it the case that for an untrained being, he is unconscious at the time of black near attainment?  If yes, can an unconscious being at the time of black near attainment has luminosity as the object of his mind?

Malcolm wrote:
It is not that an untrained being is unconscious. He or she is simply not able to recognize the moment of luminosity when it occurs because it is very brief.

Sherab said:
Since you held earlier that the two truths are only cognitions, then in the above two instances, there can be no two truths since there are no cognitions.

This implies that the two truths as cognitions is subjective.  Therefore your positing of two truths as cognitions is implicitly in a framework that is not free from subject-object duality.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, the way Candrakirti defines the two truths is a little more precise: he states that the two truths are the object of either true or false cognitions respectively. In this case then, luminosity would be an ultimate truth. However, when luminosity is not correctly perceived, it becomes a relative truth; when it is correctly perceived, it is an ultimate truth.

The point however is that the truths are defined on the basis of veridical or false cognitions, so as a shorthand, I place the emphasis on the cognitions since they are the defining factor.

So yes, the two truths are conventionally subjective, they are not objective. The object of a veridical cognition, dharmatā śunyatā, is the ultimate truth. Nevertheless, the realization of ultimately truth comes when one's mind is truly synchronized with how things are (yatha bhutaṃ) and the apparent duality of subject and object vanishes since it is not there to begin with.

While one is confined to relative truth cognitions (including relative formulations of ultimate truths) one is necessarily confined to subject/object duality. There is no conceivable way to avoid this as long as we are using words and concepts.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 5th, 2014 at 8:56 PM
Title: Re: Difference between consciousness and the mind
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
If you properly study Dharma, you will understand the how.

Andrew108 said:
I thought you were against Ad Hominen remarks?

Malcolm wrote:
It was not an hominem remark; it was a simple observation.

Andrew108 said:
Your position is based on belief. It's similar to a Christian saying that you need to study the Bible some more in order to understand the resurrection.

Malcolm wrote:
My position is based on understanding what the Buddha said. I have not made any truth claims for it.

Andrew108 said:
If a consciousness was able to 'descend into a womb' then there are some logical inconstancies with that.

1. You have to get the timing right. Can't descend too soon and can't be too late. So how does a disembodied consciousness get so good at timing?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, the timing, etc., have to be right. There are many things that must come together, it must be the right parents, etc.


Andrew108 said:
2. You need the consciousness of the mother and father to create the conditions for the entry of a third consciousness. Which is more important for life, the consciousness of the mother and father or the consciousness of the third party?

Malcolm wrote:
Indeed, they have to be having sex. That requires that they are conscious beings, of course. One has to have all three things. In other words, parents engaging in sex (in the case of a human birth), and a gandharva that seeks rebirth.


Andrew108 said:
3. The disembodied consciousness must exist somewhere before descending into the womb. What is the nature of the place where the consciousness exists prior to the descent?

Malcolm wrote:
The bardo.


Andrew108 said:
Is it a bounded place?

Malcolm wrote:
No. Its more like a phase. You should read Birth, Life and Death by ChNN. He has a beautiful description of the bardo, and so on.

Andrew108 said:
Is it locatable? Is it another dimension? What is the relationship between that place and the dimension of our physical reality? In what way can they interact? The non-physical penetrating the physical?

Malcolm wrote:
Physical reality is merely an (strong) illusion. There is no physical reality in fact. In the end, the only thing that is "real" is consciousness.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 5th, 2014 at 8:48 PM
Title: Re: Difference between consciousness and the mind
Content:
Sherab said:
So does an unconscious being has a mind if there is no cognition whatsoever?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, it continues as the ālayavijñāna, for example, in nirodha-samapatti.

Sherab said:
Isn't it the case that for an untrained being, he is unconscious at the time of black near attainment?  If yes, can an unconscious being at the time of black near attainment has luminosity as the object of his mind?

Malcolm wrote:
It is not that an untrained being is unconscious. He or she is simply not able to recognize the moment of luminosity when it occurs because it is very brief.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 4th, 2014 at 10:17 AM
Title: Re: Difference between consciousness and the mind
Content:
Sherab said:
I have two questions for you.

If the two truths are cognitions, what cognition is there for a being who is unconscious?  More specifically, what cognition is there for a being in the state of black near attainment in the death process?

If the two truths are cognitions, and there is no subject-object duality, then cognition is present in rocks, plants, etc., things that we normally think as not having cognitions of any sort.  Is this a valid conclusion?  If not, why not?

Malcolm wrote:
By definition an unconscious being has no cognitions.

Second, luminosity is the object of the mind of the black near attainment.

When there is no subject object duality, then according to the Yogacara school there are no further cognitions of things like rocks and trees, which are understood to be mind only. That absence of subject/object duality aka mind only,  is understood by them to be ultimate truth. The appearances of rocks and trees are understood to be relative.

For Madhyamaka the cognition of subject and object is considered relative, when it is understood and realized that all phenomena are empty, that correct cognition is termed ultimate truth and subject and object cognition ceases.

So, your conclusion is not valid, and misses the barn by a wide mark.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 4th, 2014 at 2:02 AM
Title: Re: Difference between consciousness and the mind
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
It means that consciousness descends into the womb, in the case of human being, joining with the spermatozoon and oocyte at the moment of conception.

PadmaVonSamba said:
You are describing what and I am interested in how.
In other word, what "appropriate" entails.
.  .  .

Malcolm wrote:
If you properly study Dharma, you will understand the how.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 4th, 2014 at 2:01 AM
Title: Re: Difference between consciousness and the mind
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
In any event, what you are fundamentally suggesting is that a spermatozoon has a consciousness, separate from the consciousness that descends into the womb at the moment of conception.

PadmaVonSamba said:
You know, that theory, which I think is from Padmasambhava, has a lot of holes in it.

.  .  .

Malcolm wrote:
That teaching is from the Buddha; specifically the Mahāniddana sutta:

"'From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-and-form.' Thus it has been said. And this is the way to understand how from consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-and-form. If consciousness were not to descend into the mother's womb, would name-and-form take shape in the womb?"

"No, lord."

"If, after descending into the womb, consciousness were to depart, would name-and-form be produced for this world?"

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.15.0.than.html


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 4th, 2014 at 12:38 AM
Title: Re: intoxication and tibetan buddhism
Content:
ovi said:
Meditation has been the only and single essential factor. Cannabis was a completely unessential one, yet very helpful, for reasons I have already talked about, that is, its powerful anxiolytic effect that it had upon me, which actually allowed me to meditate. I am well aware that it doesn't work the same way with everybody, it can even be anxiogenic to others, but telling me how I am completely deluded about this aspect isn't meant to be helpful, nor is it true.

Malcolm wrote:
Meditation has been the only and single essential factor.

Then why bother defending herb as useful for Buddhist practice?

I am well aware that it doesn't work the same way with everybody

It pretty much does, despite what you presently believe.

telling me how I am completely deluded about this aspect isn't meant to be helpful, nor is it true

It is both helpful and true.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 4th, 2014 at 12:34 AM
Title: Re: Difference between consciousness and the mind
Content:
PadmaVonSamba said:
Let's define this concept of appropriation...what that actually means in terms of awareness or consciousness arising with, or somehow interacting with organic  (or, inorganic matter, from which organic matter is composed) matter.

Malcolm wrote:
It means that consciousness descends into the womb, in the case of human being, joining with the spermatozoon and oocyte at the moment of conception.

PadmaVonSamba said:
You see, I am asking this because I want to understand why, if awareness appropriates a collection of cells (my body) at some point, or  even something formless, why not consider that it appropriates a single cell as well?

Malcolm wrote:
The material aggregate consists of sense organs and sense objects. A cell does not have sense organs. Plants do not have sense organs. Spermatozoa and oocytes do not have sense organs.

In any event, what you are fundamentally suggesting is that a spermatozoon has a consciousness, separate from the consciousness that descends into the womb at the moment of conception.

If you say "Sentient beings exist in seven locations' then are you not essentially saying that awareness/consciousness appropriates seven different sets of conditions?
.  .  .[/quote]

I am saying that there are six realms and the bardo; that is where sentient beings live.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 3rd, 2014 at 11:27 PM
Title: Re: intoxication and tibetan buddhism
Content:
ovi said:
I have smoked in the past, but it never got me out of depression until I combined it with meditation. I was never stoned during the meditation process, I consumed less than 1g/week. You know, your entire argument is flawed simply by claiming your own experience is that of everybody else.

Malcolm wrote:
I am glad you no longer feel depressed, but that fact that meditation is the key that helped you feel less depressed should tell you something about the effects of herb on your persona.

It's simple anatomy and pharmacology.

In any event, you do as you please. The reason why I spoke up is that I have more experience in this department than you. I am older, have been practicing far longer, and so on.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 3rd, 2014 at 9:09 PM
Title: Re: intoxication and tibetan buddhism
Content:
ovi said:
I don't want to turn this thread into a place to post endless studies on psychedelics, but you realize that not all studies agree with your conclusions. Furthermore, I don't see how one can reject psychoactive substances in general. Don't you think people should receive treatment for depression, bipolar disorder, anxiety and other disorders if such treatment is useful? None of them are a panacea, but that doesn't reject their usefulness.

Malcolm wrote:
Everything can be medicine and everything can be poison; but that depends on the skill of the physician.

On the other hand, serious meditation practitioners generally avoid all drugs, as well as being intoxicated on alcohol.

In order to discover exactly how deleterious the effects of herb are on meditation, you would have had to have stopped smoking herb completely for at least a year and then resume it to observe its effects on your meditation practice.

Have you done this experiment?

I have. I can report that the effects of smoking herb on one's meditation practice is definitely not good. It leaves one with a cloudy fog which lasts anywhere from a day to a week depending on how much herb one has smoked and its quality. So now I do not smoke herb, nor do I take other kinds of drugs, all of which in my younger days I have done in large quantities. So, you are not speaking with someone who has no personal experience.

Of course, regular people who do not imagine themselves great meditators may do as they please, but not practitioners.

Of course, you may persist in your folly, that is your choice. But at least I have satisfied my obligation to inform you it is a folly.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 3rd, 2014 at 9:02 PM
Title: Re: intoxication and tibetan buddhism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
You are kidding yourself, however, it is really none of my business if you decide to follow a mistaken method.

ovi said:
This mistaken method allowed me end a 14-year old depression in one month of meditation and turn my mind towards Buddhism. It's good enough for me! Plus, I already said that in my case it's quite useful for reaching one-pointed concentration and maintaining it for hours. I don't see how anyone could fool themselves about what I said. Aren't we supposed to master all jhanas long before enlightenment? That is enter it at will, maintain it for as long as we want, leave at will and experience all the factors involved. Cannabis made my entry into the first jhana easier and that's about it; no mastery of even the first jhana; maintaining perfect one-pointed concentration for a few hours every day for a month is likely to get you some partial insight into the truth; reading about the kind of serenity and insight I have to develop shows me that all of my progress is quite meager in strength and I never said otherwise.

Malcolm wrote:
I can see how a stoned person can be in a state of distraction for hours and fool themselves into believing it was one pointed concentration.

ovi said:
What exactly is so wrong about what I said?

Malcolm wrote:
It contradicts every teaching of the Buddha on the nature of intoxicants.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 3rd, 2014 at 8:58 PM
Title: Re: Difference between consciousness and the mind
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
There are four kinds of bases that a given consciousness is can appropriate: moisture and heat birth, egg birth, womb birth and apparitional birth.

PadmaVonSamba said:
So, are you now saying that prior to "appropriating" some organic substance,
something separate from organic substance, that can be called 'consciousness," exists?
.   .   .


Malcolm wrote:
Not exactly. Sentient beings exist in seven locations, the six realms  + the bardo. In each one they appropriate a body (one of four kinds) and have done so since beginningless time. Not all bodies are "material" on the coarse material sense of the term.

This is all Elementary Buddhism 101, what I am saying is not even slightly controversaial.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 3rd, 2014 at 10:04 AM
Title: Re: Difference between consciousness and the mind
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Truths are merely cognitions (of an object); one false, the other veridical. This is why they are inseparable, for they are cognitions of the nature of one and the same entity, one false; the other, correct.

Sherab said:
You are arguing within a framework where there is subject-object duality.  I am arguing within a framework free of subject-object duality.

Malcolm wrote:
No, you are not, since truths are nothing other than cognitions. After all, you introduced the notion of "relative" into the conversation, not me.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 3rd, 2014 at 10:01 AM
Title: Re: intoxication and tibetan buddhism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
No, actually it does not. Marijuana impairs short term memory, and that is necessary for mindfulness by definition.

ovi said:
I can't deny facts. Cannabis is used world-wide for spiritual purposes and it has enhanced every part of my meditation session. It does a great job in calming my mind, I've spent hours in just being mindful of breathing without a single interruption, a thing much more difficult for me to do otherwise, it allows me to enter jhana in a matter of minutes, it allowed me to identify the direct connection between emptiness and dependent origination and I've had some pretty neat direct partial experiences of sunyata with ease. It's not essential for practice, but it was quite helpful in understanding the Dharma and turning me towards Buddhism. How it does that, I don't know. I've once read that although it impairs short-term memory, it vastly improves visual memory, among other things.

Malcolm wrote:
You are kidding yourself, however, it is really none of my business if you decide to follow a mistaken method.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 3rd, 2014 at 8:21 AM
Title: Re: Underweight worse then being overweight?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
In general, in Ayurveda and Tibetan Medicine consider that is best to be "slim". But slim does not mean underweight. It just means not carrying around too much extra weight.

Adi said:
And in general, if I'm not mistaken, both medicines don't take a universal approach to there being only one kind of person and One True Diet or One Best Food for everyone. Like coconut oil, it might be suggested for some in generous quantity, just a little for others, and strongly suggested not at all for some others. Or sunflower oil for one person, coconut oil for another, and for a third only small amounts of ghee depending on that person's constitution and their present situation.

Adi


Malcolm wrote:
Correct.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 3rd, 2014 at 8:16 AM
Title: Re: Difference between consciousness and the mind
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
There are two kinds of life: sentient and non-sentient.

PadmaVonSamba said:
I see....so, a single cell is not sentient, but if it merges with another singe cell (which, by the way, is also not sentient) and then splits into a few more cells, and they divide into even more cells, and so on and so on...
then at some point the cells themselves "become" sentient?
...or no?
but if the cells are not sentient, then where is the sentience?



So, are you now saying that sentience is a property of organic matter itself?
. . .

Malcolm wrote:
Cells never become sentient, since sentience is not an emergent property of matter (which is why plants, which have cells, are nevertheless not included within sentient life). When a specific consciousness appropriates a basis, a material form, we call that "sentient life". There are four kinds of bases that a given consciousness is can appropriate: moisture and heat birth, egg birth, womb birth and apparitional birth.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 3rd, 2014 at 8:11 AM
Title: Re: Difference between consciousness and the mind
Content:
Sherab said:
Sure, but only if you don't hold the view that the relative is all there is.

Malcolm wrote:
All there is is the union of the two truths. If there is a basis, that is the basis.

Sherab said:
In the two truths model of reality, the relative truth is ultimately false, there is just one truth at the end.

If there is just one truth in the end, the so-called union of the two truth is true only provisionally and false ultimately.

Malcolm wrote:
Of course, who ever suggested otherwise?

"Since the Jinas have proposed that nirvana alone is true,
what wise person would imagine that the rest was not false?"
-- Nāgarjuna

Sherab said:
The basis in the end, can only be the ultimate truth and the relative truth can only be a "truth" that emerges from the ultimate truth.  In other words, from a true basis, a false basis can arise.  Since the false basis arises from the true basis, it is possible to have the concept of a union of the relative and the ultimate where the relative is a "pure" relative rather than an "impure" relative.

Malcolm wrote:
Truths are merely cognitions (of an object); one false, the other veridical. This is why they are inseparable, for they are cognitions of the nature of one and the same entity, one false; the other, correct.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 3rd, 2014 at 4:24 AM
Title: Re: Underweight worse then being overweight?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
If you simply rely on the wisdom of the ṛṣīs, you will be fine.

dzogchungpa said:
May I ask what the ṛṣīs say?


Malcolm wrote:
Read either the four tantras or ayurvedic texts such as the Carakasamhita, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 3rd, 2014 at 4:19 AM
Title: Re: Underweight worse then being overweight?
Content:
KeithBC said:
On the other hand, numerous studies have shown an increase in longevity on a restricted-calorie diet.

It might come down to reading the fine print in the specific studies, something that you can't do in the popular media.

Om mani padme hum
Keith

Indrajala said:
There are so many conflicting opinions. I think too many researchers make a living from coming up with new facts about diet and health. It is a way to advance your career and probably secure funding as anything to do with diet and health will prove popular.

Malcolm wrote:
If you simply rely on the wisdom of the ṛṣīs, you will be fine.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 3rd, 2014 at 4:18 AM
Title: Re: Underweight worse then being overweight?
Content:
Indrajala said:
There was an interesting new study done suggesting being underweight is more dangerous to one's health than being overweight...

Malcolm wrote:
In general, in Ayurveda and Tibetan Medicine consider that is best to be "slim". But slim does not mean underweight. It just means not carrying around too much extra weight.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 3rd, 2014 at 3:10 AM
Title: Re: Difference between consciousness and the mind
Content:
Andrew108 said:
The cause/effect regression isn't an infinite regression.

Malcolm wrote:
Of course it is. Why? a first cause would be an unconditioned cause. An unconditioned thing can have no effect on a conditioned thing.

Andrew108 said:
Entropy

Malcolm wrote:
Consciousness, being without mass, does not generate heat and is not subject to the law of entropy.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 3rd, 2014 at 3:08 AM
Title: Re: Difference between consciousness and the mind
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Chemical attractions do not indicate the presence of awareness.

PadmaVonSamba said:
The fact that the sperm does not randomly land on the egg but specifically goes toward it demonstrates something more than random chemical interactions. The fact of specific attraction (as opposed to, say, gravitational pull or magnetism, or some sort of stickiness) may not define "awareness" in your book. Whether it is attraction to chemicals, or heat or light is beside the point I am making, which is that something that is alive (A) responds specifically to stimuli from something else which is alive (B). I think that counts for something.
.  .  .

Malcolm wrote:
There are two kinds of life: sentient and non-sentient.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 3rd, 2014 at 3:07 AM
Title: Re: Difference between consciousness and the mind
Content:
Andrew108 said:
The cause/effect regression isn't an infinite regression.

Malcolm wrote:
Of course it is. Why? a first cause would be an unconditioned cause. An unconditioned thing can have no effect on a conditioned thing.

PadmaVonSamba said:
So..what's the cause of the whole "cause & effect"  thing?

...

Malcolm wrote:
An effect of something else.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 3rd, 2014 at 3:00 AM
Title: Re: Difference between consciousness and the mind
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Chemical attractions do not indicate the presence of awareness.

PadmaVonSamba said:
There is nothing going on in the brain but chemical interactions and electricity.
I am not saying that the chemicals or their interactions "have" awareness.
In fact, completely the opposite.

Malcolm wrote:
No, you are saying that sperm has a mind since it evinces what you term "awareness".

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 3rd, 2014 at 12:14 AM
Title: Re: Difference between consciousness and the mind
Content:
Sherab said:
Sure, but only if you don't hold the view that the relative is all there is.

Malcolm wrote:
All there is is the union of the two truths. If there is a basis, that is the basis.

All the path is is the union of the method and compassion. If there is a path, that is the path

All the result is is the union of the two kāyas. If there is a result, that is the result.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 3rd, 2014 at 12:08 AM
Title: Re: Difference between consciousness and the mind
Content:
PadmaVonSamba said:
In that case,  a single-cell organism would be sufficient for the arising of awareness.
You are saying it's not, because of certain factors that a single cell organism lacks,
and then you say those same factors are not dependent on the very thing a single-cell organism lacks.

garudha said:
The way you (PadmaVonSamba) address intelligent life is that sentience is a property of organic matter. Then, elsewhere, I read that form is inherently empty. Personally I took "form" to mean all organic matter, and therefore, that all organic matter is a property of sentience (eg Mind). If, however, form is inherently empty; then how could sentience appropriate form? --that would be a massive contradiction.

PadmaVonSamba said:
No, I have not said that sentience is a property of organic matter.
In fact, just the opposite, constantly.

What I have said is that organic matter merely provides the conditions by which basic awareness manifests as the subject-object experience ("mind"). What distinguishes a living thing from a non-living thing is exactly this. Hence, a sperm cell, lacking any sensory apparatus whatsoever, no skandhas, no 12-links, is still attracted to progesterone excreted by the egg.
And my point was that, just as a tiny drop of dew can reflect the Sun, even a tiny think such as a sperm cell is sufficient for the reflection of awareness.

And regardless of whether one calls it "awareness" or not, the fact that the sperm does not randomly land on the egg but specifically goes toward it demonstrates a basic level of  specific ("intentional") interaction. And I would even go so far as to suggest that this is at the root of our whole subject-object / self-other experience that is the dominating feature of mind.
...

Malcolm wrote:
Chemical attractions do not indicate the presence of awareness.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 3rd, 2014 at 12:07 AM
Title: Re: Difference between consciousness and the mind
Content:
Andrew108 said:
The cause/effect regression isn't an infinite regression.

Malcolm wrote:
Of course it is. Why? a first cause would be an unconditioned cause. An unconditioned thing can have no effect on a conditioned thing.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 3rd, 2014 at 12:06 AM
Title: Re: Difference between consciousness and the mind
Content:
Sherab said:
Impermanent are all component things,
...
Release from them is bliss supreme.
— Mahaa-Parinibbaana Sutta (DN 16)


"There is, monks, an unborn .... If there were not that unborn ..., there would not be the case that emancipation from the born.... But precisely because there is an unborn ..., emancipation from the born ... is discerned."
— Ud 8.3

Malcolm wrote:
This is reconciled by the Mahāyāna doctrine that all conditioned things are in a state of nirvana from the beginning.

M

Sherab said:
How do all conditioned things relate to being in a state of nirvana from the beginning?  I am not saying that they are not.  What I am saying is that the words "release" and "emancipation" means that taking the relative as all there is, can never reconcile the meaning of the two quotations.

Malcolm wrote:
Liberation, in Mahāyāna, is merely the realization that "all conditioned things are in a state of nirvana from the beginning".

It means realizing that the nature of the arising, etc., is precisely, non-arising.

As a tantra states:

"Everything arose from non-arising,
even arising never arose."

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 2nd, 2014 at 9:04 AM
Title: Re: Difference between consciousness and the mind
Content:
Sherab said:
Impermanent are all component things,
...
Release from them is bliss supreme.
— Mahaa-Parinibbaana Sutta (DN 16)


"There is, monks, an unborn .... If there were not that unborn ..., there would not be the case that emancipation from the born.... But precisely because there is an unborn ..., emancipation from the born ... is discerned."
— Ud 8.3

Malcolm wrote:
This is reconciled by the Mahāyāna doctrine that all conditioned things are in a state of nirvana from the beginning.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 2nd, 2014 at 7:59 AM
Title: Re: Difference between consciousness and the mind
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Every effect arises from a cause; every cause is an effect. That is a complete explanation and also an infinite regression.

Sherab said:
I disagree.  It merely means that causality is the explanation for specific events within an infinite regression while the infinite regression is an axiom or postulate.

Malcolm wrote:
The infinite regression is neither an axiom nor a postulate, it is an inference.
To answer your other question, the stream of cittas has no basis, being empty.
This is no answer from my point of view.

If by empty you mean that the stream of cittas is an infinite causal chain, then the infinite regression is not explained but has to be assumed.  In my understanding of the Buddha's teaching, this becomes a fault in that the stream of cittas is always subject to change and because of that, there can be no permanent liberation.
By empty we mean it is not ultimately established.

Liberation (as opposed to Buddhahood) is defined by the eradication of afflictions or fetters in relation to the mind (stream). Through aryan insight those afflictions are "burned", and thus they no longer produce results (birth in various aspects of the three realms), that is all liberation means and no new afflictive traces are created.

The stream of cittas is subject to causation, but that does not bear the consequence that liberation is a) impossible or b) reversible.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 2nd, 2014 at 6:10 AM
Title: Re: intoxication and tibetan buddhism
Content:
ovi said:
On the other hand, cannabis enhances my mindfulness and the strength of the meditation session and even more so when taken together with piracetam and lecithin

Malcolm wrote:
No, actually it does not. Marijuana impairs short term memory, and that is necessary for mindfulness by definition.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 2nd, 2014 at 12:41 AM
Title: Re: Difference between consciousness and the mind
Content:
Sherab said:
As Malcolm said, the fault of the argument is infinite regression rather than circularity.  Circularity anyway is a special form of infinite regression.  For me, explanation that results in infinite regression is faulty because it indicates incompleteness of the explanation.  In other words, an explanation with infinite regression must also explain that infinite regression if the explanation is to be complete.

Explanations that involves causality and dependent origination can never be complete since they lead to infinite regression.  That is why I feel that they can never be satisfactory explanation when they are employed in an ontological argument without being complemented by something else.

Here I should add that where science is concerned, it usually does not have problem with explanations that involve beginninglessness or endlessness, or both.  This is because by nature, explanations of science, are inherently provisional.

Malcolm wrote:
Every effect arises from a cause; every cause is an effect. That is a complete explanation and also an infinite regression.

To answer your other question, the stream of cittas has no basis, being empty.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 31st, 2014 at 11:37 PM
Title: Re: Difference between consciousness and the mind
Content:


Sherab said:
Even if you take appearing as synonymous with existing conventionally and leave out the part of labelling, the form of my argument as presented still holds.

In other words, things appearing is due to karmic traces appearing; karmic traces appearing is due to mind appearing; and mind appearing is due to mind appearing.  Circularity of argument still exists in the end.

Malcolm wrote:
No.

Things [mental appearances] appear because of karmic traces; karmic traces occur because of afflicted minds, afflicted minds also arise because of karma traces. Minds are both cause and results; traces are both causes and results.

Since Buddhadarma rejects origins, the fault you should be seeking is infinite regress, not circularity, but in this case, there is no problem since mind has not discernible origin. There is not absolute beginning to the process of mind, affliction, traces, ripening of traces (appearances) and so on.

The doctrine you should be examining is called citta saṃtana parināma, i.e., transformations of the stream of cittas.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 31st, 2014 at 9:42 PM
Title: Re: Dungse Rigzin Dorje Rinpoche
Content:
KonchokZoepa said:
Hi, does anyone know this Lama.

What is the name of his home monastery and is it in Assam?

does he uphold the complete Vima Nyingtik cycle?


Malcolm wrote:
Yes.

Zangdog Palri

Yes.

he is the son of Kunzang Dechen Lingpa, and is an excellent teacher.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 31st, 2014 at 9:37 PM
Title: Re: Difference between consciousness and the mind
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
An answer to a question is not an assertion, providing the answer does not exceed the scope of the question.

M

Sherab said:
Not expecting this answer from you though.  I thought you could see the internal contradiction in your reply.

Here is how I see the problem of your argument:

Things, exists only conventionally, i.e., appearance appears and the mind labelled the appearances thereby giving things a conventional existence.

Malcolm wrote:
The label does not given something conventional existence; the mere appearances of a thing is its conventional existence.

Sherab said:
Karmic traces causes the appearances of things, but karmic traces are also conventionally existent, i.e., appearances of karmic traces appear to the mind and are then given the label karmic traces.

Malcolm wrote:
See above.

Sherab said:
In our discussion, karmic traces is none other than mind.

Malcolm wrote:
Traces are actually impressions made on the mind by actions. The result of those actions arise when special conditions for the ripening of those traces are met.

Sherab said:
So there is an appearance of mind that the mind then give the label mind and thereby gives mind a conventional existence.  This is inherently a circular argument.

Malcolm wrote:
But it is not my argument, it is an argument you have constructed for me.

Sherab said:
Because of the inherent circularity in your argument, as far as I am concerned, your answer is a non-answer.

Malcolm wrote:
You have non-answered yourself since you have not presented my argument.

Sherab said:
It is also inherently contradictory as the conventional existence of the mind must exist before it can give itself a conventional existence.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, if you think that conventional existence depends on labels, that would be a problem.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 31st, 2014 at 12:47 PM
Title: Re: Difference between consciousness and the mind
Content:
Sherab said:
If so, then how do appearances arise?

Malcolm wrote:
Conventionally.

Sherab said:
Another assertion?

Malcolm wrote:
An answer to a question is not an assertion, providing the answer does not exceed the scope of the question.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 31st, 2014 at 8:55 AM
Title: Re: Difference between consciousness and the mind
Content:
Sherab said:
If so, then how do appearances arise?

Malcolm wrote:
Conventionally.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 31st, 2014 at 8:14 AM
Title: Re: Difference between consciousness and the mind
Content:
Andrew108 said:
For example, how do idealists account for cosmic inflation? Or mass? Or light? Or space/time?

Malcolm wrote:
Buddhism is not idealism in the sense you understand.

Buddhism accounts for all of these things, cosmic inflation, mass, light, space, etc. via conventional truth.

Sherab said:
Buddhism does not account for these things.  Buddhism merely asserts that these things are conventional in the sense that ultimately, these things don't exist when you analyse them to hunt for their source or sources.  But this would contract another assertion that mind(s) (where mind now has to take the specific definition of karmic traces and not other definitions of mind) is(are) the source of these things.

Malcolm wrote:
No. There is no contradiction. When you hunt for mind you do not find it either.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 31st, 2014 at 7:40 AM
Title: Re: Difference between consciousness and the mind
Content:
Andrew108 said:
For example, how do idealists account for cosmic inflation? Or mass? Or light? Or space/time?

Malcolm wrote:
Buddhism is not idealism in the sense you understand.

Buddhism accounts for all of these things, cosmic inflation, mass, light, space, etc. via conventional truth.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 31st, 2014 at 1:59 AM
Title: Re: Difference between consciousness and the mind
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
there is no awareness which can be defined as something separate from a consciousness or a mind.

PadmaVonSamba said:
There is if you are talking about intentional, rather than merely random response to stimuli, whereby A is attracted specifically to B and commences actions which draw it closer to making contact with B. We have discussed this before. It may not be any sort of cognitive awareness, but as opposed to just lying their with no intentional response at all (two rocks lying next to each other) or making contact purely at random (seeds blowing in the wind until they land), you have to have some term for something in which which one thing somehow senses the existence of something else, and for lack of a better term, I use the term basic awareness. So, I am defining it that way.

Malcolm wrote:
Right, and I don't accept your theory. There is only awareness is strictly cognitive.



According Dzogchen, Mahāmudra and so on, no phenomena outside of mind can be established at all, that is, all physical appearances are projections of traces on mind streams, following the Yogacara school.
That is easily disproved, by examples which i have already given, such as not knowing one has cancer.
You don't understand; appearances are generated by activated traces which exist in the ālayavijñān̄a. We do not need to be "aware" of these traced for them to be activated. You may think Yogacara is easy to refute, but it isn't.

PadmaVonSamba said:
A common misunderstanding is that nothing occurs anywhere outside of awareness.

Malcolm wrote:
Again, it depends on your point of view.

PadmaVonSamba said:
Unless you know everything that is happening in the universe, and nothing can ever be discovered that you didn't already know about, this might be the case. Otherwise, a sane point of view is that there is stuff happening that nobody knows about.

Malcolm wrote:
You need to study Yogacara, only then will you understand the context of this. It is more profound than your realism.
After all, the Buddha stated "The three realms are only mind."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 30th, 2014 at 11:56 PM
Title: Re: Difference between consciousness and the mind
Content:


PadmaVonSamba said:
However, a background, or 'ground of awareness' can be said to function, which is usually experienced as a separate perceiver when in contact with phenomena.

Malcolm wrote:
Nevertheless, there is no awareness which can be defined as something separate from a consciousness or a mind.

PadmaVonSamba said:
But physical phenomena, for example, can exist with no awareness of it.

Malcolm wrote:
That depends. According Dzogchen, Mahāmudra and so on, no phenomena outside of mind can be established at all, that is, all physical appearances are projections of traces on mind streams, following the Yogacara school.

PadmaVonSamba said:
A common misunderstanding is that nothing occurs anywhere outside of awareness.

Malcolm wrote:
Again, it depends on your point of view.

PadmaVonSamba said:
Another common misunderstanding is that "illumination" means that the mind is like a beam from a flashlight, that  actually comes from someplace and shines on objects thus causing them to occur.

Malcolm wrote:
I have never run across such an assertion in any Buddhist text.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 30th, 2014 at 2:49 AM
Title: Re: Difference between consciousness and the mind
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
... we are speaking about something which exhibits sentience, i.e. a mind.

Gwenn Dana said:
How do you call the thinking facility then?

Malcolm wrote:
A mind. What else? A mind is that which can know, we can use the term consciousness, awareness, mind, knowing etc., but it all boils down to one thing, a mind, i.e. something that has the capacity for knowing. A buddha's consciousness is unrestricted, therefore we say that a buddha is omniscient.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 30th, 2014 at 1:48 AM
Title: Re: Difference between consciousness and the mind
Content:
garudha said:
Malcolm, your statement seems to state that awareness is a property of consciousness.
PadmaVonSamba, your question somewhat assumes that consciousness is a property of awareness.

If you remove all your clothes and go skinny-dipping in what respect do you regard yourself as naked ?

Malcolm wrote:
Awareness is conscious = consciousness is aware.

1 + 1 = 1 + 1

M

bob said:
Awareness is mind without objects.
Consciousness is mind with objects.


Malcolm wrote:
In the end it all boils down to pure consciousness or awareness, whether with objects or without — we are speaking about something which exhibits sentience, i.e. a mind.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 28th, 2014 at 10:02 PM
Title: Re: Śākyamuni's non-Indo-European heritage.
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Witzel's book is not racist, he explicitly states that all human beings come from Africa, and that we have have a common ancestor. He is merely saying that are two streams of myth development, a northern and a southern one and that the southern one seems to lack certain themes found in the northern one. But he never says on the basis of this that the Laurasian stream is "superior" to the Gondwana stream. That is a fallacious imputation on the part of the reviewers.


Indrajala said:
Incidentally for some great information on what constitutes proto-Indo-European religion, at least under reconstruction, see the following:

http://piereligion.org/pierintro.html

Malcolm wrote:
The answers to all of these questions and many more are to be found in Witzel's new book:

The Origins of the World's Mythologies. Oxford University Press

He has questioned the linguistic nature of the so-called Indus Script (Farmer, Sproat, Witzel 2004).[70] Earlier, he had suggested that a substrate related to, but not identical with the Austroasiatic Munda languages, which he therefore calls para-Munda, might have been the language of (part of) the Indus population.[71][72]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Witzel#Research

Sherlock said:
There seems to be a lot of dissent among the Amazon reviews. Is it mostly coming from Hindu nationalists upset at Witzel for suggesting that Indo-Aryans are not native to India?

I know genetics don't necessarily tell the story of cultures and languages, but in many ways, it is more "rigorous" than linguistic reconstruction.

http://dienekes.blogspot.co.uk/ collates a lot of relevant genetic studies in anthropology.

I haven't looked in too much detail in the studies on South Asian DNA, but the Indo-European spread in Europe seems to be quite clear.

Europe was populated by dark-skinned hunter-gatherers who might have had light-hair and eyes throughout the Mesolithic, WHG (Western Hunter Gatherers) in short. In the Neolithic, around 7,500 years ago, groups of agriculturalists from the Middle East started moving into Europe. They shared some ancestry with the WHGs but 44% of their DNA came from a lineage which diverged from the main lineage of Eurasians (who later split into West and East Eurasians) early on. These Early European Farmers (EEF) did not mix with the existing WHG population, the population spread was demic, not clinal; i.e. they killed the hunter-gatherers and took their lands. Areas which were previously inhabited by WHGs were taken over by EEF descendants who did not incorporate WHG DNA. EEF spread throughout Europe, West to Iberia and north to Scandinavia. The genes for white skin seem to come from this period. Later on, around 4,000 years ago, a new group of http://dienekes.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/bronze-age-indo-european-invasion-of.html came in. They spread throughout Europe though the West Asian component is lowest in Iberia, Sardinia and Finland. The surviving WHG DNA also mixed into the resulting population.

I think the picture is quite clear that the West Asians are Indo-Europeans. The areas where West Asian DNA is lowest were the main non-Indo-European-speaking regions in Europe historically. The Iberians probably spoke languages related to Basque, and the Finns also speak a non-Indo-European language.

The situation in India seems to be more complex, with East Eurasian-related groups already living in East India, http://dienekes.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/smbe-2012-abstracts-part-ii.html. There seems to be some presence of http://dienekes.blogspot.co.uk/2010/12/solution-to-problem-of-indo-aryan.html DNA in Ancestral North Indian populations. http://dienekes.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/major-admixture-in-india-took-place-42.html.

This is very interesting IMO, I'm not sure exactly what it means but to wager a guess, I think proto-Indo-Europeans weren't genetically distant from ANIs enough for a different population structure to be detected; their spread through India was more of a cultural phenomenon than in Europe and they influenced the pre-existing populations to mix. Dravidian speakers today also carry ANI DNA.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 28th, 2014 at 7:55 AM
Title: Re: Difference between consciousness and the mind
Content:
garudha said:
Malcolm, your statement seems to state that awareness is a property of consciousness.
PadmaVonSamba, your question somewhat assumes that consciousness is a property of awareness.

If you remove all your clothes and go skinny-dipping in what respect do you regard yourself as naked ?

Malcolm wrote:
Awareness is conscious = consciousness is aware.

1 + 1 = 1 + 1

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 28th, 2014 at 6:44 AM
Title: Re: Difference between consciousness and the mind
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
There is still no "awareness" in absence of a consciousness-which-is-aware, whether that consciousness has an object or not.

PadmaVonSamba said:
You are saying, without an object (of awareness or of consciousness) to be aware of
there is no faculty of awareness or consciousness whatsoever.
correct?

Malcolm wrote:
Incorrect. I am saying:
There is no "awareness" in absence of a consciousness-which-is-aware, whether or not that consciousness has an object.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 28th, 2014 at 3:29 AM
Title: Re: Your gender and sexuality
Content:
zsc said:
When the same kind of self-reflection is suggested when it comes to privilege, you'd think I was asking people to lasso the moon.

Malcolm wrote:
I am certainly glad that I was born into a privileged family.

I think it is unfortunate that others are not.

But short of some massive anti-democratic program of social and economic planning, I see no clear means to ensure everyone has the same privilege, the best we can do is try to make sure everyone has the same baseline of opportunity in terms of education, social services, health care, and so on.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 28th, 2014 at 3:21 AM
Title: Re: Difference between consciousness and the mind
Content:
garudha said:
Reading between the lines; That explanation would be the yes that I presumed you'd somehow allude to. Although I recognise that we're referring to am Indian "materialist" philosophy. Thank you.

Malcolm wrote:
No, Samkhya is not materialist, it is realist, not the same thing at all.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 28th, 2014 at 3:09 AM
Title: Re: Who are the best teachers of non-duality?
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
Which is to say that Hindu Advaita is a form of monism?  It seems so.

Malcolm wrote:
Yup.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 28th, 2014 at 3:04 AM
Title: Re: Difference between consciousness and the mind
Content:
garudha said:
Malcolm;

Would you agree that Prakriti is actually empty ?

Malcolm wrote:
That is not how it is parsed in the Samkhya system; Samkhya is realist, both prakriti and purusha are real, i.e. they exist.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 28th, 2014 at 2:51 AM
Title: Re: Difference between consciousness and the mind
Content:


PadmaVonSamba said:
So, the distinction being made is awareness or consciousness, both with, and without an object.
(the terms "awareness" and "consciousness" may be interchangeable but what is being referred to is not.)

Malcolm wrote:
There is still no "awareness" in absence of a consciousness-which-is-aware, whether that consciousness has an object or not.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 28th, 2014 at 2:36 AM
Title: Re: Difference between consciousness and the mind
Content:
garudha said:
Malcolm & Gwenn, you seem to be agreement over a "final step" ...of which could be construed as the cessation of causation eg leading to a "absolute".

Therefore, please could you detail how your agreement might relate the the OP. Specifically, how Puruṣa & Prakriti relate to the "consciousnesses" and "mind".

Why? Because on this forum we generally talk about "mind" as being primordial than "consciousnesses". However; from what I'm reading about Samkhya, "consciousnesses" is regarded as more primordial than "mind".

The question:
Can anyone explain something about this or point me to an article?

There exists consciousnesses corresponding to the senses, but it´s not the mind in itself, right. While consciousness is dependent on and part of the psycho-physical makeup (as part of the aggregates), the mind is independent of physical matter, or?

Malcolm wrote:
In Samkhya Purusha is pure consciousness. Prakriti lacks consciousness and is material. It is "energized" by Purusha and seems to be aware, but it is not.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 28th, 2014 at 12:11 AM
Title: Re: Shamatha and Dhyana in different traditions
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
They are describing Dzogchen Śamatha which is more like repeated placement in the Bhavanakrama scheme. I am taking about your classic ninth stage śamatha where you can place your mind on any object for as long as you want without distraction and without effort.

Sherlock said:
Is what you call repeated placement the third stage in the 9 stage scheme? i.e. what Alan Wallace calls "resurgent attention". What is achieved is swift recovery of distracted attention, mostly on the object

Malcolm wrote:
Yes.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 28th, 2014 at 12:10 AM
Title: Re: Shamatha and Dhyana in different traditions
Content:
Emakirikiri said:
Malcolm does Lama Migmar's The Tibetan Book of Awakening and Kamalasila's Bhavanakrama contain enough instruction to help a beginner fully reach the one-pointedness of a mental object and the first dhyana (assuming he were in retreat)?

Thanks!

Malcolm wrote:
Yes.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 28th, 2014 at 12:07 AM
Title: Re: Difference between consciousness and the mind
Content:
Gwenn Dana said:
Of course the system is different. But I guess the method in the final step is not.

Best wishes
Gwenn


Malcolm wrote:
Yes, the method in the final step is quite different because the view is different and the result is different.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 28th, 2014 at 12:06 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist neglect of academic findings.
Content:


Indrajala said:
For instance, if so many liberated individuals in the past disdained women and suggested they needed to become men to achieve Buddhahood, what does that say about "liberation" and the purported qualities of compassion and kindness it is supposed to bring about?

Malcolm wrote:
It is well established even in Abhidharmakosha that arhats have non-afflictive ignorance.

Indrajala said:
That's not relevant to what I'm saying.

Malcolm wrote:
Sure it is, accounts for why some men who had freed themselves from afflictive rebirth nevertheless had unfortunate opinions about women.

Indrajala said:
I'm simply saying that "enlightened beings" and Buddhist values usually don't work out as they're supposed to on paper in real life history. Just look at the violent history of Buddhist Tibet.

Malcolm wrote:
It's not that violent compared to say Japan or China.

Indrajala said:
Just look at the serfs in Tibet who readily joined up with the Reds and proceeded to burn down monasteries.

Malcolm wrote:
They regret it now.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 27th, 2014 at 11:28 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist neglect of academic findings.
Content:


Indrajala said:
For instance, if so many liberated individuals in the past disdained women and suggested they needed to become men to achieve Buddhahood, what does that say about "liberation" and the purported qualities of compassion and kindness it is supposed to bring about?

Malcolm wrote:
It is well established even in Abhidharmakosha that arhats have non-afflictive ignorance.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 27th, 2014 at 11:24 PM
Title: Re: Difference between consciousness and the mind
Content:
Gwenn Dana said:
You can also call it bound and unbound consciousness, if that fits your canon better. But some may mistake this as awareness being trapped in the mind.

This differentiation is along the lines of samkhya, where awareness is first bound to form an ego (in realization of the seer/seeing), and afterward binds to the mind, creating all sorts of illusions. I know, this forum is about Buddhism. But I suppose the basic awareness processes between buddhists and other people work the same, indendent from the (21st century English!) words we use ...

You probably do not need to differ between these. I found them very helpful.

Best wishes
Gwenn


Malcolm wrote:
In Samkhya, the 24 tattvas, beginning with mulaprakṛiti, are insentient. Only purusha is sentient. Buddhi, ahamkara and mamas are actually inert, not sentient, They seem to be aware but they are not aware — in actuality, they merely reflect the light of consciousness (jñā, purusha). This is why in Saṃkhya/yoga one tries to balance three gunas, so that sattva becomes predominate, and then from there one realizes the even buddhi is not the self and then purusha finally rests in itself.

But this is a very different system than Buddhadharma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 27th, 2014 at 11:09 PM
Title: Re: Who are the best teachers of non-duality?
Content:
greentara said:
We all know non duality means one without a second.  So the world and the sense of I are not separate. To wake up is to see that 'we' exist only because the mind thinks us into creation.

Sherab Dorje said:
That's not non-dualism, that's monism.  Monism is still dualistic since it posits one in contrast to many.

Malcolm wrote:
It's Hindu Advaita, actually.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 27th, 2014 at 10:59 PM
Title: Re: Difference between consciousness and the mind
Content:
PadmaVonSamba said:
There is if you are examining or talking about dependent arising.

Malcolm wrote:
Why do you think so?

PadmaVonSamba said:
It is self evident, and I think you can easily figure this out.
If not, I am not sure when I will have time to.


Malcolm wrote:
I don't think dependent origination is wrong, of course not. I just don't think it justifies the distinctions you try to draw between awareness and consciousness.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 27th, 2014 at 9:57 PM
Title: Re: Should Buddhists even care about "engaging" social polit
Content:


rory said:
Someone hasn't read the Lotus Sutra: Chapter 12 - Devadatta

At that moment, the entire assembly saw the Dragon Girl suddenly transform into a man

Malcolm wrote:
Apparently you have not read it either.

M

rory said:
Keep reading Malcolm!

Malcolm wrote:
What it actually says:

atha tasyāṁ velāyāṁ sāgaranāgarājaduhitā sarvalokapratyakṣaṁ sthavirasya ca śāriputrasya pratyakṣaṁ tat strīndriyamantarhitaṁ puruṣendriyaṁ ca prādurbhūtaṁ bodhisattvabhūtaṁ cātmānaṁ saṁdarśayati| tasyāṁ velāyāṁ dakṣiṇāṁ diśaṁ prakrāntaḥ| atha dakṣiṇasyāṁ diśi vimalā nāma lokadhātuḥ| tatra saptaratnamaye bodhivṛkṣamūle niṣaṇṇamabhisaṁbuddhamātmānaṁ saṁdarśayati sma, dvātriṁśallakṣaṇadharaṁ sarvānuvyajanarūpaṁ prabhayā ca daśadiśaṁ sphuritvā dharmadeśanāṁ kurvāṇam|

།དེ་ནས་དེའི་ཚེ་འཇིག་རྟེན་ཐམས་ཅད་དང༌། གནས་བརྟན་ཤཱ་རིའི་བུའི་མངོན་སུམ་དུ་ཀླུའི་རྒྱལ་པོ་རྒྱ་མཚོའི་བུ་མོའི་བུད་མེད་ཀྱི་དབང་པོ་མི་སྣང་བར་གྱུར་ཏེ་སྐྱེས་པའི་དབང་པོ་བྱུང་ནས། བདག་ཉིད་བྱང་ཆུབ་སེམས་དཔར་འགྱུར་བར་ཡང་དག་པར་བསྟན་ཏེ་དེའི་ཚེ་ལྷོ་ཕྱོགས་སུ་སོང་ངོ༌། །དེ་ནས་ལྷོ་ཕྱོགས་སུ་འཇིག་རྟེན་གྱི་ཁམས་དྲི་མ་མེད་ཅེས་བྱ་བ་དང༌། རིན་པོ་ཆེ་སྣ་བདུན་གྱི་ཤིང་དྲུང་དུ་འདུག་ནས་བདག་ཉིད་མངོན་པར་རྫོགས་པར་སངས་རྒྱས་པར་ཀུན་ཏུ་བསྟན་ཏེ། སྐྱེས་བུ་ཆེན་པོའི་མཚན་སུམ་ཅུ་རྩ་གཉིས་དང༌། དཔེ་བྱད་བཟང་པོ་ཐམས་ཅད་དང་ལྡན་པའི་གཟུགས་ཀྱི་ལུས་ཀྱི་འོད་ཀྱི་ཕྱོགས་བཅུར་ཁྱབ་པར་བྱས་ཏེ་ཆོས་སྟོན་པར་བྱེད་དོ།

rory said:
After that, at that time, in the presence of the whole world, the sthaviras and Śariputra, the female sexual organs of the daughter of the Nāgarāja Sagara disappeared, and after producing the sexual organs of a man, he [ātmānaṁ] perfectly demonstrated [saṁdarśayati]  transformation into a bodhisattva, and at that time left for the south. After that, residing in front of a tree of seven precious substances in the southern world system called "Vimala", he [ātmānaṁ] perfectly demonstrated perfect Buddhahood, the ten directions were filled with the light of [his] physical body that possessed the thirty two sighs of a mahāpurusha and all the excellent signs, and [he] taught the Dharma.

Malcolm wrote:
In fact, it is very clear, based on the original Sanskrit and its Tibetan translation, that the transformation is a one way transformation, and the reflexive pronoun ātmānaṁ is correctly rendered as "he" in this passage.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 27th, 2014 at 9:19 PM
Title: Re: Should Buddhists even care about "engaging" social polit
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
see me appear before them

Malcolm wrote:
This is all it promises, and nothing more.


Son of Buddha said:
thats incorrect the Nirvana Sutra citation does in fact describe the career of a female Buddha.

Malcolm wrote:
No, it does not


Son of Buddha said:
the same goes for the Nirvana Sutra citation it shows the Buddha manifested itself in the world as a human female and then proceeded to show humans how a human person would go about the path to attaining enlightenment.So both the career paths of either man or female are both manifestations of the Buddha, and are both represented.

Malcolm wrote:
Not in sutra. Despite the fact that there is shift in late Mahāyāna towards the idea that gender is not really so important or defining, still there is no explicitly mention of female buddhas like Tara or Vajrayogini and so on until we move into Vajrayāna texts.

Son of Buddha said:
The idea that there is no gender in the Sukhavati pure land is a post-modern interpretation.
nope the idea of the 32 features of the Buddha which we receive in the pure land,having no gender is not a post modern interpretation unless you consider the Nirvana Sutra post modern. the idea of the Buddha not even being a man can be found in the Donna Sutta so this is hardly a new view.

Malcolm wrote:
[/quote]

I am afraid you are reading things into the texts that are simply not there. In Amitabha's pure land, like Bhaisajyaguru's there is gender and that gender is male. In Akṣobhya's pureland on the other hand, there are both men and women.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 27th, 2014 at 1:48 PM
Title: Re: Should Buddhists even care about "engaging" social polit
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
Malcolm wrote:
There is also the recognition of the advantages of position in vow 43:

If after I have obtained the Buddhahood, that any Bodhisattva of other countries having heard my name, will be incarnated as a member of a noble family (if he so desires) when he dies, otherwise may I not attain enlightenment.

There is in fact no guarantee of immediate birth in Sukhavati in the 48 vows of Amitabha.
Vow 19 is the guarantee for immediate rebirth in Sukhavati also it corrisponds with the chapter on the 3 different types of aspirants which also teaches guaranteed immediate rebirth in Sukhavati.

Malcolm wrote:
NO, that vow is not a guarantee of rebirth in Sukhavati. It merely guarantees a vision.

Secondly, your Nirvana sutra citation does not describe the career of a female buddha. It merely describes the ability of a buddha to manifest a buddha in female form.

The fact remains that the only place where embodied female buddhahood, i.e. that one can attain buddhahood without changing from a female gender, is expressed only in Vajrayāna. It is just a fact of text, it is not even controversial.

The idea that there is no gender in the Sukhavati pure land is a post-modern interpretation.

But we are far afield from the original topic...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 27th, 2014 at 1:29 PM
Title: Re: Should Buddhists even care about "engaging" social polit
Content:


rory said:
Someone hasn't read the Lotus Sutra: Chapter 12 - Devadatta

At that moment, the entire assembly saw the Dragon Girl suddenly transform into a man

Malcolm wrote:
Apparently you have not read it either.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 27th, 2014 at 11:27 AM
Title: Re: Should Buddhists even care about "engaging" social polit
Content:
zsc said:
We have no genderless pronoun in English...

Malcolm wrote:
Nor are there any in Sanskrit, Pali, etc.

Amitabha has the thirty two major marks of a Buddha...one is a retractable penis.

In all Sanskrit literature referring to Avalokiteśvara, Avalokiteśvara is strictly referred to as male. It is only in China that Avalokiteśvara's gender is bent.

As to gender ambiguity in bodhisattvas, there are some examples of this, Śariputra's encounter with the goddess of the ganges, for example. But Amitabha is indeed male as are all who are born in his pure land.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 27th, 2014 at 11:15 AM
Title: Re: Your gender and sexuality
Content:
untxi said:
We can pull some passages from the sutras and just morph "God hates queers" to "Buddha hates queers".

Malcolm wrote:
Actually, we can't. The most we can do is pull some passages out of Vinaya that bar certain types of persons from ordination as monks.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 27th, 2014 at 6:21 AM
Title: Re: Should Buddhists even care about "engaging" social polit
Content:


zsc said:
No, this has been the position of many unethical authorities who wanted to maintain the status quo by using "Buddhist" rationale. I agree that it's not what Buddhism teaches.

Malcolm wrote:
Which unethical authorities,
If it were possible for dedication of merit to change the karma of sentient beings, you would have though that the Buddhas in their compassion would have dedicated all their merit to us, so that we would no longer suffer.
Besides rory's point, most Pureland thought assumes Amida already has, and Pureland practice serves to karmically link ourselves to him. Suffering is a samsaric condition that we are still bound by, for now.
Then something isn't working, either your theory or his vow.
In Jodo Shinshu, the progress phase is "instantaneously" realized because of the practitioners openness to the gift of shinjin by Amida.
Its a theory, but it has no support in sutra. In fact Shinran had to take huge liberties. And yes, I have read a lot of Shinran.

It is generally understood that the vows are all-encompassing due to Amida's boundless compassion, so they don't contradict each other, they are open to cover as many sentient beings as possible, including people in their deathbed who do not have the time to accumulate merit.
I don't agree.

In the early ages, the lives of women were full of hardships.
They still are.
They were expected to care of the house, go through the the pain of carrying a child to term then giving birth, take care of the kids from then on, and since a lot of women didn't have enough time to become literate (or weren't allowed to), women generally weren't allowed to become influential religious practitioners and teachers.
This is generally still true, though changing.
They were the backbone of the civilization, but this resulted in a lot of them being treated like work horses. Even in other sutras, a male rebirth was assumed to be better than a male one for practice, and Shakyamuni even hesitated to allow women to practice in the same way as his male disciples did. I've read commentaries that propose what I have said above--so much of society depended on women not dedicating a lot of time to practice when the same wasn't true for men, and even Shakyamuni's hesitance was due to this consideration. This is true in some countries even today. So like I said above, Amida's vows are meant to be all-encompassing.
Of course, it is only in Vajrayāna where women's full spiritual potential is actuality recognized, and the only tradition in which there full fledged female Buddhas like Vajrayogini and so on.
Again, the vows are meant to be all-encompassing, they don't negate each other. As it stands today, Pureland practitioners are encouraged to direct their faith primarily to the 18th Vow, which is the Primal Vow.
You mean Jodo Sinshu practitioners.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 27th, 2014 at 6:12 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist neglect of academic findings.
Content:
kirtu said:
Do you have evidence that he significantly turned away Tea Party voters?

Malcolm wrote:
He lost.

kirtu said:
Republicans are a minority nation-wide.  Republican presidential victories are only possible if a large enough proportion of Democrats do not turn out or vote for the Democrat candidate and independents  vote with a > 50% for the Republican candidate.

So the fact that Romney lost tells us nothing about Tea Party voter turnout or their vote.

BTW - Republicans have held the Massachusetts governorship *four* times since 1984: Weld, Weld, Cellucci and Romney.

Kirt

Malcolm wrote:
Weld is a RINO, he does not really count.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 27th, 2014 at 4:09 AM
Title: Re: Difference between consciousness and the mind
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
There is no pure being, since there no being or non-being to find. So what is useful about the term "awareness"?
Why create two actors with "awareness expresses itself through consciousness?

In fact there is no necessity to differentiate awareness, consciousness and mind any more than it is necessary to differentiate limpidity, wetness and water.

PadmaVonSamba said:
There is if you are examining or talking about dependent arising.
.
.
.

Malcolm wrote:
Why do you think so?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 27th, 2014 at 3:31 AM
Title: Re: Shamatha and Dhyana in different traditions
Content:


Clarence said:
Thanks. Would you mind exploring a little more how it ties in with Dzogchen practice? Is it absolutely imperative to properly practice Dzogchen? Or, can one get by with (much) less concentration and is the need for concentration mostly related to the practice of the postures?

Malcolm wrote:
If you can't control your mind, you can't sit still for long periods; if you can't sit still for long periods, of what use are postures?

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 27th, 2014 at 3:17 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist neglect of academic findings.
Content:
kirtu said:
Do you have evidence that he significantly turned away Tea Party voters?

Malcolm wrote:
He lost.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 27th, 2014 at 3:16 AM
Title: Re: Difference between consciousness and the mind
Content:
Gwenn Dana said:
Awareness is that of pure being (unbound presence).
Ego is awareness expressing itself through consciousness (*I* am). All senses working, all actions working.
Mind is what constructs concepts (I am some-thing). All senses disturbed by constant evaluation and categorization.

Malcolm wrote:
These are all just different different names and aspects of consciousness. No need to complicate things.

PadmaVonSamba said:
Well, you could also say that they are all aspects of brain activity, but so what?
No, I think this breakdown is useful.
.
.
.

Malcolm wrote:
There is no pure being, since there no being or non-being to find. So what is useful about the term "awareness"?
Why create two actors with "awareness expresses itself through consciousness?

In fact there is no necessity to differentiate awareness, consciousness and mind any more than it is necessary to differentiate limpidity, wetness and water.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 27th, 2014 at 1:32 AM
Title: Re: Shamatha and Dhyana in different traditions
Content:
Sherlock said:
So thoughts don't arise at all while you are concentrating on the object?

Malcolm wrote:
Just one thought, the object of mediation.

Sherlock said:
so it actually sounds more like the Visuddhimagga first jhana then or the Paki Sutta 2nd jhana.

Vitarka and vicara seem to involve thought both in early Pali commentaries and in northern Abhidharma and Yogacara works.

Do the Bhavanakrama-based presentations use the Tibetan equivalents of these 2 terms or is it just Rongzom?

Malcolm wrote:
Vitarka and vicara are mental factors which direct attention and maintain attention. The first dhyana you can change the object because both vitarka and vicara are still present.

I am not sure whether the Bhavanakrama mentions, I forget.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 27th, 2014 at 1:12 AM
Title: Re: Shamatha and Dhyana in different traditions
Content:
Sherlock said:
So thoughts don't arise at all while you are concentrating on the object?

Malcolm wrote:
Just one thought, the object of mediation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 26th, 2014 at 11:18 PM
Title: Re: Shamatha and Dhyana in different traditions
Content:
Sherlock said:
Four hours sounds like a good goal to aim towards and seems achievable even in lay life. However is the goal a samadhi in which no thoughts except for the meditation object arise at all or is it that thoughts still arise buttey are skilful thoughts and do not distract you?

Malcolm wrote:
The goal is one-pointedness on a single mental object.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 26th, 2014 at 10:47 PM
Title: Re: Shamatha and Dhyana in different traditions
Content:
Sherlock said:
I  Based on what Tom said, it seems like Gelugpas on the other hand recommend developing shamatha through kyerim....

Tom said:
Yes, for Tantric practitioners. Of course, the nine stages, six powers, and four attentions are taught widely int he sutra context by Gelug Lamas.

Malcolm wrote:
In Sakya Lamdre, there is a detailed instruction based on Saroruhavajra's creation stage of Hevajra that includes a detailed breakdown of how the nine stages map to one's practice of the sadhana.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 26th, 2014 at 9:24 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist neglect of academic findings.
Content:
tobes said:
Even on the level of governmental politics, we have to account for the very influential rise of religious influenced conservationism - think about American politics for a moment! We cannot say that American governmental politics is becoming increasingly secular. If anything, it seems to be becoming increasingly less secular.

Malcolm wrote:
That really depends on where you live. Where I live (Western Massachusetts), born again conservative Christian Republicans are about as common as Sasquatch, and their secular counterparts, also infrequently sighted in the wild.

kirtu said:
Malcolm!  Your state elected Sasquatch as Governor thus ensuring him national standing long after his semi-mythic salvation of the Salt Lake City Olympics had faded from memory.  Just 1 1/2 years ago he was one of two conservative candidates for the Presidency from two supposedly diametrically opposed political parties (which are really just two wings of the same single National Conservative Party).  Sasquatch's capitalist health care plan is now the law of the land even though he lost the election!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Massachusetts#Party_registration

So just over 11% of registered voters in Massachsetts *could* be a Sasquatch.  Maybe it was just your former governor.  And maybe all of these Sasquatch live on Cape Cod or outside of Boston.

Ironic that one of the most politically "liberal" states in the US propelled a Tea Party candidate nearly to the Oval Office.

Kirt

Malcolm wrote:
Kirt, I was very specific -- Mormons are not necessarily republican, though they tend to be conservative, and Romney is hardly a conservative Republican, which is one of the reasons he lost. He is fairly liberal by Republican standards, actually. I was talking about conservative born again evangelical Christians (who do not accept Mormons as being Christians (a big obstacle for Romney to overcome)).

And as I stated, specifically, in my neck of the woods, his kind are extremely rare. Most of the Republicans in MA live in and around Central MA and in Berkshire County. Eastern MA and Western MA (meaning Franklin, Hampshire and Hamden Counties) are about as liberal as you get anywhere in the country.

When Republicans get voted into office in MA (its happened twice in the past thirty years), it is generally because Democrats have botched something huge.

Romney is hardly a tea party candidate.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 26th, 2014 at 9:43 AM
Title: Re: Should Buddhists even care about "engaging" social polit
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The idea that a Buddha can have afflicted thoughts is patently absurd and should be rejected at face value without any further thought.

M

Indrajala said:
The idea is that the dharmakāya "encompasses" every aspect of saṃsāra.

Malcolm wrote:
The idea that a Buddha can have afflicted thoughts is still patently absurd and should be rejected at face value without any further thought. The dharmakāya is a Buddha's omniscience so of course it can encompass every aspect of samsara.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 26th, 2014 at 9:30 AM
Title: Re: Shamatha and Dhyana in different traditions
Content:
Sherlock said:
OK sure, I can only do 3 months of retreat at best though.


Malcolm wrote:
Well, you try your best.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 26th, 2014 at 9:27 AM
Title: Re: Shamatha and Dhyana in different traditions
Content:


Sherlock said:
Using breath concentration?

So how do you explain Dudjom Lingpa and Longchenpa's much shorter time period? Does the control of prana or bindus in the methods they give help to make it arise faster? Or is the samadhi that arises as a result of what they teach not as deep as the full-blown dhyana by whatever criteria you go by?

Many Theravadins also don't require months of retreat to accomplish at least the first jhana in their systems. Retreat, sure, but not that long.

Malcolm wrote:
They are describing Dzogchen Śamatha which is more like repeated placement in the Bhavanakrama scheme. I am taking about your classic ninth stage śamatha where you can place your mind on any object for as long as you want without distraction and without effort.

But anyway, you try yourself, then you will see. One thing for śamatha is that you need to be very relaxed, not concerned with outside world. That takes some time all by itself. You need to be well rested, free of distractions, etc.

But again, you see for yourself. Every practitioner is different. I am using a general time frame based on my personal experience of doing a three year+ retreat. That is what I consider the minimum time to gain a really stable śamatha practice.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 26th, 2014 at 8:39 AM
Title: Re: Shamatha and Dhyana in different traditions
Content:
Clarence said:
Malcolm,

How long do you estimate it would take the average person to master the first Dhyana? I have seen you mention it on and off over the years (requiring the first Dhyana for Dzogchen practice) but I have never seen you use a time frame. In Pa Auk it takes several months to years of intensive retreat. I was wondering how you view the process. And if you have any practical tips and pointers I am sure they will be much appreciated.

Many thanks.

Malcolm wrote:
That depends. Almost impossible if you do not do retreat. Six months if you do a real retreat.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 26th, 2014 at 8:38 AM
Title: Re: Your gender and sexuality
Content:
untxi said:
Malcolm...

Let's hope that's the case.  A nice aspiration to have.  That's the hope of any activist or ally-- that they might not be needed.

Right now, where I live, women and LBGTQIA people are brutalized on a regular basis.  That's my fundamental reality.

-U


Malcolm wrote:
Well, the best thing one can do is continue to support civil rights for all people. The recognition of civil rights is not an overnight process, and it is a process. The way it has worked in the US is that first propertied white men secured their full civil rights, then men in general, then in a limited way, blacks; then women, then there was the civil rights movement, based on that the feminist movement, based on that the gay rights movement, now gay marriage.

In reality, the history of the expansion of civil rights is not bleak, it is in fact encouraging. But one lesson we can learn, is that when one group secures recognition for its civil rights, there is often another group that has been ignored or not seen in the back ground.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 26th, 2014 at 8:30 AM
Title: Re: Difference between consciousness and the mind
Content:
Gwenn Dana said:
Hello,

I'll try this one real short:

Awareness is that of pure being (unbound presence).
Ego is awareness expressing itself through consciousness (*I* am). All senses working, all actions working.
Mind is what constructs concepts (I am some-thing). All senses disturbed by constant evaluation and categorization.

Regards
Gwenn


Malcolm wrote:
These are all just different different names and aspects of consciousness. No need to complicate things.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 26th, 2014 at 8:22 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist neglect of academic findings.
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
In the deep South up through the classic "West", there is a movement towards increasingly less secularism.

daverupa said:
Oregon and Colorado seem to be moving in very secular ways. Utah accidentally legalized gay marriage. The West seems to be a wild card.

Malcolm wrote:
The "Northwest" is Oregon and Washington. Colorado is moving towards a more secular demographic because of people from California and other places moving there.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 26th, 2014 at 8:20 AM
Title: Re: Your gender and sexuality
Content:
untxi said:
Again, there are different nuances to normativity and it's connection to oppression.  It's not just what the "norm" is, it is asserting that norm to diminish and minimize others.

In all forms of structural violence there is some form of "this is the norm, aspire to this or fail".  People endure any number of forms of body modification from skin lightening to eye-lid surgery to other body modifications to comply with socially imposed images of "normal".  People also go through various contortions to hide and deny their identities for the same reason.

If we limit "normativity" to a limited notion of what is normal re common and conventional, then I agree with you.

Malcolm wrote:
As civil rights will and are being recognized for those people who are now considered outside the heterosexual norm, these philosophical concerns will become irrelevant. Since 10 percent of the population will always be gay, gay people are already a normative percentage of society.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 26th, 2014 at 8:14 AM
Title: Re: Should Buddhists even care about "engaging" social polit
Content:
rory said:
Malcolm:

I don't know the practice in TB but in Asian Buddhism it's extremely common to call on Kwan Yin/Kannon/Gwan-eum for help. This bodhisattva uses her abundant karma to help those overcome trials. I've called on Kannon-sama and been helped. This is common.

Malcolm wrote:
Such things merely create a positive dependent origination so that your positive karma can ripen. But quite frankly, it is well understood that unless your dedication of merit is objectless, help by such bodhisattvas in the present exhausts your merit. For example, one can practice Jambhala for wealth, but if you do not have the merit to be wealthy in this life, Jambhala practice merely creates causes for future wealth. And if you do not properly dedicate merit of such practice such that it is objectless, then it is exhaustible merit.

rory said:
Now as for Yogacara and Madhyamaka, these seem to be the only 2 philosophical schools accepted by TB. Whereas in East Asia there is the Avatamsaka School, Tiantai/Lotus Sutra, Pure Land  and Ch'an/Zen which is based usually on Yogacara.

Malcolm wrote:
Hua Yen, Tian Tai, Pure Land and Chan are Chinese innovations. Indians did not develop schools of philosophy based on specific sutras. Tibetans follow Indians in this respect.

rory said:
Anyway "Hua-yen [Avatamsaka] sees all phenomena as expression of an originally pure and undifferentiated one mind.....Hua-yen thinkers developed new theories of dependent origination (pratitya samutpada, yuan-ch'i, such as "dharma realm origination" (fa-chieh yuan-ch'i, tathagata-garbha origination...or "nature origination" to clafiy how the one mind manifests in the phenomenal world"

Malcolm wrote:
If this is the case, then Hua-Yen is just Hindu Advaita Vedanta in Buddhist drag.

rory said:
The point of posting that is to show new philosophical developments that originated from Chinese thinkers such as Fazang and Zhi-yi that spread through East Asia as Koreans and Japanese travelled to China and studied these ideas. This obviously didn't happen with Tibet, so it's out of the East Asian mainstream. And this applies to ideas about karma.

Malcolm wrote:
Actually, Sino Japanese Mahayana Buddhism developed along lines that were outside of the Indian Mahayana mainstream. Tibetans traveled to India and studied Indian Buddhism and developed their schools along the lines set by the great Indian Buddhist monasteries such as Nalanda and Vikramashila.

rory said:
This is why Malcolm in another thread denied that a Buddha could think evil thoughts while those familiar with Zhi-yi's thought know this is true. Ven. Indrajala kindly translated a pertinent piece.

Malcolm wrote:
The idea that a Buddha can have afflicted thoughts is patently absurd and should be rejected at face value without any further thought.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 26th, 2014 at 8:03 AM
Title: Re: Should Buddhists even care about "engaging" social polit
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Personally, I find Hayek far more appealing than Trotsky, and much more reasonable and sensible. He fully exposes the failures of both right and left wing socialist collectivism.

tobes said:
It pained me to discover this, but I think Hayek is right about the relationship between price and knowledge - and it follows that centrally planned economies have a genuinely huge epistemic problem of making decisions that are not as well informed as those 'on the ground' making and buying stuff.

However, to say that he 'fully exposes' the failures of right and left wing socialist collectivism is beyond generous. One would have to already be a paid up libertarian to read him in such a kind light. The more orthodox reading is that like most liberals, he either doesn't read Hegel or Marx, or simply doesn't understand their dialectical logic.

One can't fully expose something one doesn't grasp.


Malcolm wrote:
I am pretty sure Hayek had a very good grasp of both, since he was Austrian, and fled Europe in 1933.

His principle observation is that both right and left wing collectivism share a common belief, i.e., that economies should be centrally planned. This is the main thrust of his thinking. In general, he was not nearly as libertarian as librarians read him. He fully supported the idea that laws can and should be passed to limit markets and so on. Further, another of his main observations is that Democracies only functioned well when people confined themselves to broad issues upon which consensus could be reached through discussion, and tended to break down when they tried to adjudicate specific economic problems which required the creation of a centralized bureaucracies to implement (as all implementations of economic planning require). His third main point about planned economies is that they were a priori goalless, that they required special knowledge of which no one could possibly have.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 26th, 2014 at 6:42 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist neglect of academic findings.
Content:
tobes said:
Even on the level of governmental politics, we have to account for the very influential rise of religious influenced conservationism - think about American politics for a moment! We cannot say that American governmental politics is becoming increasingly secular. If anything, it seems to be becoming increasingly less secular.

Malcolm wrote:
That really depends on where you live. Where I live (Western Massachusetts), born again conservative Christian Republicans are about as common as Sasquatch, and their secular counterparts, also infrequently sighted in the wild.

In the Northeast and Northwest, as well as most of the left coast (and Canada) politics in increasingly more secular in general.

In the middle swath of the country there is a bit of a ambivalence i.e. Pennsylvania and the Midwest.

In the deep South up through the classic "West", there is a movement towards increasingly less secularism.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 26th, 2014 at 6:31 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen in India post 8CE
Content:
Sherlock said:
What do you count as early "longde"? Dzeng Dharmabodhi is already in the Sarma period.

Malcolm wrote:
There are a few tantras and a collection of instructions on the nine dhātus (klong) which are pre-11th century. And of course, the vajra verses themselves.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 26th, 2014 at 6:14 AM
Title: Re: Who are the best teachers of non-duality?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The best teacher of non-duality is the Buddha. The rest are pale imitations.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 26th, 2014 at 6:09 AM
Title: Re: Your gender and sexuality
Content:
untxi said:
We have todiffer on this.  Heteronormativity does have connotations beyond the mere descriptive element that you describe.  In the work of many feminists and queer theorists it is used to describe the social expectations and norms that oppress non-heterosexuals.  If heterosexuality is the norm, it is normal, all else is outside the norm and thus abnormal.  One can extend this idea to other forms of oppression such as racisim: white-normativity.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, these social expectations and so on are a result of more than a thousand years of western history; lately informed by religious doctrines about what is morally normative. We have largely dropped the notion that who you want to f^%k has any moral implications, unless it is children and animals.

As far as racism goes, the problem is not that white is normative, the problem is when privileged people impose norms on those who are not privileged, thus denying them opportunities. Racism means "You are X, this is the norm you are expected to conform to", It does not mean, "I am Y, this is the norm you should aspire too but can never attain because you are X." If you are X in a racist society, you are never supposed to aspire to Yness.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 26th, 2014 at 6:02 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen in India post 8CE
Content:
Sherlock said:
Malcolm why doyou think Vajra Bridge can be dated pre 1000CE?

Is it because although Kunzang Dorje's commentary is full of references to prana and bindus the actual Vajra Bridge and the Four Das don't mention them?

Malcolm wrote:
It is because the early literature of so-called klong sde makes no reference in general to such topics which were really only introduced to Tibet during the new translation period. So with the Vajra Bridge histories, we begin to see the evolution of what would swiftly turn into "man ngag sde". Aslo, I see to reason to doubt the account presented in the Vajra bridge histories and the so called early sems sde histories since they agree on virtually every point about the career of Vairocana and the introduction of Dzogchen to Tibet. The first place we see any real departure from the historical accounts presented in these earlier accounts is with Zhanton's text, which completely reframes the career of Sṛī  Simha and places the arrival of Vimalamitra during the reign Trisong Desten, whereas the earlier histories place Vimala's arrival during the reign of Ralpacan.

I personally think that Zhangton's account was intended compete with the marvelous tales of Indian siddhas like Naropa and so on. There was no such need for such narrative largess in the pre "gsar ma" period. One key clue is the appropriation of the iconography of Virupa for Śrī Simha.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 26th, 2014 at 5:45 AM
Title: Re: Shamatha and Dhyana in different traditions
Content:
KonchokZoepa said:
Malcolm can you confirm that to be the right book, the one that norwegian linked to amazon. i looked inside the book and it seems that its not about shamatha.

Malcolm wrote:
That is the book, and the chapter on meditation is on śamatha and the chapter on wisdom is on vipaśyāna. Lama Migmar is the Buddhist chaplain of Harvard, and his credentials are impeccable. He is one of the best scholars in Sakya. He has also been my teacher and friend for 25 years.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 26th, 2014 at 5:40 AM
Title: Re: Your gender and sexuality
Content:
untxi said:
So if gender and sexual orientation aren't that important, then what is the point of Buddhists asserting heteronormativity re social expectations and constraints-- e.g. straight good and normal, otherwise bad and abnormal?

Malcolm wrote:
"Normative" does not imply a value judgement, viz good/bad, etc. It just means, "what is most common". Basically ten percent of the population has a same sex gender orientation, this runs across social class, different societies, etc. This is just how things are. You can make the observation that there is normative ten percent variation in gender preference if you like.

You can parse these things in all kinds of ways. The fact remains that most people's gender orientation is towards the opposite gender. We are embodied mammals and while of course gender orientation has karmic causes, when we are embodied, we tend to express our gender orientations based on the facts of our embodiment.

With the rise of western relationship patterns that do not follow western traditional norms, a variety of civil right issues have arisen that otherwise would not have.

Even so, From a Buddhist pov, everyone is born with a single gender, which cannot be changed despite their sexuality, no matter how fabulous they are.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 26th, 2014 at 3:44 AM
Title: Re: Your gender and sexuality
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Of course one's gender is irrelevant [to a point]. If one's gender were a barring factor, women could not practice Heruka deities, and men could not practice Dakinis.

But on a strictly conventional level, one will always be the gender one has been born with (including being intersexed), regardless.

Apart from monastic ordination (barred to intersexed persons), gender is not so important, even if Buddhism is hetero-normative, and will remain so, since the majority of the population is heterosexual. This is just how things are.

untxi said:
This is certainly the textual tradition and the practice tradition in the traditional context.  At the same time I have heard extremely high lamas say one's gender and sexual orientation is irrelevant, even in the context of Buddhist tantra.  So there's a fork in the road.  We have choices to make about how we frame gender and sexual orientation in our individual lives and in our practice communities.  It's an important discussion.

-Untxi
That's essentially what we're doing by asserting that Buddhism is hetero-normative..

Malcolm wrote:
Buddhist tantra is hetero-normative, as is Buddhism in general. Further, gender in Buddhism is considered congenital, i.e., it is something you are born with, it is an indriya, and cannot be surgically altered, whether you cut off your penis or sew one on.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 26th, 2014 at 3:09 AM
Title: Re: Your gender and sexuality
Content:
untxi said:
That's essentially what we're doing by asserting that Buddhism is hetero-normative..

Malcolm wrote:
Buddhist tantra is hetero-normative, as is Buddhism in general. Further, gender in Buddhism is considered congenital, i.e., it is something you are born with, it is an indriya, and cannot be surgically altered, whether you cut off your penis or sew one on.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 26th, 2014 at 2:23 AM
Title: Re: Shamatha and Dhyana in different traditions
Content:



KonchokZoepa said:
you could ask your lama if you have one to explain this picture. it depicts the path to shamatha and he can actually explain you through this picture that what the actual accomplishment of shamatha is.

Malcolm wrote:
Lama Migmar's The Tibetan Book of Awakening has a detailed description of the process of Shamatha depicted here. We based it directly on the Bhavanakrama.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 26th, 2014 at 1:38 AM
Title: Re: Should Buddhists even care about "engaging" social polit
Content:


zsc said:
My main concern here is that the position of one "owning" karma in a completely isolated way, due to solely one's past life, has traditionally had the social consequences of justifying congenital birth defects, generational poverty, inequality and discrimination against social "deviancy" etc. When I say "justifying", I don't mean just "explaining", I mean that this understanding of karma has been used as a way to encourage complacency and passivity about suffering and mistreatment brought on due to social and political systems.

Malcolm wrote:
The fact that you and you alone are the owner of your karma (The Buddha likens karma to a debt that one has to pay off) merely explains these things, it does not condone nor justify them. What you say about encouraging complacency is not true of how karma is understood within Buddhism, it is true of how karma is understood in Hinduism.

zsc said:
I have already expounded on a "philosophy of karma that teaches something else", so I just would be repeating myself at this point. Also, I would say that a huge portion of the Buddhist world practicing merit-transference/dedication is more significant than what you imply when say "someone".

Malcolm wrote:
If it were possible for dedication of merit to change the karma of sentient beings, you would have though that the Buddhas in their compassion would have dedicated all their merit to us, so that we would no longer suffer.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 26th, 2014 at 12:48 AM
Title: Re: What happened historically to the Vinaya in Japan?
Content:
Seishin said:
I agree. The question is though, should the priests be on equal standing as the monks?

Indrajala said:
In Tibetan traditions sometimes the non-celibate clergy are held as superior to the sangha. Just look at the Sakya lineage, like HH Sakya Trizin.

Malcolm wrote:
This is an understandable misconception.

In the Sakya tradition there are, in general, no non-celibate clergy apart from the Khon family members. In fact, HHST wanted to become a monk, but because of his birth heritage that option was not available to him. In general, most Khon family males who were not in line to be the throne holder of Sakya usually become monks. In this case, the younger son of His Holiness, Jñānavajra, was a monk for many years. He chose to give up his vows for his own reasons, but it was not without some controversy.

While the Khon family has been the locus for secular power from the beginning of the founding of the tradition, it has only been the spiritual locus of the tradition occasionally, with the real spiritual authority of Sakya resting primarily with the Ngor Khenpos, and the heads of the Tshar school. Occasionally (and apart from the five founding masters) remarkable figures like Lama Dampa, Kunga Tashi, Amyezhabs, Kunga Lodo, Dagchen Trinly Rinchen and so on have emerged from the Khon family to become major lineage figures, but in general, the Khon family has primarily had a political role in the Sakya school as the secular rulers of the Sakya principality.

It is really only in the Nyingma school that there is a notion that mantrikas are on a par with bhikṣus. But even in Nyingma, mantrikas are still seated behind the bhikṣus.

I should also add that even where a lay person is a guru giving initiations, it is permissible, for the purpose of decorum, for monks to prostrate to the shrine rather than the person of the guru if he or she is a lay person. This is fully laid out in 50 verses of Guru Devotion attributed to Ashvaghosha.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 26th, 2014 at 12:25 AM
Title: Re: Śākyamuni's non-Indo-European heritage.
Content:
Indrajala said:
Incidentally for some great information on what constitutes proto-Indo-European religion, at least under reconstruction, see the following:

http://piereligion.org/pierintro.html

Malcolm wrote:
The answers to all of these questions and many more are to be found in Witzel's new book:

The Origins of the World's Mythologies. Oxford University Press

He has questioned the linguistic nature of the so-called Indus Script (Farmer, Sproat, Witzel 2004).[70] Earlier, he had suggested that a substrate related to, but not identical with the Austroasiatic Munda languages, which he therefore calls para-Munda, might have been the language of (part of) the Indus population.[71][72]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Witzel#Research


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 26th, 2014 at 12:17 AM
Title: Re: Should Buddhists even care about "engaging" social polit
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
In genera the sutrayāna approach is that it takes a minimum of three incalculable eons to achieve the required accumulations of merit and wisdom to become a Samyak sambuddha. After spending two incalculable eons to reach the eighth bhumi, it take another eon to reach buddhahood.

Thus, the idea that having a human birth means you have all the accumulations behind you is plain wrong when you actually study the Mahāyāna path. Why? When you reach the eighth bhumi, you gain power over birth.

Further, each Bhumi allows one to manifest a number of emanations in different buddhafields: thus, when one attains the first bhumi, one can manifest 100 emanations in one hundred buddhafields and so on. When one attains the second bhumi, one can manifest 1000 emanations, etc. At each bhumi, one manifests emanations in successive powers of ten.

We who cannot manifest even two bodies in this lifetimes should not think that we are anywhere near the end of our path. In fact, we are merely on the first path, the path of accumulation, trying to develop authentic bodhicitta. We have indeed attained a precious human birth, but this can be lost easily and who knows when we will have this opportunity again. Buddha himself describes the rarity of the precious human birth through the analogy of a blind tortoise in the ocean who rises to the surface every one hundred years and manages to rise through a golden circle that is randomly floating around on the surface of that ocean.

The pure land path is not a quick path, per se. There are many grades of birth described in the pure land sutras, and some people who are born there are born in lotuses that never open, so they never see the face of Amitabha. Of course, in Shinran's pure land school this is all understood rather differently than in the Chinese and Tibetan pure land traditions. So the point is that even we consider that it is possible to take birth in the pure land, this is not necessarily a swift path. In the Tibetan tradition taking birth in the pure land tends to be considered a resting point, where one can make progress on the bodhisattva path, eventually returning to various impure realms to aid sentient beings. further, while Amitabha's vow clearly says "Whoever hears my name will be reborn in Sukhavati", it does not state "Immediately upon having died in this lifetime". In fact, one of vows clearly states that in order to take rebirth in Sukhavati, one must accumulate the necessary merits after one has heard his name and so on. So, in reality, birth in the Pure Land is not the shortcut it sometimes appears to be in East Asian Buddhism. And of course vow 35 can be understood to be completely sexist:

When I obtain the Buddhahood, women of boundless and inconceivable Buddha-worlds of the ten quarters after having heard my name thereby awakened in faith and joyful aspiration, and turning their minds towards Bodhi, therefore dislike their own female lives, when they be born again, in their next life should not be incarnated into a masculine body, then may I not attain the enlightenment.

In other words, this vow states that women who have faith in Amitabha, who are unhappy being women because they wish for awakening, will be born as men in their next life.

There is also the recognition of the advantages of position in vow 43:

If after I have obtained the Buddhahood, that any Bodhisattva of other countries having heard my name, will be incarnated as a member of a noble family (if he so desires) when he dies, otherwise may I not attain enlightenment.

There is in fact no guarantee of immediate birth in Sukhavati in the 48 vows of Amitabha.

When it comes to Vajrayāna, Vajrayāna proposes that one can achieve buddhahood in this lifetime in this body. If one does not succeed in this life, one can easily attain buddhahood in the bardo, or failing that, one will definitely achieve awakening with 7 lifetimes if one practices or 16 even if one does not practice.


zsc said:
I think rory's point is valid in explaining the different perspectives here where we are finding our disagreement. Even though I go to a Theravadin sangha because of convenience and I like the people there, my personal orientation is Pureland practice and thought, in which is not a controversial claim to say that this lifetime will be my last lifetime conditioned within samsara. Even with a lot Theravadin lay people who just would like a better rebirth though, meritorious actions are done in the hopes of that being their last lifetime in the human realm, or at the very least their last lifetime as a non-monastic.

Correct me if I'm wrong Tibetan Buddhists, but from a Tibetan Buddhist perspective this may seem sort of myopic to you because eons and eons of progression is taken as a given, while other East Asian traditions like Pureland-based traditions almost imply that our human birth and access to the dharma is "proof" that those eons of meritorious work are " behind " us, so it's realistic to believe we can go "up" from here in just one more lifetime.


Johnny Dangerous said:
Ok, i'm correcting you. It's not remotely controversial in Tibetan Buddhism to talk about enlightenment in one lifetime, nor rebirth in the Pure Land.

A Fuzzy explanation to the best of my knowledge:

Hinayana sutra = many many lifetimes, "incomplete" version, Mahayana sutra = fewer lifetimes but still lots, Tantra = different levels, but there is the definite possibility of this being the last lifetime. IIRC the lowest level is listed as 60 lifetimes until or something like that, all mapped out lol!

I don't know a lot about Pureland, but the biggest difference from what I do know is the "other power" thing.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 25th, 2014 at 10:52 PM
Title: Re: Should Buddhists even care about "engaging" social polit
Content:
zsc said:
I think rory's point is valid in explaining the different perspectives here where we are finding our disagreement. Even though I go to a Theravadin sangha because of convenience and I like the people there, my personal orientation is Pureland practice and thought, in which is not a controversial claim to say that this lifetime will be my last lifetime conditioned within samsara. Even with a lot Theravadin lay people who just would like a better rebirth though, meritorious actions are done in the hopes of that being their last lifetime in the human realm, or at the very least their last lifetime as a non-monastic.

Correct me if I'm wrong Tibetan Buddhists, but from a Tibetan Buddhist perspective this may seem sort of myopic to you because eons and eons of progression is taken as a given, while other East Asian traditions like Pureland-based traditions almost imply that our human birth and access to the dharma is "proof" that those eons of meritorious work are " behind " us, so it's realistic to believe we can go "up" from here in just one more lifetime.

Malcolm wrote:
It rather depends on which Tibetan Buddhist perspective you are discussion, sutra or tantra.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 25th, 2014 at 10:36 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen in India post 8CE
Content:
tingdzin said:
"Relevant materials" is not limited to religious scripture.

Malcolm wrote:
Since there are no records of Shri Simha outside of the religious records that exist, then relevant materials are only religious records.

All of the other things you mentioned about the identity of Li, etc., they have very little to do with the person known as Shri Simha.

For example, there is no archaeological record of a Shri Simha, and what we know of the fellow is restricted to colophons in texts of uncertain date.

When confronted with two separate Dzogchen lineage accounts which sites Shri Simha in India, and a third, later tradition, that sites him in an uncertain "rgya nag", well, chances are the two earlier traditions (pan grub thugs bcud and the rod rje zam pa lineage accounts) are the more correct.

The best we can do is try and understand why Zhangton Tashi Dorje wanted to shift the location of Shri Simha from India to regions outside of India, because it is a certainty that he is the first author to do so.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 25th, 2014 at 4:49 AM
Title: Re: Should Buddhists even care about "engaging" social polit
Content:
tellyontellyon said:
The fact is society is just going to have to grow up and make democratic planning of the economy work.

Malcolm wrote:
"Democracy" and "planned economy" are mutually exclusive terms.

tellyontellyon said:
Market forces are not going to save the planet

Malcolm wrote:
I never said they could. Markets require regulation. That what governments are for.

tellyontellyon said:
we need a new economic and political system.

Malcolm wrote:
No, we simply need to decide that some types of resources are better preserved than consumed and pass laws to ensure that.

Personally, I find Hayek far more appealing than Trotsky, and much more reasonable and sensible. He fully exposes the failures of both right and left wing socialist collectivism.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 25th, 2014 at 12:31 AM
Title: Re: Zabmo Nangdon to be published by Shambhala
Content:
conebeckham said:
Shifting gears a little bit for me...

About the price.  Look, it costs a lot of money to publish any book.  Shambhala is not making huge profits.  Snow Lion certainly wasn't.  The translators are not getting rich,of that you can be assured. The readership of such specialized books is very small.  I've not looked at the prices for all the books in the restricted section, but I can tell you that I've seen prices in the $40-60's.   This is frankly not outrageous, in my opinion.  Textbooks cost far more.  Even this "$108" dollars that was quoted, well......that's still far cheaper than a college hardback textbook.

And if a given book is truly precious, a source of refuge or inspiration, a benefit to one's practice, what, really, can be said about the price of such a thing?

About the "Gatekeeper" function....as I understand it, Shambhala is merely "enforcing" or complying with the regulations for purchase bestowed upon the text by a given translator, or a given Lama.  Some people here are quick to blame Shambhala for some sort of "scheme" of control, when in fact I don't believe they are instituting the scheme--though certainly they are supporting and participating in it.  This point apparently needs to be made clear, based upon some previous posts.

Malcolm wrote:
My point is that such restrictions are totally arbitrary and are not based on genuine and sound reasoning.

conebeckham said:
Well, if it's true that the restrictions are placed upon the texts by the "supervising Lamas"-for example, Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso, His Holiness Sakya Trizin--your argument is addressed to them, and not to Shambhala.  Correct?

To be clear, I'm not saying the restrictions are NOT arbitrary or well-Reasoned.  Frankly, I don't know.   In fact, to know, one would have to have some sort of telepathic ability, or at the very least to have had personal discussions with the parties.

Malcolm wrote:
The point is that if you decide to translate something, and then have it published by Snow Lion etc., then the idea of restricting it becomes absurd. If on the other hand, you privately publish a book and control the dissemination of the text, that is a different story.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 25th, 2014 at 12:00 AM
Title: Re: Zabmo Nangdon to be published by Shambhala
Content:
conebeckham said:
Shifting gears a little bit for me...

About the price.  Look, it costs a lot of money to publish any book.  Shambhala is not making huge profits.  Snow Lion certainly wasn't.  The translators are not getting rich,of that you can be assured. The readership of such specialized books is very small.  I've not looked at the prices for all the books in the restricted section, but I can tell you that I've seen prices in the $40-60's.   This is frankly not outrageous, in my opinion.  Textbooks cost far more.  Even this "$108" dollars that was quoted, well......that's still far cheaper than a college hardback textbook.

And if a given book is truly precious, a source of refuge or inspiration, a benefit to one's practice, what, really, can be said about the price of such a thing?

About the "Gatekeeper" function....as I understand it, Shambhala is merely "enforcing" or complying with the regulations for purchase bestowed upon the text by a given translator, or a given Lama.  Some people here are quick to blame Shambhala for some sort of "scheme" of control, when in fact I don't believe they are instituting the scheme--though certainly they are supporting and participating in it.  This point apparently needs to be made clear, based upon some previous posts.

Malcolm wrote:
My point is that such restrictions are totally arbitrary and are not based on genuine and sound reasoning.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 24th, 2014 at 12:42 PM
Title: Re: Should Buddhists even care about "engaging" social polit
Content:
tellyontellyon said:
I say wealth distribution must be part of the aims of a compassionate society and Buddhists should support that.

Malcolm wrote:
The problem with wealth redistribution is that it is not feasible. There is no way to ensure fair and equitable distribution because central planning and democracy cannot coexist:

It is the price of democracy that the possibilities of conscious control are restricted to the fields where true agreement exists and that in some fields things must be left to chance. But in a society which for its functioning depends on central planning this control cannot be made dependent on a majority’s being able to agree; it will often be necessary that the will of a small minority be imposed upon the people, because this minority will be the largest group able to agree among themselves on the question at issue. Democratic government has worked successfully where, and so long as, the functions of government were, by a widely accepted creed, restricted to fields where agreement among a majority could be achieved by free discussion; and it is the great merit of the liberal creed that it reduced the range of subjects on which agreement was necessary to one on which it was likely to exist in a society of free men. It is now often said that democracy will not tolerate “capitalism.” If “capitalism” means here a competitive system based on free disposal over private property, it is far more important to realize that only within this system is democracy possible. When it becomes dominated by a collectivist creed, democracy will inevitably destroy itself.

Hayek, F. A. (2010-10-22). The Road to Serfdom: Text and Documents--The Definitive Edition (The Collected Works of F. A. Hayek, Volume 2) (pp. 109-110). University of Chicago Press - A. Kindle Edition.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 24th, 2014 at 5:52 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen in India post 8CE
Content:


alpha said:
Among the 5 sems sde original texts we find the khyung chen lding ba.
Isn't this text attributed to Sri Simha ?
If I am not mistaken CNNr gave teachings on it last year sometime before christmas...

Malcolm wrote:
Hi Alpha:

You are confusing the sems sde text with a tregchö text in the Vima Nyinthig (which indeed ChNN taught last year).


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 24th, 2014 at 2:47 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen in India post 8CE
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
I have either read and translated all the earliest datable historical sources for Sṛī Siṃha (pan grub thugs bcud, lo rgyus chen mo, the Vajra bridge histories, etc,) so your assertion that I have "no background" in relevant materials is plain nonsense.

alpha said:
Are these texts publicly available or will you publish them sometime in the future?
I would be particularly interested in anything related to Vajra Bridge.

Malcolm wrote:
I hope to publish yet another version of the five early bodhicitta texts at some point since I regard them as being the origin of the Dzogchen tradition. I am less certain of the actual provenance of the 13 later bodhicitta texts, and it is pretty clear (to me at any rate) that the kun byed rgyal po, the mdo bcu and the rmad du byung ba tantras are Tibetan compilations.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 24th, 2014 at 2:31 AM
Title: Re: Zabmo Nangdon to be published by Shambhala
Content:
conebeckham said:
Right. I'm referring to Shambhala's edition of the Treasury of Esoteric Instructions.
http://www.shambhala.com/books/buddhism/treasury-of-esoteric-instructions.html


Malcolm wrote:
Yes, this was published before the LTC's text was published, and the slob bshad is considered more profound. The LTC's book also has a complete commentary on the Vajra verses, written by Sachen.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 24th, 2014 at 1:22 AM
Title: Re: Zabmo Nangdon to be published by Shambhala
Content:
conebeckham said:
I'm not disagreeing, Malcolm--but, for instance, His Holiness Sakya Trizin is said to be the source of restrictions for the Lam Dre volume.  It is the lamas who are the source of the restrictions.  I'm just pointing this out for all readers.


Malcolm wrote:
Lamdre is an unrestricted download, and all the most essential Lamdre instructions (slob bshad) have been freely published with HHST's blessings as part of the Library of Tibetan Classics.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 24th, 2014 at 1:19 AM
Title: Re: Should Buddhists even care about "engaging" social polit
Content:


zsc said:
This is basically the basis for the motivation to engage the mechanisms of suffering in many different ways, including suffering brought on due to sociopolitical systems. This is just making a meditation practice of what I have been expressing this whole time.

Malcolm wrote:
Tonglen is simply a practice for developing the courage to be a bodhisattva, nothing more.


zsc said:
Edited to add As I continue to read about it, the less I see how this practice refutes my point about karma, which affirms the teachings of interdependence (from dependent co-origination) and nonduality, and therefore does not agree that karma is something that we "own" in any kind of independent way.

Malcolm wrote:
It is impossible to take on the Karma of another, just as it is impossible to take on the sufferings of others. The practice of Tonglen exists to strengthen one's resolve to assist others. For example, when we imagine we are taking the sufferings of all sentient beings, this is does not cause us to experience all the sufferings of all sentient beings in fact. When we imagine we are taking on the sufferings of starving children, our bodies do not become emaciated and so on. When we imagine that we are sending all of our happiness and positive roots of virtue to sentient beings, such as starving children, they are not immediately rained upon with food and drink. Since the Buddha was not able to remove the sufferings of all sentient beings, how much less able to do so are we? Nevertheless, like the Buddha, we aspire to do so, because in that aspiration lies the seed to accomplishing the ultimate result, Buddhahood.


zsc said:
Honestly, it seems at this point it seems like there can be no pleasing you.

Malcolm wrote:
It would please me if you were able to elaborate a theory of social justice based on truly grasping Buddhist principles.

zsc said:
No matter what language I use, no usage adheres well enough to the teachings of the superior Malcolmyana vehicle, so the actual issues I am trying to discuss cannot be discussed coherently, because even terms like "conventional reality" don't actually mean "conventional reality". This is not meant to be a personal attack, but just an admission that I cannot get around your rhetorical tricks.

Malcolm wrote:
I an not using rhetorical tricks. I am merely pointing out that the view you present is based on a one-lifetime model. I would also like to point out again that you are misusing the notion of interdependence. You are mistaking karana-hetu (the fact that all things are causes of all other things apart from themselves) with pratītyasamutpāda (dependent origination, which fundamentally describes how sentient beings are caught in samsara and how they can interrupt that process) and the principles of karmavipaka (which describe the effects of morally determined actions).

When one confuses these three principles— cause and condition, dependent origination and karmavipaka — then one will be very confused about rebirth, karma, status in the world, etc.

When it comes to conventional reality, there is a statement by Shantideva, "the ultimate of the lower system is the conventional of the higher". Conventional truths are not written in stone. They change, they change depending on what one's understanding is. For example, the conventional truth of a ruler is that he is the most powerful person, but from the conventional truth viewpoint of a persona following Madhyamaka teaching, rulers are the greatest fools of all with the least power.

From the worldly point of view of the equal rights amendment and so on, we need to enable parity and opportunity for all US citizens, and beyond. I not only accept this, but I support it -- which is why you will have noted on other threads I consider gay marriage to be a civil rights issue and I think that people who don't agree with me have a fundamental lack of understanding of what civil rights means (which is why I think poc who do not support gay marriage have a huge blind spot). I am a deep ecologist, and feel that we have a fundamental obligation to respect all life. While my Buddhist practice informs these perspectives, I do not confuse them with my Buddhist practice. I know quite  well that people who are suffering oppression in this life (for example Tibetans in Tibet) are experiencing the ripening of their own karma. Do I support measures to lessen it where possible? Of course. In other words, while it is true that I regard things like having a hot poker shoved in my eye as a result of karma, I also support the idea that the poker ought to be removed as soon as possible, and the inserting of pokers in eyes should be prevented at all costs. But when it does happen, I am not blind to the fact that all sensations in samsara, be they pleasant or painful, are fundamentally a result of karma.

A Buddhist social consciousness must be able to accommodate both perspective simultaneously: on the one hand observing that things like attack dogs and water canons being used on non-violent protestors is fundamentally wrong, and understanding also that the people who are being attacked are also experiencing the ripening of their own karma, while the attackers are creating negative karma for themselves too, which will ripen as suffering later. The Buddhist approach to social justice issues therefore should be equanimous concern and effective engagement, rather than passionate involvement and karmically questionable actions.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 24th, 2014 at 12:47 AM
Title: Re: Zabmo Nangdon to be published by Shambhala
Content:
conebeckham said:
It's not Shambhala who determines restrictions, but the translators or their teachers.  In this case, it was the wish of Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso that certain requirements be met.

I think in all cases, it's not the publisher laying down the rules.   Take a look at the Yeshe Lama, and the Guhyagarbha...etc.

Malcolm wrote:
The entire (reliable) translation of Longchenpa's commentary on Guhyagarbha is available for free on the internet. It is ludicrous therefore for anyone to restrict commentaries on it.

Everything in Yeshe Lama can be found in various books which anyone can buy. This ludicrous fetish for restriction really ought to be abandoned.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 23rd, 2014 at 11:29 PM
Title: Re: Zabmo Nangdon to be published by Shambhala
Content:
conebeckham said:
As for "elitism," well.....if the only people with free access to the texts are Tibetan readers, isn't that a form of elitism, as well?


Malcolm wrote:
That is the point. If you do not read Tibetan well, you are discriminated against in a form that those of who do read Tibetan well are not.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 23rd, 2014 at 11:27 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen in India post 8CE
Content:
tingdzin said:
Once again, Malcolm dismisses as fantasy what does not accord with his preconceptions. As you rightly noted,  I supplied a motive for later Tibetan scholars to attribute Indian origins to Sri Singha, while he offers none for the converse situation. I offer a concrete historical location and context, while he just says "near Bodh Gaya". Pensum, I will get back to you with historical sources by PM, but I'm not going to waste time arguing with someone who is Always Right, even when he has no background in the relevant material.


Malcolm wrote:
Tingzin:

I have either read and translated all the earliest datable historical sources for Sṛī Siṃha (pan grub thugs bcud, lo rgyus chen mo, the Vajra bridge histories, etc,) so your assertion that I have "no background" in relevant materials is plain nonsense.

The lo rgyus chen mo is quite late, comparatively, and is quite out of step with what the earlier sources say (which locate Shri Simha in India). Later Tibetan scholars in general do not locate Shri Simha in India, they locate him in all sorts of places outside of India such as Khotan, China, and so on.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 23rd, 2014 at 11:12 PM
Title: Re: Zabmo Nangdon to be published by Shambhala
Content:
Osho said:
Pathetic.
Truly pathetic.

practitioner said:
I'd disagree, a translator using their time and expertise to give those who can't read Tibetan access to this text is hardly pathetic.  Any restrictions are on the advice of their teacher, hardly a sound marketing strategy...

Malcolm wrote:
The point is these these books are freely available to people like me, translators, without any restrictions at all. So making the English translations restricted is just a kind of elitism.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 22nd, 2014 at 11:14 PM
Title: Re: Should Buddhists even care about "engaging" social polit
Content:


kirtu said:
The Avatamsaka is highly influential in Tibetan Buddhism although it can be argued that this is restricted to the Gaṇḍavyūha Sutra.  For example the Prayer of Samantabhadra is taken directly from the Gaṇḍavyūha Sutra.

I've seen references to the Lotus Sutra pop up but it's influence is weak within Tibetan Buddhism.

Kirt

Malcolm wrote:
Hi Kirt,

Quite the contrary, the Lotus Sutra's ekayāna teachings are very influential in Tibetan Buddhism, forming the basis for example of Sonam Tsemo's observation that there is in reality only one vehicle.

The way we treat sutras is to get at the essential message of a given sutra, and not get caught up in irrelevant details.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 22nd, 2014 at 11:12 PM
Title: Re: Should Buddhists even care about "engaging" social polit
Content:
rory said:
I know you don't read or comment on the Lotus Sutra either.....

Malcolm wrote:
There are commentaries on the Saddharmapundarika Sutra in Tibetan.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 22nd, 2014 at 11:11 PM
Title: Re: Should Buddhists even care about "engaging" social polit
Content:


zsc said:
Your theory that we cannot remove the karmic obstructions of others goes against the understanding that is the basis of the practice of the transference of merit.

Malcolm wrote:
The dedication of merit is not a "transfer" of merit.

zsc said:
Malcolm - I have said over and over here and in the other thread that my concepts of "white/non-white" are referring to conventional reality

Malcolm wrote:
Your concepts vis a vie this issue appear to be based in a one-lifetime perception of social relations. From a Buddhist perspective, taking a one life-time view is not conventional reality at all.


zsc said:
Also, it is an accepted understanding that one can practice the dharma with less obstructions when your basic needs are taken care of. It's the practical reason behind why we don't let our monks starve.

Malcolm wrote:
It would be best if no one starved, and yet despite everything, there is still suffering in the world.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 22nd, 2014 at 9:50 AM
Title: Re: Zabmo Nangdon to be published by Shambhala
Content:
conebeckham said:
Just an FYI, saw that Elizabeth Callahan has translated this, along with Kongtrul's commentary, and it will be available as a restricted text in September from Shambhala.  Website says you must have completed ngondro, have had pointing out instructions, and be practicing HYT yidam under the guidance of a qualified lama.


Malcolm wrote:
You know, I just don't support this restricted text nonsense.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 22nd, 2014 at 6:12 AM
Title: Re: Should Buddhists even care about "engaging" social polit
Content:
rory said:
Malcolm: 8. deaf, dumb, blind or mentally deficient
This is a very good example of re-iterating something that is outdated. Times have changed a current priest in Honmon Butsuryu Shu is deaf and signs the Odaimoku, he enthusiastically wants to bring Buddhism to deaf people with sign language, as opposed to the times he was told in SGI to sit and be silent. Blind  people can read braille and study just like anyone else. Even those who are developmentally disabled have levels of ability, it is up to them how much and how far they can learn. Let's not perpetrate these backward attitudes.

Malcolm wrote:
It is true that we have braille and sign language these assist people are deaf and blind learn Dharma. Developmental disabled people can learn Dharma too. But to pretend than these factors do not present significant problems is to just ignore how things are.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 22nd, 2014 at 12:53 AM
Title: Re: Should Buddhists even care about "engaging" social polit
Content:


zsc said:
I would say that since practice leads to the goal for liberation, more people would be able to practice if they weren't overburdened with concerns like not having enough to eat, not having adequate shelter, not having access to clean water, not having access to education, not having access to educational and employment opportunities, etc. These factors often depend on present social and political structures.

Malcolm wrote:
And all of these are covered in the teaching of the eight freedoms and ten endowments that define a precious human birth:

Freedom from being born in:

1. in the Hell realms
2. as a hungry ghost
3. as an animal
4. in a place where teachings are unavailable
5. as a long-life god (always content and therefore has no motivation for progress)
6. with wrong view (no understanding of karma, and no understanding of past and future lives)
7. where no Buddha has appeared
8. deaf, dumb, blind or mentally deficient

If one is born in any of the above realms, there is no chance of studying and practicing the teachings. What is therefore necessary are the Ten Endowments which consists of Five Inherent Endowments and Five Karma Provisions. The Five Inherent Endowments are one is born

1. as a human being
2. where there are teachings
3. possessing five senses
4. not having committed heavy negative karmas
5. having confidence in and devotion to the Triple Gem

The Five Karma Provisions are one is born

1. where a Buddha has appeared
2. where a Buddha has taught
3. where the Dharma teachings flourish
4. where there are followers who enter the pure path of Dharma
5. where there is support from the kindness of others, including the spiritual master.

zsc said:
Ultimately, I do not see social activism as an attempt to change the samsaric reality, but to remove as many samsaric obstructions as possible so that the Buddhist path can be open to more people. This is why I disagree with points like that reiterated by Johnny Dangerous, et all. I don't perceive any social resolution as an "end", but the means to liberation in a fuller sense.

Malcolm wrote:
The Buddhist path is open to anyone who takes refuge in the Three Jewels.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 21st, 2014 at 11:43 PM
Title: Re: Self-Immolation: an anti-Buddhist practice?
Content:
Nemo said:
Will you be returning your land to the indigenous people your ancestors displaced?

Malcolm wrote:
The land I live on was never owned or settled by any tribe, and lay in a sort of no man's land between the Hudson river valley and the Connecticut river valley. Settling in this part of Mass never displaced anyone.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 21st, 2014 at 11:40 PM
Title: Re: Self-Immolation: an anti-Buddhist practice?
Content:


Nemo said:
I would rather stop wasting resources on Tibet. The battle is lost. Flee the country and regroup elsewhere. We can still preserve something in Nepal and Bhutan.

Malcolm wrote:
You don't have to "waste" any resources on Tibet. However, Tibet is important. Tibetans are not going to flee; where would they go? Canada?

Nepal, not likely, they are in the pocket of the PRC. Bhutan is a park.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 21st, 2014 at 8:16 AM
Title: Re: Is all knowing state same as Higher Self?
Content:
garudha said:
You realise that not only are these words you are reading right now samsara, but every part of your body, including every single idea, thought & slightest movement of your brain IS samsara itself ?
You think that only the watch-face of the swiss-watch of samsara. I'm telling you that every single piece of the swiss-watch, even the tick noise, IS samsara.
Wisdom & Compassion are the Jewels of the watch. These Jewels are pure and nothing else.

Lotus_Bitch said:
Fundamentally, this is dualistic, from the Mahayana viewpoint.

garudha said:
Is Yab-Yum dualistic ?

Malcolm wrote:
No, it is symbol of the non duality method and wisdom.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 21st, 2014 at 8:15 AM
Title: Re: Can't Really Work with Mahayana by the Looks of it
Content:
rob h said:
Thanks again for the help.

I haven't actually read much about Bodhisattvas in Theravada, but this paper I just found speaks quite a bit about them and some of the misconceptions that have apparently been made. Have only read halfway through so far, but it's trying to say for at least part of it, that the Bodhisattva ideal is actually very alive in Theravada. Also something that I've seen before : that the whole "Hinayana" thing was actually meant to mean some sects of Mahayana, but things then got confused over time. Will hopefully read the rest later on.

http://journals.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/index.php/jiabs/article/viewFile/8663/2570

Malcolm wrote:
The fact is that in Theravada, if you choose bodhisattva aspiration, it is considered that you cannot become a stream entrant. Needless to say, in Mahāyāna, we do not agree.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 21st, 2014 at 8:05 AM
Title: Re: Should Buddhists even care about "engaging" social polit
Content:
zsc said:
From the last discussion that I participated in ( https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=42&t=11898 ), something came up that I think deserves its own thread, which is the question of how involved Buddhists should be in politics, or if they even should be involved at all. My position is that I don't think it would be detrimental to our practice if we were politically involved.

Malcolm wrote:
That depends very much on how. If your politics cultivates the three poisons, then it is probably better you are not involved in politics.

zsc said:
Related to this, I find it pretty troubling when other Buddhists take positions that basically say that our current social position is the result of our karma from a previous life only. It implies that our social advantages are "rightfully ours" because they have been "earned" in some way, so there is little need to address inequality, making social politics irrelevant to practice. Remove the teaching of rebirth,

Malcolm wrote:
But we don't remove rebirth.


zsc said:
and this is basically the assumption that props up elitism, as well as the myth of the true meritocracy and the "self-made man".

Malcolm wrote:
But of course Buddhist social theory maintains that one's rebirth is based on one's virtuous deeds. So if you are born into an "elite" and behave non-virtuously, you will lose that position in your next life.


zsc said:
These are the mechanisms that have made imperialism, colonialism, racism, and other forms of bigotry possible, and have kept these forms of bigotry institutionalized and powerful.

Malcolm wrote:
None of this applies to Buddhist social theory.

zsc said:
Moreover, white mainstream Buddhism's major players have been taking similar philosophical positions...

Malcolm wrote:
We are just following the lead of our non-white teachers.

zsc said:
Where is the room for conventional reality to be addressed? "No independent identity" should not be taken to mean "irrelevant", especially from Mahayanists, who affirm the non-dualistic nature of reality.

Malcolm wrote:
If you wish to be take seriously on this score you will have to abandon your rhetoric of white/non-white, etc.

zsc said:
Often, people who disagree with me bring up scriptures in which Shakyamuni asserts that political concerns are not appropriate for Buddhists to concern themselves with

Malcolm wrote:
The Buddha never said that we should not engage in political life.


zsc said:
The Hindu caste system had spiritual leaders at the top, implying a hierarchy of spiritual maturity...

Malcolm wrote:
When the Buddha was alive, as he very clearly says in many texts, the warrior class was more respected than the priestly class.


zsc said:
I think how we were taught to understand karma matters here. I was never taught that karma was only in relation to accumulation from a past life, but also the causes and conditions that each of us bring about through our thoughts and actions, and doesn't just affect you, because there is not a separate "you" to begin with. This is why the practice of accumulating merit make sense, for instance. You accumulate good merit from wholesome deeds, and others also accumulate merit through, among other ways, rejoicing in the wholesomeness of your meritous act when you tell them that you did it. Pretty much the opposite of the Christian understanding that you are suppose to do good deeds in secret.



Malcolm wrote:
You are conflating action (karma) with the ripening of action (karma vipaka). Action, as defined by the Buddha, is intention and what proceeds from intention. "You" are indeed a separate continuum, but that continuum simply isn't a self.

zsc said:
So as it relates to social politics, there is nothing inherently disadvantageous about being born black, for example.

Malcolm wrote:
Nope, not intrinsically; nothing intrinsically disadvantageous about being a woman either. But in this present epoch they seem to be both.

zsc said:
But since it is what it is, where black people and other marginalized groups are suffering due to today's circumstances, this should be engaged.

Malcolm wrote:
Sure, Buddhists who feel that they should do something should do something.

zsc said:
So to bring it all back, this is why I don't think that political activism is inappropriate behavior for a Buddhist, since I do not think that it is unwholesome for a Buddhist to engage conventional reality as long as he or she remembers it is ultimately empty.

Malcolm wrote:
As I said at the beginning, what matters is "the how." But there are a number of people you can learn from such as Bernie Glassman, a prominent example of an engaged Buddhist political activist and there are many others


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 21st, 2014 at 4:19 AM
Title: Re: Is all knowing state same as Higher Self?
Content:


Son of Buddha said:
he established that the 5 aggregates were Not Self and it was because they WERE not self that they lead to suffering


Malcolm wrote:
The Buddha established that the five aggregates were not a self, that none of the five aggregates individually are a self, and important, than there is no self apart from the five aggregates.

Thus, all phenomena, including nirvana, are not self.

Son of Buddha said:
SN 22.46 Impermanent (2) pg 885
At Savatthi. “Bhikkhus, form is impermanent…. Feeling is impermanent…. Preception is impermanent…. Volitional formations are impermanent…. Consciousness is impermanent. What is Impermanent is suffering. What is suffering is nonself.
What is nonself should be seen as it really is with correct wisdom thus: This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.”

so Nirvana is Suffering since it is not self correct?

talk about throwing out the baby with the bath water.


Malcolm wrote:
Where does the Buddha ever say in any śravaka text that nirvana is a self? No where, that's where.

While indeed the five aggregates are not self, this does not mean that space and the two cessations are a self.

Ārya-tathāgatācintyaguhyanirdeśa-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra states:

Guhyapati, in the same way, the tathāgatas have summarized all Dharmas. The summaries of Dharmas are defined as four. If it is asked what four: in order to conquer the śramanas and brahmins who advocate permanence, the long-lived gods who think of permanence, it is said "All conditioned things are impermanent. In order to conquer humans and gods who think of happiness, it is said "all conditioned things are suffering". In order to conquer the tīrthikas who propose a permanent self, it is said that all phenomena (dharmas) are without self. In order to subdue that proud who engage in conceptuality, it is said that "nirvana is peace".

Guhyapati, impermanent denotes very impermanent. Suffering denotes freedom from aspiration. Selfless denotes the characteristic of emptiness. "Nirvana is peace" denotes actualizing the absence of characteristics.

Here, we can see what the four seals are really intended for. Further, the Ārya-ratnacūḍaparipṛcchā-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra states:

"All conditioned things are impermanent", "all conditioned things are suffering", "all phenomena are not self" and "nirvana is peace" are equivalent statements.

Rājādeśa-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra:

Nirvana is the supreme bliss of peace,
without concepts grasping it as self and without affliction.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 21st, 2014 at 3:35 AM
Title: Re: Is all knowing state same as Higher Self?
Content:


Son of Buddha said:
he established that the 5 aggregates were Not Self and it was because they WERE not self that they lead to suffering


Malcolm wrote:
The Buddha established that the five aggregates were not a self, that none of the five aggregates individually are a self, and important, than there is no self apart from the five aggregates.

Thus, all phenomena, including nirvana, are not self.

garudha said:
So all phenomena manifests through/as/is the five aggregates ?

Malcolm wrote:
There are two classes of phenomena; conditioned and unconditioned. All conditioned phenomena are included in the five aggregates; the unconditioned phenomena are space, the two cessations (one of them being nirvana) and emptiness.

All of these phenomena are not a self.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 21st, 2014 at 3:12 AM
Title: Re: Is all knowing state same as Higher Self?
Content:


Son of Buddha said:
he established that the 5 aggregates were Not Self and it was because they WERE not self that they lead to suffering


Malcolm wrote:
The Buddha established that the five aggregates were not a self, that none of the five aggregates individually are a self, and important, than there is no self apart from the five aggregates.

Thus, all phenomena, including nirvana, are not self.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 21st, 2014 at 3:02 AM
Title: Re: Is all knowing state same as Higher Self?
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
No, actually, I don't think the historical Buddha taught one word of Mahāyāna or Vajrayāna for that matter. They are teachings put in his mouth.

Nighthawk said:
Nagarjuna was a historical Buddha who taught the Mahayana amongst many others.

Malcolm wrote:
I was referring to the Buddha cast in Mahāyāna sutras.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 20th, 2014 at 10:54 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen in India post 8CE
Content:
Konch said:
Longchenpa’s claim that Srisimha, one of the earliest ﬁgures of the Dzogchen lineage, was Ho-shang Mahayana

Malcolm wrote:
Longchenpa's view of the history of the arrival of Dzogchen to Tibet was a bit skewed by Nyang ral's term bio. In some places it seems he follows Nyang, in others, he seems to follow Zhangton. In general, he seems to more or less ignore the sem sde account which formed the basis for the "Great Image" bio of Vairocana (which is a composite bio based on several sources).


Konch said:
But this aside, going back a little to the main topic from the OP, so it seems noone is having a go at the point of what happnened to dzogchen in India.

Malcolm wrote:
That is because there is nothing definitive we can say about it beyond the fact that two students of Śrī Siṃha brought it to Tibet.

Given the interchangeability between the terms mahāmudra and rdzogchen in the early texts, we can consider that Dzogchen was a pre-mother tantra approach to the completion stage.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 20th, 2014 at 10:38 PM
Title: Re: Self-Immolation: an anti-Buddhist practice?
Content:


Nemo said:
It was a protectorate historically and has a predominantly Han population now. Jokhang Temple is now a shopping mall. Previously it was too isolated to bother administering directly. Now it is too resource rich and strategically important to be independent. It will  revert back around the same time the Iroquois take back America. Resources should be spent on conserving Nepal and Bhutan.

Malcolm wrote:
It was not a protectorate, historically. Tibetan sovereignty has been well established in the historical record.

The Han who live there now were settled there illegally.

It may be the case that China will never voluntarily relinquish control of Tibet, but that does not mean we need to forget history.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 20th, 2014 at 10:29 PM
Title: Re: Three Turnings.
Content:
kirtu said:
However the Theravadin School is also not just a Sravakayana school.

Kirt


Malcolm wrote:
Of course it is.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 20th, 2014 at 10:27 PM
Title: Re: Three Turnings.
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
It is not a Mahāyāna POV, which are only Yogacara or Madhyamaka.

kirtu said:
It's not a Mahayana philosophical view of reality but that has nothing to do with one's bodhicitta.  One can have a realist view and still be a bodhisattva not on the bhumis and thus nonetheless following the Mahayana path.

Kirt


Malcolm wrote:
I was talking about view, not motivation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 20th, 2014 at 9:49 AM
Title: Re: Is all knowing state same as Higher Self?
Content:


Son of Buddha said:
Yea your just agreeing with me, you accept that the Buddha taught True Self ,you just think its provisional.

Malcolm wrote:
No, actually, I don't think the historical Buddha taught one word of Mahāyāna or Vajrayāna for that matter. They are teachings put in his mouth.

I evaluate the these texts based on their content, not who supposedly spoke them.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 20th, 2014 at 9:44 AM
Title: Re: Self-Immolation: an anti-Buddhist practice?
Content:
Vajraprajnakhadga said:
I wonder why both of you removed that one sentence from its context.

Malcolm wrote:
Because the rest of your statement, while obvious, does to address the salient feature of the problem.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 20th, 2014 at 9:00 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen in India post 8CE
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The earliest source that mentions that Shri Siṃha comes from somewhere outside of India is the 12th century lo rgyus chen mo. This is totally unlikely, considering that the pan grub thugs bcud (Bima rgyud 'bum. vol. 1) locates Shri Simha in India, near Bodhgaya. Thus, we can regard any idea that Sṛī Siṃha is anything other than an Indian a late Tibetan fantasy.

dzogchungpa said:
That's interesting. Do you have any idea why they would want to fantasize in that way?

Malcolm wrote:
I cannot speak about their motivations, apart from the fact that perhaps it was important to Zhangton to make Dzogchen seem more exotic than Indian tantra.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 20th, 2014 at 8:41 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen in India post 8CE
Content:
tingdzin said:
I'm sorry, Pensum, but this article you link to is useless from the standpoint of scholarly history. For example: note 3 says that So khyam is Su gnam; this is not only a phonetic stretch, it is directly contradicted by other Tibetan sources (e.g. Deb ther Sngon po, the Blue Annals), that have nothing to do with Sri Singha, but which put So khyam in the NW part of China proper, i.e. the upper reaches of the Yellow River. Phonologically So khyam is correctly related to the Chinese Suo fang and the Khotanese Sva hvam, both historically referring to the same area. This So khyam is moreover quite close to the Chinese Wu tai shan, which would make it a logical choice for Sri Singha's studies. The Five-peaked Mountain in Khotan was attested earlier than the one in China, but I don't think the one in Nepal was; in fact, as I recall, putting a five-peaked mountain in Nepal was simply a result of the later massive transfer of all the lore associated with Khotan to Nepal, under the mistaken later belief that Nepal was the  Li yul often talked about in the oldest Tibetan material. This massive transfer might itself have been inspired by the pathological refusal of the later Tibetan schools to accept anything from outside the Indian subcontinent as authentic Buddhism. When the (conveniently anonymous) author of this article says things like "it is known that" to preface remarks which are at least highly controversial and probably complete fabrication, without citing sources, he shows that his "scholarship" is not worthy of consideration, regardless of its acceptance by an official Buddhist organization. If you are very interested in these things, I can refer you to real scholarly materials.

Malcolm wrote:
The earliest source that mentions that Shri Siṃha comes from somewhere outside of India is the 12th century lo rgyus chen mo. This is totally unlikely, considering that the pan grub thugs bcud (Bima rgyud 'bum. vol. 1) locates Shri Simha in India, near Bodhgaya. Thus, we can regard any idea that Sṛī Siṃha is anything other than an Indian a late Tibetan fantasy.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 20th, 2014 at 8:34 AM
Title: Re: Can't Really Work with Mahayana by the Looks of it
Content:
Alfredo said:
Mahayana rhetoric to the effect that "Hinayana" practitioners are selfish, less advanced, etc. should be treated as just that--rhetoric. Real-life Theravadins are just as compassionate, etc. as real-life Mahayanists. (.

Malcolm wrote:
Compassion is not the complete measure of Mahāyāna, there is no objectless compassion in Theravada; and the Theravadin bodhisattva doctrine is set up so that aspirants to Buddhahood are denied stream entry.

There are in fact there in fact three kinds of bodhicitta according to Mahāyāna: that of an arhat, a pratyekabuddha and a buddha. Of the three, the last is the most superior.

Just saying....


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 20th, 2014 at 8:27 AM
Title: Re: who is the Greatest master you have ever seen?
Content:
xabir said:
That is another occassion, not the teaching on the deer park. He gave countless teachings over his career. The ones in the deer park were his previous companions, and they recognised some change in the Buddha so got attracted to him.

On other occassions, such as the incident I provided, the follower of Buddha has not met Buddha before, and he did not recognise Buddha when meeting with him, and certainly did not suspect that he was Buddha merely by "his shining presence".

Only towards the end of the discourse, in recognising the profundity of Buddha's wisdom, he said, surely this must be the Buddha himself, and repented for the transgression of addressing Buddha as a "friend". He attained the awakening of an anagami after that discourse.

Basically: you can only tell someone is enlightened from his wisdom, not his/her appearance.

Malcolm wrote:
Sunakṣatra was Buddha's first attendant, for many years.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 20th, 2014 at 8:25 AM
Title: Re: Self-Immolation: an anti-Buddhist practice?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The Chinese psyche is still scarred and terrified of provinces declaring independence.
Tibet is not now, never has been and never will be a "province" of China.

Vajraprajnakhadga said:
The maps say otherwise.

Malcolm wrote:
Screw the maps -- they don't represent the facts.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 20th, 2014 at 8:23 AM
Title: Re: Three Turnings.
Content:


jeeprs said:
So the phenomenal world exists, but everything in it is transient, unsatisfying and empty (sunya).


Malcolm wrote:
This is not a Mahāyāna point of view.

kirtu said:
It's not a Cittamatrin or Madhyamakian view.  It could however be a Mahayana POV...
Kirt

Malcolm wrote:
It is not a Mahāyāna POV, which are only Yogacara or Madhyamaka.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 20th, 2014 at 8:20 AM
Title: Re: who is the Greatest master you have ever seen?
Content:


tyler2 said:
you dont understand that noone would believe buddha about enlightenment unless he was "shining" or had  presence, anyone can talk and say "i am enlightened".
the ascetics he originally practiced with who had rejected him originally , were going to reject him again but as he drew closer they were attracted by his aura.

Malcolm wrote:
Of course, then there is the guy, Sunakṣatra, who claimed the only difference between himself and the Buddha was that the Buddha had a glow.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 20th, 2014 at 4:48 AM
Title: Re: Three Turnings.
Content:


jeeprs said:
So the phenomenal world exists, but everything in it is transient, unsatisfying and empty (sunya).


Malcolm wrote:
This is not a Mahāyāna point of view.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 20th, 2014 at 4:46 AM
Title: Re: Three Turnings.
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
If one claims the "third turning" is definitive, defines it as a number of sutras like the Saṃdhinirmocana and so on, and then you cite a "first" turning sūtra, you have contradicted yourself.

jeeprs said:
Not necessarily.

Malcolm wrote:
Necessarily, since your criteria would then be based on the teachings career of the Buddha.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 20th, 2014 at 4:44 AM
Title: Re: Is all knowing state same as Higher Self?
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
if you accept the Mahayana and the Vajrayana as being authentic schools of Buddhism then yes the True Self is really the Buddhas teaching.

Malcolm wrote:
Ah, no you don't. You can understand that so called "self" teachings or tathāgatagabha teachings in some Mahāyāna Buddhist sutras are provisional and still accept the validity of Mahāyāna and Vajrayāna


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 20th, 2014 at 4:41 AM
Title: Re: who is the Greatest master you have ever seen?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
"I am sorry I couldn't give you any vibration..."
-- Chogyal Namkhai Norbu's remark to a student who though other Lamas had more "vibration".


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 20th, 2014 at 4:35 AM
Title: Re: Self-Immolation: an anti-Buddhist practice?
Content:
Unknown said:
The Chinese psyche is still scarred and terrified of provinces declaring independence.

Malcolm wrote:
Tibet is not now, never has been and never will be a "province" of China.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 20th, 2014 at 4:29 AM
Title: Good vibrations...
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
(Slightly adapted from the beach boys....)

I, I love the colorful clothes he wears
And the way the butterlamps play upon his hair
I hear the sound of a gentle word
On the wind that lifts his incense through the air

Im pickin up good vibrations
hes giving me excitations
Im pickin up good vibrations
(oom bop bop good vibrations)
hes giving me excitations
(oom bop bop excitations)
Good good good good vibrations
(oom bop bop)
hes giving me excitations
(oom bop bop excitations)
Good good good good vibrations
(oom bop bop)
hes giving me excitations
(oom bop bop excitations)

Close my eyes
hes somehow closer now
Softly smile, I know he must be kind
When I look in his eyes
he goes with me to a pure land world

Im pickin up good vibrations
hes giving me excitations
Im pickin up good vibrations
(oom bop bop good vibrations)
hes giving me excitations
(oom bop bop excitations)
Good good good good vibrations
(oom bop bop)
hes giving me excitations
(oom bop bop excitations)
Good good good good vibrations
(oom bop bop)
hes giving me excitations
(oom bop bop excitations)

(ahhhhhhh)
(ah my my what elation)
I don't know where but he sends me there
(ah my my what a sensation)
(ah my my what elations)
(ah my my what)

Gotta keep those lovin good vibrations
A happenin with him
Gotta keep those lovin good vibrations
A happenin with him
Gotta keep those lovin good vibrations
A happenin

Ahhhhhhhh
Good good good good vibrations
(oom bop bop)
(Im pickin up good vibrations)
hes giving me excitations
(oom bop bop)
(excitations)
Good good good good vibrations
(oom bop bop)
hes na na...

Na na na na na
Na na na
Na na na na na
Na na na
Do do do do do
Do do do
Do do do do do
Do do do


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 19th, 2014 at 10:43 PM
Title: Re: who is the Greatest master you have ever seen?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Who can say one buddha is greater than another?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 19th, 2014 at 10:35 PM
Title: Re: The Dalai Lama Says Gay Marriage Is OK
Content:
jeeprs said:
Well, I'm afraid I do not concur. I admit, I might be quite mistaken, and I agree that others may hold completely different views to my own. But the issue is, as regards the recognition of 'gay marriage', that I am being compelled to agree. It means that the society of which I am part, no longer recognizes my right to dissent. It is not enough for me to live and let live anymore; I am required to live and applaud. And I'm not going to do that.

mañjughoṣamaṇi said:
Really?  The Australian government rounds you all up and marches you down to the pride parade to cheer?


Malcolm wrote:
They do that in Canada too, that's why Jeff left. Rob Ford is the only bastion of conservative values left in Canada, I hope they elect him prime minister soon.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 19th, 2014 at 10:31 PM
Title: Re: The Dalai Lama Says Gay Marriage Is OK
Content:
greentara said:
Some time ago I remember reading about twenty-six year old (female) lawyer who says, 'I choose to use the name Dean and masculine pronouns.  In part this feels right because most people who look at me take me to be woman, so using these words helps to disrupt that process a little and opens a space for me to be something more complicated than that, which I feel better fits who I really am.'
It seems that the  idea of identity flux, of being able to be whoever you want, is an essential part of the times we are living in.
The key word here is 'who I really am?'
So really who am I?
Lets dive deep within and look at it from a Buddhist and spiritual perspective,  limited identities fail to address the fact that our true identity is limitless.

Malcolm wrote:
We cannot expect them to subscribe to Buddhist ideals.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 19th, 2014 at 10:29 PM
Title: Re: U.S Heruka Chakrasamvra Initianions?
Content:
Matticus said:
I just picked up Lama Yeshe's book in which he discusses then 6 Yogas of Naropa.  Before the book starts discussing the various practices the author strongly suggests the reader obtain a proper Heruka Chakrasamvra initiation.  Does anyone know of any facilities or teachers that are able to do this in the U.S?

Thanks for your time and have a good evening!
Matt.


Malcolm wrote:
HH Sakya Trizen will give the root empowerment for all Cakrasamvara empowerments (The Luipa tradition) in Vancouver in May. He will give a major Vajrayogini empowerment from the tradition of Laskminkara on April 4th in the US, as well as several other Vajrayogini blessings (Indra, Maitripa, Naropa, Severed Headed) over those days, as well as a Kalacakra empowerment in NYC April 7-8.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 19th, 2014 at 10:23 PM
Title: Re: The Dalai Lama Says Gay Marriage Is OK
Content:


Knotty Veneer said:
So the undermining of unions, ofshoring of manufacturing and globalized competition for wages has had no effect on middleclass incomes or the necessity for both partners in a marriage to go out to work then?

Malcolm wrote:
These are all factors in a competitive liberalized global economy. The alternative is much worse.

The decline of the middle class in the US has resulted in a rise in the middle class in other places such as China, India and Mexico. Such are the tides of the global economy.

You can't plan the economy, you can't "save" the middle class; the most you can go is decide what kinds of activities you are going to restrict, for example, pharmaceuticals as opposed to heroin; legal mining as opposed to unregulated illegal mining (a big problem in India), etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 19th, 2014 at 10:05 PM
Title: Re: The Dalai Lama Says Gay Marriage Is OK
Content:



Knotty Veneer said:
Nonsense. Free market economic policies that favor the superrich at the expense of everyone else have destroyed the middle class and the nuclear family.

Economic policies that rightwing dolts cheerlead for against their own best interests.

Malcolm wrote:
Free market policies created the middle class. Illegal financial speculation in exotic investment instruments have destroyed the middle class. The nuclear family is a socioeconomic myth invented in the fifties; in reality, the "nuclear" family destroyed itself, since two parents are not really capable of adequately raising children on their own.

The raising of children requires many people, the increased social alienation and misery that we see since the fifties is a result of the nuclear family and the decline of the extended family system.

Free markets do not mean unregulated markets. Free markets can and should operate within constraints. But they are the most efficient way of getting goods from place a to b. Planned economies are all nightmares.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 19th, 2014 at 9:55 PM
Title: Re: The Dalai Lama Says Gay Marriage Is OK
Content:
Knotty Veneer said:
More straw men. In which liberalized societies can parents provide consent for minors to marry?

Indrajala said:
It will come. Canada or Britain might be the first countries to allow it for religious purposes.

Malcolm wrote:
In fact parental marriage consent for minors already exists in states like Kentucky and so on has for a very long time, hearkening back to the day when it was not unusual for girls to be married off at 15.

Child betrothal is an Indian custom, and there is nothing anyone can do to prevent two sets of parents from agreeing that their children will become married in any country apart from the children themselves when they come of age. But as India and so on liberalize, these kinds of things will become rarer and rarer. They will not spread to the West.

As for Sharia law, well, it can't ever spread to the US on any level, so this paranoia is just an Alex Jones/Prison Planet non-starter.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 19th, 2014 at 9:48 PM
Title: Re: The Dalai Lama Says Gay Marriage Is OK
Content:
Knotty Veneer said:
Maybe some people should mind their own freakin' business.


Indrajala said:
By that logic we shouldn't halt all manner of private albeit questionable activities, like narcotics consumption for example, because it is none of our business what adults do in the privacy of their own homes.

Some argue that narcotics damage society, hence must be proscribed. Well, some argue gay marriage will damage society, too.

Malcolm wrote:
And some people argue that evolution destroys the moral fabric of society, still argue that equal rights for blacks damages society and so on. Some people will argue anything. This does not mean their arguments are valid or even deserve to be entertained.

In the case of narcotics, the medical evidence is very clear. In the case of gay marriage there is no evidence at all that it will "damage" society, just like the appallingly stupid claim that feminism has destroyed the American family has no evidence.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 19th, 2014 at 9:44 PM
Title: Re: The Dalai Lama Says Gay Marriage Is OK
Content:


Indrajala said:
I have pointed to the fact gay marriage sets a legal precedent that other groups will use for their own claims, which have to be addressed sooner or later.

Malcolm wrote:
And this absurd contention has been dismantled several times.

Indrajala said:
If denying gay marriage = human rights infringement,

Malcolm wrote:
Not human rights, civil rights.

Indrajala said:
...then denying some groups the right to child marriages can also be claimed as a human rights infringement. You can argue this doesn't apply because children can't give consent, but their parents can in fact do so on their behalf, and in any case the trends of increasingly liberalized societies in the west suggest eventually multiculturalism will have to accommodate such alien practices.

Malcolm wrote:
This is no more problematical than denying some groups the right to mutilate the genitals of their female children. Why do we deny such rights? Because the basic right to property is the right to one's body. In a liberalized society, parents do not have rights to their children's bodies. Parents have an obligation to protect the basic rights of their children, by they have no right to violate the right of a child to the integrity of their own bodies except in cases of illnesses where a child may wish to refuse treatments and so on.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 18th, 2014 at 9:08 PM
Title: Re: The Dalai Lama Says Gay Marriage Is OK
Content:



Indrajala said:
Like I said, I'm just being orthodox. I am one of the good guys on this side of the pond.

Malcolm wrote:
No you are not. There is no "orthodoxy" in Buddhism when it comes to marriage.

What you are doing is reinforcing patriarchal values, specifically, a very Christian version of them.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 18th, 2014 at 9:06 PM
Title: Re: The Dalai Lama Says Gay Marriage Is OK
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Sure they do. But in your cynicism, you just don't want to see it.

Indrajala said:
Or perhaps you don't want to admit the failure of your cherished ideology.

Malcolm wrote:
I don't see that there are any failures in the principles of democracy and equal rights; I certainly will allow that the United States has not in every instance lived up to its own rhetoric. Nevertheless, people are more free now in history than they ever have been before, and this I attribute to liberal democracy and free market economics which go hand in hand.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 18th, 2014 at 8:29 PM
Title: Re: The Dalai Lama Says Gay Marriage Is OK
Content:


Indrajala said:
Not at all. If I was born a century or two ago I could have been a globe trotting swashbuckler. Quite easily actually, especially before passport controls were implemented.

Malcolm wrote:
In reality you probably would have never left your county.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 18th, 2014 at 8:29 PM
Title: Re: The Dalai Lama Says Gay Marriage Is OK
Content:


Indrajala said:
In practice your cherished notions of human rights and so on simply don't amount to much.

Malcolm wrote:
Sure they do. But in your cynicism, you just don't want to see it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 18th, 2014 at 8:25 PM
Title: Re: The Dalai Lama Says Gay Marriage Is OK
Content:


Indrajala said:
Dislike me all you want, but I'm actually quite orthodox.

Malcolm wrote:
Nonsense, Jeff. A political reactionary? Yes. Are your views "orthodox Buddhism" on this score? No.

Buddhism does not and never has concerned itself with marriage as an institution.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 18th, 2014 at 8:24 PM
Title: Re: The Dalai Lama Says Gay Marriage Is OK
Content:
Clarence said:
Add to that the fact that he is representing Buddhism

Malcolm wrote:
He isn't representing Buddhism, he is representing himself. It is important to keep that in mind. The opinions of one junior monk hardly mean anything.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 18th, 2014 at 8:21 PM
Title: Re: The Dalai Lama Says Gay Marriage Is OK
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Actually, Jeff does not believe in rights for anyone, he stated so a few posts back. He does not even believe that he has "equal rights" or "human rights", even though of course his ability to spew the nonsense he has been spewing lately is possible because he has both.

Indrajala said:
You are misrepresenting me again.

I said I don't believe in human rights and equal rights.

This is quite different from saying I "do not believe in rights for anyone".

Malcolm wrote:
The concept of "rights" was predicated on class rights. That proved ineffective, so now we have human and equal rights. There are no other kinds, except for rights granted by licensure, and those are more akin to privileges rather than rights. You remind me of a Virginia cavalier who famously stated " I love liberty, but I hate equality!".


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 18th, 2014 at 8:17 PM
Title: Re: The Dalai Lama Says Gay Marriage Is OK
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Marriage is a govt. sanctioned institution. It confers certain rights onto people who marry (that's why you need a license to do it) to that unmarried people do not enjoy. Since gay people who are in long term committed relationships are denied those same rights as heterosexuals because they are denied the right of marriage, this amounts to civil rights discrimination.

Indrajala said:
Civil rights discrimination as a problem is entirely a subjective opinion. Your point here doesn't make your argument any more rational.


Malcolm wrote:
No, it is not "subjective opinion" — it is judicial opinion at this point in many advanced nations.

Indrajala said:
Secondly, there is no evidence that heterosexual parents are any better at raising children then gay parents.

It hasn't been widespread long enough to make that judgment call yet.

Malcolm wrote:
Sure it has. Gay people have been raising children together forever.


Indrajala said:
No. I've constantly pointed to the fact a legal precedent is set by virtue of sanctioning gay marriage. This can and will be used by fringe groups which many find presently detestable to further their own goals.

Malcolm wrote:
Your qualms are irrational: amounting to "If we allow miscegenation, bestiality must be next!" — you have basically placed gay people on a continuum with pedophiles, and that is really offensive.

Indrajala said:
As I keep noting, there are plenty of civil and well-developed industrial societies like Japan which have neither gay marriage nor overly liberal social policies, and arguably never will in the foreseeable future.

Malcolm wrote:
I think you will be surprised at how quickly this will change in industrialized nations around the world.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 18th, 2014 at 8:08 PM
Title: Re: The Dalai Lama Says Gay Marriage Is OK
Content:


Clarence said:
Actually, it is hateful. And the fact that you say you want what is best for western societies, while arguing against equal rights for gay couples, is truly offensive.

Malcolm wrote:
Actually, Jeff does not believe in rights for anyone, he stated so a few posts back. He does not even believe that he has "equal rights" or "human rights", even though of course his ability to spew the nonsense he has been spewing lately is possible because he has both.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 18th, 2014 at 8:04 PM
Title: Re: The Dalai Lama Says Gay Marriage Is OK
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
On this score, you are being an idiot.

Indrajala said:
This is just an insult and hardly contributes to the discussion.

Malcolm wrote:
You may feel insulted, I think you have left your senses on this on. Where you normally are clear headed and rational, I think you are being an idiot on this issue. So be insulted. I not only am allowed to think you are being an idiot, I am even allowed to say so. When you stop being an idiot, I will stop thinking you are being one, and addressing you as such, i.e., when you have returned to your senses.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 18th, 2014 at 8:03 PM
Title: Re: The Dalai Lama Says Gay Marriage Is OK
Content:
Indrajala said:
It deviates from historical norms to the point of being extreme and unprecedented.

Malcolm wrote:
This is total nonsense. As has been pointed out there are no historical norms when it comes to "marriage" and "families" across the broad swath of humanity.

But gay marriage is a natural out growth of the type of democracy we have in the west, it is a civil rights issue, and it naturally flows from the civil rights movement (which of course you don't believe in, since you don't believe in rights).

In this case you are just pissing against the wind, and like all people who piss against the wind, you only soil your own clothes.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 18th, 2014 at 7:59 PM
Title: Re: The Dalai Lama Says Gay Marriage Is OK
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Like all bigots, you have no rational basis for your claims. You might as well be saying that christians should not marry jews.

Indrajala said:
If this were so, what rational basis is there for claiming same sex couples should be able to marry?

If we are all just basing our arguments on our feelings and opinions, then nobody can claim a rational basis.

Malcolm wrote:
I have explained this already -- so, I will explain it again.

Marriage is a govt. sanctioned institution. It confers certain rights onto people who marry (that's why you need a license to do it) to that unmarried people do not enjoy. Since gay people who are in long term committed relationships are denied those same rights as heterosexuals because they are denied the right of marriage, this amounts to civil rights discrimination.

Since you have famously declared you don't believe in "rights" (though why a Canadian monk imagines he will be invited into the elite to help rule the world is beyond anyone's imagination), I imagine that this point will, as it has in the past, fall on deaf ears.

Secondly, there is no evidence that heterosexual parents are any better at raising children then gay parents.  So there is no reason to deny gay men and women the right to raise children (in fact same sex oriented people have been raising children for as long as there has been humans, apparently to no ill effect).

So in the end, your arguments against gay marriage are biased and irrational, which is why they make you a bigot in this respect. Certainly,  you can find a sanctuary safe from gay marriage in Uganda or Kenya where they routinely slaughter people for their gender preference, but I don't think you really want to live in such countries where they will probably mistake you for being gay as well.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 18th, 2014 at 7:47 PM
Title: Re: The Dalai Lama Says Gay Marriage Is OK
Content:
Indrajala said:
Nevertheless, I still believe sanctioning homosexual marriages is ultimately unwise for a number of reasons which I've outlined at length already.

Seishin said:
I'm still vague as to why it's against the cosmos?

Indrajala said:
There are principles in time and the cosmos that must be considered, observed and followed lest you suffer for it. In the absence of historical norms for a given policy reform, you are basically deviating from all previous norms. Disregarding such a fact is critically unwise.


Malcolm wrote:
Didn't you know? "Marriage is between one man and one woman" was actually etched into the fabric of the universe. We erase this at our peril. Gay marriage is apparently going to cause the entire fabric of the universe to unwind, it makes peak oil look like a stroll in the park.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 18th, 2014 at 7:17 PM
Title: Re: The Dalai Lama Says Gay Marriage Is OK
Content:
Knotty Veneer said:
I think that many of those who oppose marriage equality live in a bubble where they do not know any gay families. I too know a lesbian couple with kids. Their family is no different in its joys and challenges to that of any straight couple I know.

Indrajala said:
I have friends who are gay or lesbian. One is happily (and legally) married.

Nevertheless, I still believe sanctioning homosexual marriages is ultimately unwise for a number of reasons which I've outlined at length already.

I have nothing against homosexuality. I just feel it unwise to provide marriage rights to same sex couples.

For the record, I will note, I don't believe in human rights or equal rights. I understand these are sacred cows to many people here, but I don't see them as such.

Human rights are often used by some countries to bully their opponents before committing the same sins they accuse others of. Just look at the USA. It cries out about human rights violations, yet American leadership has slain immeasurable civilians in recent decades, often on false intelligence.

I also don't believe in equal rights for the simple fact that, as in nature, there is hierarchy in human society and clearly not everyone is equal in terms of intellect, power and so on. I think trying to superimpose "equality" on any society is an artificial albeit hopeful attempt at crafting an ultimately infeasible utopia. In actual practice there never are equal rights. Better to recognize this rather than pretend otherwise. Also, empowering the majority of a given population is unwise as it leads to dispersion of political authority, thereby leading to political deadlock. Polybius discusses this at length.


Malcolm wrote:
You clearly have no idea what equal rights are. As soon as you lose yours, you will want them back.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 18th, 2014 at 7:13 PM
Title: Re: The Dalai Lama Says Gay Marriage Is OK
Content:
Simon E. said:
I think your thinking are on this issue is poorly formed and curiously immature, as well as lacking empathy and compassion Indrajala.

But I think you have the right to express it.

Malcolm wrote:
Sure, has a total right to make himself look like an idiot. Maybe he can get a gig as fox news pet buddhist monk.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 18th, 2014 at 7:08 PM
Title: Re: The Dalai Lama Says Gay Marriage Is OK
Content:
Clarence said:
Yes, Knotty, I find Indrajala's comments rather hateful and ignorant. And, truth be told, I don't know whether I agree with providing him a platform for his hate-speech.

Indrajala said:
It is not hate speech nor is it hateful. I want what is best for western societies, and I feel the state sanctioning same sex marriages will lead to many unnecessary problems down the road.

If you disagree with me, fine, but no need to advocate censorship of opinions you find disagreeable.

Malcolm wrote:
You are advocating  repression, that is why people find your speech hateful.

Like all bigots, you have no rational basis for your claims. You might as well be saying that christians should not marry jews.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 18th, 2014 at 10:17 AM
Title: Re: The Dalai Lama Says Gay Marriage Is OK
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
What they think has no bearing on western secular morays. This is not a religious question, it is a social and civil rights question.


Indrajala said:
Buddhists are still nevertheless a voice in the development of social policies, and most Buddhists are still Asian.

Malcolm wrote:
And that is completely irrelevant in the West.

Indrajala said:
A religious voice still has the right to be heard even in secular society, assuming of course that society is democratic.

Malcolm wrote:
A right to speak is not a right to be heard.

Buddhists in the West play virtually no role in the development of social policies.

To the extent that they do so, we are well represented by enlightened leaders like His Holiness.

Enjoy your bastions of reactionary conservatism, but they to will under go transformation as the forces of market liberalization inevitably change their cultures from social authoritarianism and conformism to democracy, individualism and personal choice. It is funny, your ability to choose to become a monk is based on your being raised in a liberal free market society, but you instead choose anti-democratic, authoritarian elitism.

The funny thing about US conservatism is that the very thing that they proclaim to love the most (free markets) is the very thing that is bringing on the social changes they most detest (gay marriage, etc.).


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 18th, 2014 at 9:44 AM
Title: Re: The Dalai Lama Says Gay Marriage Is OK
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
It is the same with abortion. Since arguments against abortion are all grounded on religious issues, and we have no right to legislate those types of religious beliefs, while I personally do not believe abortion is ethical, I understand that my belief is religious and is not a sound reason to deny others who have different beliefs than myself.

Indrajala said:
Your view here is highly problematic. You could just as well argue against abortion in the same way you could argue against corporal punishment for children: it is intentionally harming a living human being.

Malcolm wrote:
My view is not problematical at all. Courts in the US have defined that human life begins at 19 weeks. I don't agree with them, but we live in a secular society, and there are many people who for their own reasons also adopt this view. Since my view is religious, and it cannot be shown that a fetus prior to 19 weeks is "human" under current law, my hands are tied, as are yours. The standard in a secular society is secular, not religious. I prefer to live in a secular society, even though it may disadvantage some of my personal religious views, in general is assures the freedom that I can practice my religion as I see fit.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 18th, 2014 at 9:29 AM
Title: Re: The Dalai Lama Says Gay Marriage Is OK
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Your concerns are not about Asian Buddhist communities, you declared they were about western societies. As such, they are outlandish and out of touch.

Indrajala said:
So, what Asian Buddhist communities might think is not relevant to Buddhists in western society?

Malcolm wrote:
What they think has no bearing on western secular morays. This is not a religious question, it is a social and civil rights question. It is the same with abortion. Since arguments against abortion are all grounded on religious issues, and we have no right to legislate those types of religious beliefs, while I personally do not believe abortion is ethical, I understand that my belief is religious and is not a sound reason to deny others who have different beliefs than myself.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 18th, 2014 at 9:25 AM
Title: Re: The Dalai Lama Says Gay Marriage Is OK
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Your "concerns" about gay marriage could be construed in a number of ways, because they are so outlandish and out of touch.

Indrajala said:
What I would say on the subject would be considered quite reasonable and common sense in Asian Buddhist communities.


Malcolm wrote:
Your concerns are not about Asian Buddhist communities, you declared they were about western societies. As such, they are outlandish and out of touch.

In short, there is no morally defensible reason that a state should bar gay people from being married. As long as states are in the business of licensing marriages, I am quite sure that western countries will continue to legalize marriage for gay men and women, as they should.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 18th, 2014 at 9:24 AM
Title: Re: The Dalai Lama Says Gay Marriage Is OK
Content:
Indrajala said:
However, marriage was still understood as between men and women with the goal of producing children.


Malcolm wrote:
As pointed out, then infertile woman and sterile men should be barred from entering the social contract of marriage.

In reality, marriage is not purely about raising children. It is a social contract between two adults who wish to foster and protect each other.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 18th, 2014 at 9:22 AM
Title: Re: The Dalai Lama Says Gay Marriage Is OK
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
homophobia, like anti-semitism, is a pretty reliable marker for incipient or full-blown mental illness, or at least untreatable mental retardation.

Indrajala said:
So, instead of addressing people's genuine concerns you just write them off as signs of mental illness?


Malcolm wrote:
Your "concerns" about gay marriage could be construed in a number of ways, because they are so outlandish and out of touch.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 18th, 2014 at 9:20 AM
Title: Re: The Dalai Lama Says Gay Marriage Is OK
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
Just more proof that celibate clergy have nothing useful to say about how the rest of us live, in general.

Indrajala said:
By this logic, the Buddha had nothing useful to say about how to live. He indeed told people in detail how to live their lives for the best.

Malcolm wrote:
I qualified it, with an "in general". And you are not the Buddha.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 18th, 2014 at 5:46 AM
Title: Re: Connection of Guru Rinpoche and Marpa the Translator
Content:
dzoki said:
Gampopa was also originally a nyingma practitioner

Berry said:
Gampopa was a doctor and then a Kadampa monk before meeting Milarepa.

https://www.kagyu.org/kagyulineage/lineage/kag06.php

.


Malcolm wrote:
As a young man, Gampopa was a Nyingma pracitioner; he became a monk because of the death of his wife.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 18th, 2014 at 5:42 AM
Title: Re: The Dalai Lama Says Gay Marriage Is OK
Content:


Lhug-Pa said:
Doesn't change the fact that white-supremacist-influenced western governments & Zionist-influenced governments have had a penchant for bombing Semites and other melanated people. Plus we couldn't say that there isn't a significant Semitic or mixed-Semitic population within Pakistan and Afghanistan.


Malcolm wrote:
Zionists (Israelis) are Semites.

The US government is hardly "white supremacist". We have a black president, for lord's sake.

And no, the Afghanis and Pashtuns, etc., are not significantly mixed with people of Arabic heritage.

I am afraid you have some very racist ideas.

Anyway, this is off topic.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 18th, 2014 at 5:20 AM
Title: Re: Self-Immolation: an anti-Buddhist practice?
Content:
conebeckham said:
I don't dispute that it CAN be a "Buddhist act." I'm just not sure each individual immolation is a Buddhist Act.  Would be hard to know that, in any case....

As for it "working," I myself am not so sure.  For the sake of Tibetans, I hope so.  Out here in California, though, two towns or cities were  considering flying the PRC flag --and were shocked by the volume of "hate mail" they got by Pro-Tibetan/Anti-PRC people.  If the "Powers that Be" in the Bay Area don't seem to be "in the loop," not sure.....


Malcolm wrote:
Well, they were probably smoking too much herb and forgot...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 18th, 2014 at 5:19 AM
Title: Re: The Dalai Lama Says Gay Marriage Is OK
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
...anti-semitism, is a pretty reliable marker for incipient or full-blown mental illness, or at least untreatable mental retardation.

Lhug-Pa said:
Yes there are very many mentally ill anti-Semites in the west, seeing how the west likes to repeatedly bomb Semites e.g. Iraqis, Pakistanis, Afghanis, Palestinians, etc.


Malcolm wrote:
Pakistanis and Afghanis are not semitic peoples.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 18th, 2014 at 3:32 AM
Title: Re: The Dalai Lama Says Gay Marriage Is OK
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
...where Assad started using them against his own folks

Lhug-Pa said:
How so/in what way?


Malcolm wrote:
By gassing them...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 18th, 2014 at 3:28 AM
Title: Re: The Dalai Lama Says Gay Marriage Is OK
Content:
Lhug-Pa said:
Malcolm,

While I'm interested in learning more about the apparent oppression of Kurdish Yezidis, I'm not so quick to buy everything about Saddam Hussein supposedly "gassing the Kurds". If he did gas them and/or in the way they say he did, then I'm certainly against it. It's just that we would have to look at it more before jumping to conclusions. It looks like "Assad gassing his own people" and "Yanukovich sniping his own people" turned out to be BS; and they never found Iraq's "weapons of mass destruction" so that makes most of the rest of the west's allegations very questionable.

Malcolm wrote:
That is because Hussein moved them to Syria, where Assad started using them against his own folks.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 18th, 2014 at 2:33 AM
Title: Re: Self-Immolation: an anti-Buddhist practice?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
I don't think that the self-immolations are happening, in general, because of aversion. They are happening because of the Mahāyāna ethics these young men and woman are trained under.

It is not like the suicide bombings, which are, where they occur, part of a calculated plan of terror. These are not terrorist acts in any sense.

conebeckham said:
I agree they're not terrorist acts.  But I question whether Mahayana ethics, or emotional frustration, are the cause.
How can we say what the motivation is?

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, I've spent a fair amount of time with younger Tibetans...I sense frustration, anger, and a host of emotions.  I can't say these are the drivers for the monks who have self-immolated, but....I've spent time with young Tibetan monks as well, and I see the same emotions in them, when Tibetan political issues are raised.


Malcolm wrote:
But not all the immolations are by young Tibetans. Many were in their thirties, even forties. There are 24 who were under 18.

I am not saying the motivations of all are the same. But I am saying that we cannot condemn them as terrorists, nor should we understand their acts as violating Mahāyāna buddhist ethics since ample sources for "offering the body" can be found in those sources. Remember, Karma Chagme offered his thumb as a lamp. The act of self-immolation, as near as I can tell, is meant to dramatically shine a lamp on the plight of Tibetans in the TAR and outside it. I think it is working.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 18th, 2014 at 2:25 AM
Title: Re: The Dalai Lama Says Gay Marriage Is OK
Content:
mañjughoṣamaṇi said:
Jeff,

You seem to be alternating between the notions of "history" and "nature" as your explanatory mechanisms for why gay marriage is supposed to be so dangerous.  These two are not equivalent.  History is rooted in any number of contingencies, and not all societies evolved an institution of marriage that is anything like that of the West in terms of a nuclear family.  In many societies the role of biological father is negligible.  In many societies divorce was acceptable and recognition of which could amount to as little as throwing a man's belongings out of the dwelling or a public statement to that effect.  This brings us to the next point, which is that any notion of what is natural is quite contentious.  Is the nuclear family the natural way of raising children?  Is the traditional Mayan way of children being the primary caregivers of children natural?  Is the Trobriander way of mother's brother being the most important educator of children instead of the biological father unnatural?  Your readings have provided you with a focus on state level societies.  Are states natural or historically contingent?

You really ought to brush up on the kinship literature from the past 40 years.


Malcolm wrote:
Just more proof that celibate clergy have nothing useful to say about how the rest of us live, in general.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 18th, 2014 at 2:22 AM
Title: Re: The Dalai Lama Says Gay Marriage Is OK
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
That just simply isn't true. You clearly have not studied this issue with any care.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-Spirit

Allan Tulchin, "Same-Sex Couples Creating Households in Old Regime France: The Uses of the Affrèrement." Journal of Modern History: September 2007

You really are just broadcasting Christian values.


Indrajala said:
Not exactly gay marriage as it is understood now.

I am not broadcasting Christian values. Good luck finding sufficient numbers of Buddhists and Buddhist clergy in Asia who will actively support gay marriage in their countries.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, you are broadcasting Christian values.

Marriage is exactly about creating households, sharing property and raising children. Gay people do so just as effectively/or not as heterosexual people. Making gay marriage legal means recognizing that all people have the right to make households regardless of their gender orientation. There is nothing magical about dicks and pussies in combination that makes heterosexual people better parents than dicks and dicks or pussies and pussies. To suggest that parenting ability boils down to some magical social recipe about "MArriage is between one man and one women" is backwards redneck thinking.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 18th, 2014 at 2:14 AM
Title: Re: The Dalai Lama Says Gay Marriage Is OK
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Gay marriage is hardly a "cosmic" issue. It is simply a civil rights issue.

Indrajala said:
It is a deviation from all historical norms.
.


Malcolm wrote:
That just simply isn't true. You clearly have not studied this issue with any care.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-Spirit

Allan Tulchin, "Same-Sex Couples Creating Households in Old Regime France: The Uses of the Affrèrement." Journal of Modern History: September 2007

The political ideologies, philosophies, and religions of ancient China regarded homosexual relationships as a normal facet of life, and in some cases, promoted homosexual relationships as exemplary. Ming Dynasty literature, such as Bian Er Chai (弁而釵/弁而钗), portray homosexual relationships between men as more enjoyable and more "harmonious" than heterosexual relationships.[10] As in Ancient Rome, homosexual relationships were prevalent in ancient China and were not regarded as morally deviant prior to the influence of foreign cultures. Writings from the Liu Song Dynasty claimed that homosexuality was as common as heterosexuality in the late 3rd century:
All the gentlemen and officials esteemed it. All men in the realm followed this fashion to the extent that husbands and wives were estranged. Resentful unmarried women became jealous.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_China#cite_ref-Cut_Sleeve_1992_p._170_2-0

You really are just broadcasting Christian values.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 18th, 2014 at 2:06 AM
Title: Re: The Dalai Lama Says Gay Marriage Is OK
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
You are not Asian and you never will be: you are hairy, uncouth, and you smell bad.

Indrajala said:
I was unaware you've been sneaking into my bedroom at night and thus know the state of my body odour and body hair!

Malcolm wrote:
No, I look at your face book page. Anyway, my point is that while you may fantasize about being "Asian" (as if there is a generic "Asian"), you will never be accepted as anything other than Westerner with pretensions. Being a monk might make it a little easier for you. But for all that in Japan you will still be Gaijin.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 18th, 2014 at 2:03 AM
Title: Re: The Dalai Lama Says Gay Marriage Is OK
Content:
Indrajala said:
There are principles in time and the cosmos that must be considered, observed and followed lest you suffer for it.

Malcolm wrote:
Gay marriage hardly something that so contravenes the cosmic order as to cause a breach in the space/time continuum.

Gay marriage is hardly a "cosmic" issue. It is simply a civil rights issue.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 18th, 2014 at 2:02 AM
Title: Re: The Dalai Lama Says Gay Marriage Is OK
Content:
Seishin said:
And most of those "non-western" societies are ruled by dictators

Lhug-Pa said:
As if the western leaders are shining examples of justice and morality? Yea right.

Indrajala said:
That's actually a good point. Plenty of people lament a lack of gay marriage rights, yet still pay taxes to their government which routinely murders civilians in foreign countries.

Malcolm wrote:
We have too. Just because we don't condone the acts of this of that branche of our government does not mean that we are free not to pay taxes. It is a legal requirement than we must.

Indrajala said:
Meanwhile countries that mind their own business usually while also dismissing any idea of gay marriage are damned as dictatorships or simply dismissed as not worthy of consideration.

Malcolm wrote:
Oh, like Russia, for example?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 18th, 2014 at 1:59 AM
Title: Re: The Dalai Lama Says Gay Marriage Is OK
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
You are not Asian, you are a Canadian.

Indrajala said:
That's just what my passport says.

Malcolm wrote:
You are not Asian and you never will be: you are hairy, uncouth, and you smell bad.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 18th, 2014 at 1:55 AM
Title: Re: The Dalai Lama Says Gay Marriage Is OK
Content:
Lhug-Pa said:
\\

As Indrajala said Iraq was a functioning country

Malcolm wrote:
If gassing Kurds and terrorism is your idea of "functioning".

Lhug-Pa said:
Libya was a functioning country

Malcolm wrote:
Sure...

Lhug-Pa said:
At least Putin apparently stopped the west from murdering the "evil dictator" Assad.

Malcolm wrote:
Oh yes, another very stable person, not a psychopath at all....


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 18th, 2014 at 1:53 AM
Title: Re: The Dalai Lama Says Gay Marriage Is OK
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Your penchant for authoritarianism has been noted already.

That hardly makes you a conservative.

Indrajala said:
Maybe not in America.

I'm in Asia.


Malcolm wrote:
You are not Asian, you are a Canadian.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 18th, 2014 at 1:33 AM
Title: Re: The Dalai Lama Says Gay Marriage Is OK
Content:
Seishin said:
And most of those "non-western" societies are ruled by dictators - no coincidence.

Indrajala said:
I would rather live in a safe autocratic state than an unsafe democracy.

Malcolm wrote:
Your penchant for authoritarianism has been noted already.

That hardly makes you a conservative.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 18th, 2014 at 1:26 AM
Title: Re: The Dalai Lama Says Gay Marriage Is OK
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
You can make an argument against the propagation of Buddhism too. Buddhism will cause the degradation of social cohesion in say, "florida". Therefore, it should not be allowed there.

Indrajala said:
The introduction of a foreign religion on a small scale is hardly comparable to unprecedented legal reforms that most people will feel strongly about one way or another.

Malcolm wrote:
Plain and simple -- denying adult gay people to right to marry each other is violation of their civil rights because it causes all kinds of inequalities and because it unfairly advantages heterosexual couples.

Marriage is a social contract between two people to share property, inheritance, taxes, etc.

There are no sound secular reasons not to oppose marriage among, none at all. You have not come up with even one convincing argument.

There are no reasons at all to oppose gay marriage from a Buddhist perspective.

The only reasons to oppose it is because one subscribes to Judeo-Christian/Islamic values.

By even bring up opposition to the subject, you just make yourself look like an anachronistic idiot.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 18th, 2014 at 1:12 AM
Title: Re: The Dalai Lama Says Gay Marriage Is OK
Content:


Indrajala said:
In the coming decades as the west declines...

Malcolm wrote:
Probably not.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 18th, 2014 at 1:11 AM
Title: Re: The Dalai Lama Says Gay Marriage Is OK
Content:
Indrajala said:
It is different in the case of bodhisattva-oriented approaches which require one to actively engage in society for the welfare of it.

Seishin said:
And in what way will homosexual marriage degrade the welfare of society? Help me out here because I really can't see anything wrong with it.

Indrajala said:
One example is how it will draw lines between those who support and oppose it, thus degrading asabiya (social cohesion needed for unity and cooperation).

Malcolm wrote:
So if most everyone supports it, there is no degradation of social cohesion, correct?

You can make an argument against the propagation of Buddhism too. Buddhism will cause the degradation of social cohesion in say, "florida". Therefore, it should not be allowed there.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 18th, 2014 at 12:50 AM
Title: Re: The Dalai Lama Says Gay Marriage Is OK
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
and pedophilia...

Indrajala said:
The solution to that is simple: only admit adults of their own free will into monasteries.

Malcolm wrote:
But "celibate" priests who are pedophiles prey on children in their congregations, not on children in monasteries...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 18th, 2014 at 12:49 AM
Title: Re: The Dalai Lama Says Gay Marriage Is OK
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Religious professionals generally make it their job to do so. Becoming a religious professional has about the lowest entry requirements of any job there is. Even flipping burgers takes more skill.

Indrajala said:
If that's a personal attack against me, well, I'll send anyone my CV who wants to see it.


Malcolm wrote:
My point is that having a religious opinion takes no brains or particular set of skills, and it is religious professionals who typically have the most to say on such issues, who are actually often the least qualified to so. My point is that by adopting such platforms, you are just painting yourself in with a lot of very stupid people.

I don't that Buddhist monks have any business being in the "who can marry who" business. There are no Buddhist wedding rituals, etc. There is no sustained support of heterosexual marriage in Buddhist texts, no condemnation of homosexuality (just orifices), and so on.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 18th, 2014 at 12:43 AM
Title: Re: The Dalai Lama Says Gay Marriage Is OK
Content:


Indrajala said:
Historically having celibate monastic orders has worked well on varying levels, particularly with respect to inheritance and the transfer of land assets especially...

Malcolm wrote:
and pedophilia...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 18th, 2014 at 12:37 AM
Title: Re: The Dalai Lama Says Gay Marriage Is OK
Content:


Knotty Veneer said:
Stop trying to tell other people how to live.

Malcolm wrote:
Religious professionals generally make it their job to do so. Becoming a religious professional has about the lowest entry requirements of any job there is. Even flipping burgers takes more skill.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 18th, 2014 at 12:36 AM
Title: Re: The Dalai Lama Says Gay Marriage Is OK
Content:
Indrajala said:
Homosexual marriage is seen as undesirably by many people, yet they keep silent for fear of being condemned for their opinions.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, many religious people fear the idea out of superstition.

It is of course a stupid thing to fear.

Indrajala said:
Japan and China are very secular societies nowadays, but don't have any inclination towards gay marriage.

There plenty of non-religious people in the west as well who are not keen on the idea.

Malcolm wrote:
They have nothing to lose but their bias.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 18th, 2014 at 12:30 AM
Title: Re: Self-Immolation: an anti-Buddhist practice?
Content:
Simon E. said:
Again I disagree.
Attempting to force a change of behaviour from a political entity or an individual by threatening to kill oneself in a particularly horrible way is I believe an act of terrorism, even when we agree with the aims of the actor.

Malcolm wrote:
I don't think they are making threats, Simon. It is not like these people write a letter and say "This is my list of demands", etc.

I don't think it is terrorism at all. I think it is the opposite, it is a response to terrorism.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 18th, 2014 at 12:28 AM
Title: Re: The Dalai Lama Says Gay Marriage Is OK
Content:
Indrajala said:
Homosexual marriage is seen as undesirably by many people, yet they keep silent for fear of being condemned for their opinions.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, many religious people fear the idea out of superstition.

It is of course a stupid thing to fear.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 18th, 2014 at 12:26 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
Andrew108 said:
" Everything is unreal "
-- Chogyal Namkhai Norbu

You have 'everything' - reality. Then you have the nature of that everything - unreal.

This is the simple point that is being made.

Malcolm wrote:
No, that is not the point that is being made.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 18th, 2014 at 12:23 AM
Title: Re: The Dalai Lama Says Gay Marriage Is OK
Content:


Indrajala said:
One other fact about gay marriage that is overlooked is that it will divide a lot of countries and reduce asabiya (i.e., social cohesion) at a time when the west is faltering and facing enormous problems.

Malcolm wrote:
Total nonsense. Anyway, you are a monk. What do you really care?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 18th, 2014 at 12:22 AM
Title: Re: The Dalai Lama Says Gay Marriage Is OK
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
That's because there is no such a thing as a "traditional family". This is a Western Christian suburban white myth.

Indrajala said:
Nonsense.

In my grandfather's generation most families were made up of a married man and wife plus their children. His father's generation was more or less the same.

Malcolm wrote:
Yup, white Christians in the west.



Indrajala said:
Well there's a generalization bordering on being bigoted.

Malcolm wrote:
Seen it in person, Japan, China etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 17th, 2014 at 11:15 PM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
Andrew108 said:
So that reality that appears, when it's nature is known, is the accomplishment. Wisdom and reality in the end are not different.


Malcolm wrote:
Agreed, so why are neither of us Buddhas?

Because we may have an intellectual grasp of the subject, but we are not realized. So we both have some work to do, at least I do.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 17th, 2014 at 11:11 PM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
Andrew108 said:
I would speculate that whilst you might know alot about the mind, you don't really know that much about life.

Malcolm wrote:
You do realize that you constantly resort to ad hominem remarks?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 17th, 2014 at 10:37 PM
Title: Re: The Dalai Lama Says Gay Marriage Is OK
Content:
Knotty Veneer said:
There is a growing acceptance in the population at large of homosexual relationships and non-traditional families.

Indrajala said:
In many places there is growing intolerance of advocates for traditional families and conservative values.

Malcolm wrote:
That's because there is no such a thing as a "traditional family". This is a Western Christian suburban white myth.


Indrajala said:
As jeeprs noted, homophobic is basically equated to being bigoted nowadays. If you voice opposition to gay marriage, you're sometimes associated with racism and even slavery because you are denying "equal rights" to all persons, just as racist social arrangements and slavery does/did. Fortunately in most Asian countries such ideas have not gained much mainstream attention or consideration.

Malcolm wrote:
Asian countries are often quite racist.




Indrajala said:
If you legalize gay marriage because its advocates claim there is a human rights infringement occurring, then it sets a legal precedent for many other fringe groups to do the same whether you want to admit this immediately or not.

Malcolm wrote:
No, it doesn't. But on other hand, I see no problem with polyandry, polygamy and so on.

Indrajala said:
I do not equate homosexuality to pedophilia (I have nothing against homosexuality itself), but what is to stop pedophiles from claiming a human rights infringement based on the fact their lifestyle is presently criminal?

Malcolm wrote:
They can claim whatever they like, but in general, it is considered criminal to have sex with children and minors. I don't see this changing any time soon.
[/quote]
So, on that point, sticking with good old fashioned heterosexual values ain't so bad. They might be unfair to some people, but longstanding social values have the advantage of having been demonstratively effective, past and present.[/quote]

Right, good old fashioned western Christian heterosexual values.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 17th, 2014 at 10:07 PM
Title: Re: Self-Immolation: an anti-Buddhist practice?
Content:
Simon E. said:
I disagree completely Malcolm. I think its an expression of a pathology which forms part of the complex web that is the legacy of the Subcontinent. I think fear of sex is part of that legacy, as more distantly are suicide bombings.
Burning yourself to death because of aversion to what is, is a greater act of aggression than becoming a Muslim martyr, because more subtle and more capable of  provoking moral ambivilence.

Or so it seems to me.


Malcolm wrote:
Tibetans are hardly afraid of sex. In fact, they are rather more practical about it then we are.

I don't think that the self-immolations are happening, in general, because of aversion. They are happening because of the Mahāyāna ethics these young men and woman are trained under.

It is not like the suicide bombings, which are, where they occur, part of a calculated plan of terror. These are not terrorist acts in any sense.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 17th, 2014 at 9:43 PM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:


alpha said:
But still , the basis is individual for each condition ,whether we speak of humans, hungry ghosts, formless or such...And each respective condition represents in its totality the basis of that particular condition.

Malcolm wrote:
The basis represents the potentiality of each sentient being. That potentiality can be parsed a number of ways — for example, in Dzogchen texts it says "At the time of the basis, the three kāyas are dharmakāya; at the time of the path, the three kāyas are the sambhogakāya, and the time of the result, the three kāyas are the nirmanakāya". The essential point here is that the the continuum of the basis is the nature of the mind free from extremes.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 17th, 2014 at 9:38 PM
Title: Re: Self-Immolation: an anti-Buddhist practice?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Cabezon wrote a good and thoughtful article on the subject:

http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/politics/7126/on_the_ethics_of_the_tibetan_self_immolations_/

Personally, when it first began happening I thought it fruitless and sad. Now, over the years, I have come to see that this form of protest is much superior to violent protest around the world. It is still sad, but I think that such acts being done out of love and caring for Dharma, and not just because Tibetans are being oppressed. Indeed, the whole phenomena is grounded in the notions of offering one's body for the sake of the enlightenment of others. In the article Cabezon recalls several examples, not least among them, the Buddha's own sacrifice of his body at Namo Buddha during his last human lifetime as the bodhisattva. He quotes a one writer, Jigmey who was sentenced to five years for publishing the following:

The Beijing government claims that the act of self-cremation, or the burning of one’s body, contradicts the Buddhist texts, but this is a confused position. According to Buddhism, giving up one’s life for the welfare of others is an act of a bodhisattva. One can know this from the biography of the compassionate Buddha himself. Before he was enlightened, the future Buddha came across a tigress and her cubs. They were on the verge of starving to death. Unable to bear their suffering, he sacrificed his own body as food for the tigress. That act of protecting the life of the tigress and her two cubs by giving up his own life is the central theme of many contemporary religious writings; it is widely known. When one reaches the highest level of Mahāyāna practice—that of “the being of great scope”—one is able to give up everything one possesses for the welfare of sentient beings. For example, if it is necessary, one is able to spend many hundreds of millions of years in hell just for the sake of a single sentient being... For all of these reasons giving up one’s own life for the sake of sentient beings or for the sake of one’s own people does not contradict the Buddhist teachings. Not only does it not contradict them, it is actually a tenet of the Mahāyāna; it is a most excellent doctrine. Hence, no one who is informed about these matters would claim that it contradicts Buddhism—no one, that is, except confused government officials and their lackeys.

Of course some will debate the effectiveness of such actions from a cynical real politick perspective, but in my view, the actions of bodhisattvas grounded in Mahāyāna motivation will always outshine such cynicism.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 17th, 2014 at 9:21 PM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
So formless realm beings have a body, speech and mind?

alpha said:
Obviously not but I thought we are talking about the basis of the human condition ?

Malcolm wrote:
No, the continuum of the basis is talking about the basis of all sentient beings, not just human beings.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 17th, 2014 at 9:21 PM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
Sherab said:
I am saying every one of us has a base.  All the bases are identical to one another.  Although each base has a knowing aspect, I prefer not to use the word 'mind' to refer to the base.

Malcolm wrote:
As I pointed, all of this language concerning "the basis" comes from a passage in the Guhyasamaja uttaratantra. The continuum of the basis, since this is the reference, refers to the nature of the mind, which when recognized leads to buddhahood and when not, leads to samsara.

People get so hung up on the use of the word mind, consciousness and so on. Well, just look at these words: shes pa (jñā), rnam shes (vijñāna), shes rab (prajñā) and ye shes (jñāna). What do they all have in common? "shes". "Shes" just means "to know". If you say the basis is ye shes, that wisdom is a knower.

In any case, the commentary of the sgra thal 'gyur clearly maintains that ye shes is encompassed by a shes pa, and that shes pa exists individually in all buddhas and sentient beings as a mere knower (shes tsam).

We can concluded from this then that the basis (which really is strictly a man ngag sde term) is just a name for the continuum of the nature of the mind.

The extent to which it is unconditioned is the extent to which no one made the mind "clear and empty", the mind has been clear and empty from the very start. Thus the resting in the unfabricated mind, the unconditioned mind, is resting in that nature of the mind (inseparable clarity and emptiness) which cannot be altered or modified in anyway at all no matter what appears in it/to it(hence the mirror metaphor). You can't make it better, you can't make it worse.

We say that the nature of the mind in this sense is unconditioned because no one made it, it does not have a beginning, it cannot be altered or changed. You cannot take the clarity of the mind and make it unclear. You cannot take the emptiness of the mind and make the mind substantial.

The mind can have various experiences, suffering, happiness, affliction, purification, thus we can also say that the mind is conditioned. It is also momentary, its continuity is not substantial, it is a continuum of moments, thus it is conditioned.

Once again, we have a conditioned entity, dharmin, the mind, that has an unconditioned nature, dharmatā, the inseparability of clarity and emptiness.

The mind is not merely clear, for then it would be only conditioned. It is not merely empty, since then it would be non-existent. The unconditioned nature of the mind is the inseparability of clarity and emptiness. There is no teaching in Buddhism about the mind and the nature of the mind that goes beyond this.

When we understand the principles above, we understand the union of the two truths, we understand the continuum of the basis, Dzogchen, etc.

When it comes to Dzogchen teachings, it is crucial to understand that the differences between wisdom, shes pa and rnam shes, for example, are all based on the anatomy of the human body, and the modalities of our consciousness as embodied beings.

If we say that wisdom, for example, is beyond mind, does that mean that wisdom is inert, like a rock or a statue? No, it just means that wisdom transcends the operations of the restricted consciousness of ordinary beings, wisdom is a consciousness that has less restrictions. What is the basis for the freedom of wisdom? The pure clarity and emptiness of the mind, of course.

We do not have a refined vocabulary in English for discussing consciousness and its different modalities. But indeed, that is what Dzogchen as well Buddhist texts in general are talking about, i.e., consciousness and its various modalities, unawakened and awakened.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 17th, 2014 at 8:43 PM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
Sherab said:
I prefer not to use the word 'mind' to refer to the base.

jeeprs said:
Can you suggest another word?

alpha said:
Three words actually: body, voice and mind.
Which is to say all phenomena pure and impure are inseparable in the nature of the basis.And in this way nothing is left out.But while in the knowledge of the basis there are no such distinctions.

Malcolm wrote:
So formless realm beings have a body, speech and mind?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 17th, 2014 at 9:20 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
Sherab said:
What I was saying if you read my post carefully is that production from conditions or dependent existence is only possible if bhava (something permanent) is not involved.  That is why it makes sense for the Buddha to talk about dependent origination.  Nagarjuna's dependent existence is defined on something permanent.

Nagarjuna did not exclude dependent existence based on something impermanent.

It is because that dependent existence is based on something impermanent that talking about reification makes sense.

Malcolm wrote:
What I am saying is that Nāgārjuna explicitly refutes dependent existence. I don't know why it is so hard for you to accept this. If there is no bhāva, there is no existence. Therefore, there cannot be dependent existence since existence is rejected out of hand by Nāgārjuna.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 17th, 2014 at 9:11 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Whoever has a view of inherent existence, dependent existence, existence or non-existence has not comprehended the intent of the Buddha", which is of course production from conditions, relatively speaking.

jeeprs said:
I really do understand that, but the title of the thread is 'unfabricated mind'. So the implication in that is "mind' is not among those things which are fabricated, conditioned, and so forth.  That is the meaning of the word Mind, capital-M, as in the One Mind, is it not? Isn't that why you frequently read about the importance of 'knowing Mind' in books from Tibetan sources?


Malcolm wrote:
No. There is no "one mind" in Tibetan Buddhism.  "Unfabricated" simply means a mind that resides in its own nature  (empty clarity) without being contaminated with conceptuality.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 17th, 2014 at 9:08 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
Sherab said:
But production from conditions to me is another way of saying dependent existence where the dependent existence is not based off a permanent essence (bhava).  Nagarjuna's definition of dependent existence is production that is based off something permanent.  This is a crucial difference in our take.


Malcolm wrote:
The difference is that your take is realist because it involves "existence" (bhāva, sat, asti, etc.).

Nagarjuna's take is based on the idea that something supports something else, not that something is permanent. The śravaka schools conceived of things that existed and were also impermanent. They too had an idea of dependent existence. That idea is precisely the idea that Nāgārjuna is criticizing both in the first chapter as well as the chapter 15 of the MMK. There is a vast difference between saying "productions from conditions", which is merely a convention, and "dependent existence" which requires inherency.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 17th, 2014 at 8:58 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
I have no problem with dependent origination, this is the Buddha'a teaching. I have a problem with dependent existence. If something exist, it does not need to depend on anything.

Sherab said:
So existence to you is restricted to independent existence.  Therefore any other form of existence cannot carry the meaning of existence.

I am more liberal in my definition of existence.  This is because without that more liberal space, scientific investigations make no sense.  However, I do think that the more liberal meaning of existence will come to a head at some point.

Malcolm wrote:
All forms of existence carry the meaning of independent existence, that is Nāgārjuna's whole point. That is why he asks the question "where is there bhāva not included in svabhāva or parabhāva?"


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 17th, 2014 at 8:48 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
If something exist, it does not need to depend on anything.

jeeprs said:
For instance? What exists that does not depend on anything?

Malcolm wrote:
That's the point, one cannot find such a thing, therefore, as Nāgārjuna points out, Whoever has a view of inherent existence, dependent existence, existence or non-existence has not comprehended the intent of the Buddha", which is of course production from conditions, relatively speaking.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 17th, 2014 at 8:40 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
Sherab said:
Therefore, it still make sense to talk about ...dependent existence

Malcolm wrote:
Not to me.

Sherab said:
This was what I said:

Therefore, it still make sense to talk about dependent origination, or dependent existence ... up to a point.

I noticed you left out "dependent origination" and "up to a point".  Why?


Malcolm wrote:
I have no problem with dependent origination, this is the Buddha'a teaching. I have a problem with dependent existence. If something exist, it does not need to depend on anything.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 17th, 2014 at 8:17 AM
Title: Re: Discussion of Political Topics is Wrong Speech
Content:


tobes said:
i.e. an argument of the kind: that all speech is ignorance.


Malcolm wrote:
But that is clearly not the case.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 17th, 2014 at 7:33 AM
Title: Re: Difference between consciousness and the mind
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
From Keown's "Buddhism and Bioethics": The sources are describing, using the concepts available to them, the origin of new human life. This was understood conceptually as the point from which all subsequent development proceeds, and before which no material basis for individual life exists. Translating these requirement into modern terms we would have every reason to locate the descent of the intermediate being at fertilisation. Before this time there is no genetic individual, and after it one has come into being. All subsequent developments in the history of the individual in the present life, including implantation, can be traced back to this point but not beyond it. It is difficult to wish for a clearer point of origin, and fertilisation seems by far the most likely candidate for the point at which new life begins.

Malcolm wrote:
This is when a new body is appropriated.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 17th, 2014 at 3:00 AM
Title: Re: Difference between consciousness and the mind
Content:
Sherlock said:
What about the old story of how plants as tall as humans have devas in them?

Malcolm wrote:
Well, this is like a human moving into a house. You would not say that house had a mind.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 17th, 2014 at 1:31 AM
Title: Re: Difference between consciousness and the mind
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Appropriate means that while in the bardo a being [gandharva] has the karmic causes and conditions to take certain kinds of birth, so they cluster at these birth places "like flies on rotten meat" as one Dzogchen tantra puts it.

dzogchungpa said:
Well, do these gandharvas have material bodies? I guess I don't really understand how they go to the fertilized ovum, in the case of human birth, say, and what they actually do to "appropriate" it. Don't Buddhists hold that life begins at conception?

Malcolm wrote:
They have mental bodies, mind made bodies. In the case of womb birth, when the sperm, egg and bardo being come together, there is conception. This all clearly explained in Abhidharma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 17th, 2014 at 1:21 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
Andrew108 said:
...even though all phenomena appear as mind, appearance itself is the nature of the enlightenment of the Buddhas."[/i]

Malcolm wrote:
This is also the point of view of anuttarayoga tantras. But it is not a method. It's a view.

Sherlock said:
So isn't Atiyoga the only path that actually turns that view into a method?

Malcolm wrote:
Of course not. This is why, for example, before even embarking on the creation stage, one meditates the on the view in Lamdre.

The purpose of the creation stage to recognize that all phenomena are nothing other than the wisdom of buddhahood.

If you respond this is the view of tregchö, the reason thögal critizes tregchö is that with tregchö one remains in a state of impure vision. With tregchö and other kinds of Dzogchen practice this view, "all phenomena are nothing other than the wisdom of buddhahood", remains a conceptual view.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 17th, 2014 at 1:11 AM
Title: Re: Difference between consciousness and the mind
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
In terms of a physical body, it must be large enough to accommodate at least the most rudimentary sense organs.  Not sure we can include sponges, etc. I think we would have to set the limit at Eumetazoa.

"Sentient" means able to feel.

Sherlock said:
Didn't you post some links about how plants can feel and respond to stimuli too?


Malcolm wrote:
The question is whether this merely biomechanics or not.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 17th, 2014 at 12:54 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
Andrew108 said:
...even though all phenomena appear as mind, appearance itself is the nature of the enlightenment of the Buddhas."[/i]

Malcolm wrote:
This is also the point of view of anuttarayoga tantras. But it is not a method. It's a view.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 17th, 2014 at 12:48 AM
Title: Re: Difference between consciousness and the mind
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
"Sentient" means able to feel.

odysseus said:
So I guess I´m wrong about cognizing. But what about cessation of feeling? One is still sentient?


Malcolm wrote:
Depends on what you mean  by "feeling", even Buddhas have feeling.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 17th, 2014 at 12:45 AM
Title: Re: Difference between consciousness and the mind
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Sperm is not sentient.

PadmaVonSamba said:
Then how can it be attracted to the egg?
.
.
.


Malcolm wrote:
It isn't. There is no sentience in a sperm to be attracted to it. Impregnation is strictly biomechanics.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 17th, 2014 at 12:38 AM
Title: Re: Difference between consciousness and the mind
Content:
odysseus said:
But ultimately, these organisms have no autonomy. It´s attraction/reaction by inherent physical properties to be blunt.
Then you have to determine at what point the multiplication of cells acquire autonomy.
Otherwise, even a complex human is merely driven by chemical interactions
(and of course, much of what we experience is. The question then becomes, 'who is experiencing the chemical interactions, such as a particular molecule, as an emotion of fear or joy.)

Also, I am not suggesting that this is a voluntary action.
A sperm doesn't  think, "Well, I could swim to that egg, or I could just stay home and watch TV"
.
.
.


Malcolm wrote:
Sperm is not sentient.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 17th, 2014 at 12:36 AM
Title: Re: Difference between consciousness and the mind
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
It is possible for a mind to appropriate the body of a very simple creature.  But I do not think that a mind will appropriate the body of a single cell organism.

PadmaVonSamba said:
So, about how many cells do you reckon make a being big enough for a mind to appropriate?


Also, since it is a common beginner's exercise to "try to find where in the body the mind is"
(the answer being that the mind cannot be found anywhere in the body)
--the notion that a mind requires so many cells is absurd.

Malcolm wrote:
In terms of a physical body, it must be large enough to accommodate at least the most rudimentary sense organs.  Not sure we can include sponges, etc. I think we would have to set the limit at Eumetazoa.

"Sentient" means able to feel.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 17th, 2014 at 12:28 AM
Title: Re: Longde before Dzin Dharmabodhi?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
I don't, its not part of the Tibetan canon. To give a classic reply, "we don't read that sutra".

Indrajala said:
There are plenty of Indian texts that are not present in the Tibetan canon yet extant in Chinese translation. Why base your beliefs about canonical texts on whether or not they are included in the Tibetan canon rather than, by your own suggestion, judging them on their own merits rather than, say, their ethnic origins?


Malcolm wrote:
I don't base my beliefs about canonicity by what is included in the Tibetan canon. I just pay don't much attention to books I cannot read in Tibetan or English. Plus I practice within a very specific tradition, and that is where my interests lie. I am not much interested what lies outside it. So, there may be fantastic sutras and sashtras in Chinese, but for the most part they don't present anything that is not present in what we have in Tibetan already. As far as the Brahma Net sutra goes, I don't need it, so I don't use it. And I don't pay it any mind. If someone tells me I need to practice the bodhisattva path according to it, I reply, it is not part of my tradition. In general, I don't even pay that much attention to the Yogacara system of bodhisattva vows. The system I follow is the Madhyamaka system.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 17th, 2014 at 12:20 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
Sherab said:
Therefore, it still make sense to talk about ...dependent existence

Malcolm wrote:
Not to me.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 17th, 2014 at 12:19 AM
Title: Re: Longde before Dzin Dharmabodhi?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
I don't reject it, I just don't regard it as an improvement over Indian Mahāyāna vow literature so I don't feel the need to extend it some special status. I understand its importance in Chinese Buddhism, it is irrelevant to me however.

Indrajala said:
Supposing you consider it canonical (i.e., you don't reject it), how can it be irrelevant to you?

Malcolm wrote:
I don't, its not part of the Tibetan canon. To give a classic reply, "we don't read that sutra".


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 17th, 2014 at 12:17 AM
Title: Re: Difference between consciousness and the mind
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
It is possible for a mind to appropriate the body of a very simple creature.  But I do not think that a mind will appropriate the body of a single cell organism.

dzogchungpa said:
The questions of what kind of thing can be "appropriated" by a mind, and what "appropriate" means in this context are kind of interesting to me. Does the tradition have anything to say about this?

Malcolm wrote:
There are four kinds birth:

moisture/heat birth — this means insects and invertebrates primarily
egg birth — this means reptiles, birds, amphibians and fish
womb birth — humans and other mammals
apparitional birth — devas, pretas and hell beings.

Appropriate means that while in the bardo a being [gandharva] has the karmic causes and conditions to take certain kinds of birth, so they cluster at these birth places "like flies on rotten meat" as one Dzogchen tantra puts it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 17th, 2014 at 12:11 AM
Title: Re: Longde before Dzin Dharmabodhi?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
I keep on stressing that what is most important about all Buddhist texts is not where they are from, but rather, what they say.

Indrajala said:
Didn't you some time ago state you reject the Brahma Net Sūtra because it has its origins in China?

Malcolm wrote:
I don't reject it, I just don't regard it as an improvement over Indian Mahāyāna vow literature so I don't feel the need to extend it some special status. I understand its importance in Chinese Buddhism, it is irrelevant to me however.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 17th, 2014 at 12:09 AM
Title: Re: Difference between consciousness and the mind
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
You can remove all the limbs of a body, but you will never cut the mind. You can cut the brain stem, but brains are not sentient. When you cut the brain stem, the heart stops, the body dies and the stream of consciousness appropriates a new body.

PadmaVonSamba said:
In that case,  a single-cell organism would be sufficient for the arising of awareness.
You are saying it's not, because of certain factors that a single cell organism lacks,
and then you say those same factors are not dependent on the very thing a single-cell organism lacks.
.
.
.


Malcolm wrote:
It is possible for a mind to appropriate the body of a very simple creature.  But I do not think that a mind will appropriate the body of a single cell organism.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 16th, 2014 at 9:32 PM
Title: Re: Difference between consciousness and the mind
Content:


PadmaVonSamba said:
What I am getting at is that ultimately the experiencer,
illusory as it may be,
is merely a complex development of this "basic awareness"

Malcolm wrote:
There is no "basic" awareness apart from the awareness of a mind. Awareness is a quality of a mind, not the other way around.

A mind and a body may have the same relationship as a flower and its scent, it may be conceived to circulate around the body on the horse of vāyu and so on; but in the end the body is just a container for the mind.

You can remove all the limbs of a body, but you will never cut the mind. You can cut the brain stem, but brains are not sentient. When you cut the brain stem, the heart stops, the body dies and the stream of consciousness appropriates a new body.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 16th, 2014 at 9:24 PM
Title: Re: Longde before Dzin Dharmabodhi?
Content:


heart said:
My point is that if the teachings work, their origin can not be sociopolitical pressure. This is simple cause and effect. And if sociopolitical pressure was involved when describing the lineage, you most certainly could have created a better and more solid lineage. Of course a 1000 years later it is difficult to say what actually happened and what was a vision, a dream or whatever.

Malcolm wrote:
What I said was that Buddhist ritualism. such as mandala drawing, fire pujas, etc., is clearly a response to socio-political pressure.

Buddhist practice whether sutra or tantra, still has the same progression through the five paths, six perfections, ten stages, 37 adjuncts of awakening, whether they are described one by one in the Abhidharmakosha or are presented symbolically in the form of the thirty seven goddesses of the Vajrayogini mandala and so on.


heart said:
I believe the 17 tantras reappeared in the 11th century. Maybe some parts where edited and added to but I have no doubt they are genuine teachings originally taught in the samboghkaya dimension for those mahasiddhas capable to take teachings there. Thanks to ChNNR is got a pretty clear picture of how this could happen. That is all.

Malcolm wrote:
I have spoken about this with ChNN pesonally. One day we were discussing the text of the Kalacakra tantra. He stopped us abruptly to emphasize the point that the text of the tantra was not the tantra itself. The tantra itself was the Kalacakra mandala experienced by a Mahāsiddha. The text was something relative, composed by a person, subject to editing, emendation and so on, a text written about the method of realizing that mandala.

I never said there were no Tibetan mahāsiddhas. There were and are. This is why I continue believe in the effectiveness of man ngag sde teachings even if I don't really accept their traditional origin story anymore.

The problem really arises because Tibetans who produced these texts in the 11th century had to cater to the socio-political pressure of sourcing their teaching outside of Tibet with a foreign teacher— this is true of Nyingma and this is true of Bon. The Nyingma and Bonpo strategy was the treasure tradition and tales of lost Sanskrit and Zhang Zhung originals (which were true in some instances, like Guhyagarbha). The reason this socio-political pressure existed was that new texts were being brought from India, and i the 11th century and beyond, if you could not prove your text was Indian, it was regarded as spurious. Now, there are all sorts of linguistic reasons (which I do not have space to detail here) that we cannot accept that the seventeen tantras are translations from even one language into Tibetan (let alone three in the case of the Rig pa rang shar, which claims it was translate from Oddiyanese, Sanskrit and Chinese!!!).

Nevertheless, while we can understand the historical provenance of the 17 tantras as texts to be a fabrication, we do not have to doubt their spiritual provenance since they are a record of the spiritual experience of a number of yogically advanced scholar practitioners in the 11th century who were riffing of older material from the 8th, 9th and 10th century as well as newer innovations by Indian yogis that was being imported in the eleventh century. Thus their lineage is intact in the live experimentation of yogis, just not in the fairy tale style it is communicated to children and naive people.

For example, Mahasiddha Virupa, a magical terrorist of great power, supposedly stops the sun in India. I love Virupa, he is definitely my favorite mahasiddha, but if he really stops the sun, you would think that such a cosmologically significant event would be noticed by the Chinese, the Arabs, etc. In fact, we have to understand this story as a yogic metaphor (which is the way it is actually explained in the Caryagiti). It is a fun story. It ends with Avalokiteshvara telling Virupa to stop being a magical terrorist. Then Virupa merges with a statue of Avalokiteshvara in S. India, meaning that all along we are to understand Virupa has reached the same level of realization.

For example, the essentials of man ngag sde practice, its anatomy and so on, can be communicated in a few words. We do not need three volumes of primary text, four volumes of secondary texts and four more volumes of commentaries to explain the main points of rushan, semzins, tregchod and thogal. But people like to write books, and they like to elaborate things. Most of what is discussed in the 17 tantras is distilled into a few pages in the Vima Nyingthig, in the three testaments of the Buddhas. This latter text then sets the structure for all the later Nyinthig termas.

As you know, I personally take the view that just as Mahāyāna Buddhism went through stages of development, so did tantra. I happen to think that the authors who wrote Mahāyāna down wrote down a brilliant and sublime teaching. I happen to think the same of the authors of the tantras. But I also think they were human beings and as human beings, they responded to social and political pressures, just as the Buddha clearly did in the Pali canon teachings.

So this is how I reconcile my critical approach to the text I read, and my practice. I understand that the tantric texts of all classes of tantra are just a reflection of a process of yogic experimentation and practice, as well as guides to reproduce those experiments. For me it is interesting to understand the gradual evolution of the Buddhist tantric yogic tradition, and I take the view that it did evolve gradually in the custody of people who were practicing its precepts, just like Mahāyāna, just like Abhidharma. I understand the claims of lineage origin to be a response to critics outside this or that lineage to validate the lineage to prospective new students. I understand that there are various strategies in Tibetan Buddhism to attract new students. Among these and not restricted to these are the Nyingma strategy, "highest teachings, newest revelation, the most blessings"; the Kagyu strategy is "Most faith, most blessings"; Gelug strategy is "Most systematic, most blessing", the Sakya strategy is "Clearest Indian lineages, most blessings", etc. These are the claims these schools make, they do not cover all the claims these schools make. Other claims all based around the lineage founders, the texts, etc. And of course we already see that within a few short years of Buddhism coming to the west, we have all kinds of tertons popping out of the wood works.

So in the end, Tibetan Buddhism is moving here, and we should expect that it will undergo rigorous critical examination, just like it did in the early days in Tibet. I suggest that if we revise our expectations of what makes a text "legitimate" then the process will be less painful. But if we insist on literal adherence to narratives such as the Great History of Zhangton as a criteria for being a player, then I think that Vajrayāna is doomed in the west.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 16th, 2014 at 7:49 AM
Title: Re: Can't Really Work with Mahayana by the Looks of it
Content:
rob h said:
It seems like I've decided to pretty much stop working with anything Mahayana...

Malcolm wrote:
Ok.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 16th, 2014 at 3:39 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:


alpha said:
I am not sure.
In the way you say it,  it looks like body and speech are conditioned or are results of ignorance, or you are trying to create a kind of hierarchy where one is higher than the other, whereas the view of dzogchen is that the entire diversity of pure and impure phenomena are inseparable in the nature of  the state of body , speech and mind.Since body speech and mind have the same unique nature and this nature is also the nature of phenomena , whether of samsara or nirvana i see no need of making differentiations.

Malcolm wrote:
Dzogchen texts are quite explicit on this point, everything comes from the mind, everything that appears is an appearance of the mind. As Buddha said mind is the forerunner, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 16th, 2014 at 3:02 AM
Title: Re: Difference between consciousness and the mind
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Unicellular organisms, fungi, plants, and so on, do not have minds and thus to not have awareness at all in any measure. They are non-sentient life.

PadmaVonSamba said:
if a single cell is non-sentient life,
then any multiplication of that single cell,
such as you or I
must therefore also be non-sentient
unless perhaps you can suggest a point at which sentience begins?
.
.
.

Malcolm wrote:
Our minds do not come from the cells of our bodies. The cells of our body are not sentient.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 16th, 2014 at 2:59 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
The mind is the basis, it doesn't have "the basis".

alpha said:
I thought that the basis is from the very beginning the state of body, voice and mind as the self perfected-fruit and not just the mind.

Malcolm wrote:
Body and speech come from mind, just as the rūpakāya arises from the dharmakāya.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 16th, 2014 at 2:57 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
Sherab said:
Previously, you said that the mind is not real because it cannot be established.  You said that cannot be established means cannot be proven to exist dependently or inherently.

Now you said that the mind is not real because it arises from conditions.  Is this not equivalent to saying that the mind is not real because it is established to exists dependently (i.e. from conditions) and not inherently?

So can or cannot the mind be established?

Malcolm wrote:
The mind cannot be established because it arises from conditions, therefore it is illusory and free from extremes.

Dependent existence is just a crib for inherent existence, as Nāgārjuna quite clearly shows in the chapter 15 of the MMK.

Sherab said:
Nagarjuna was talking of svabhava and parabhava where bhava is something permanent.

I was not talking about dependent existence as something permanent and therefore cannot be proven, BUT a dependent existence that is does not have the characteristic of permanence and therefore can be proven, i.e. established.  For example, a water molecule is a dependent existence arising from or emerging from the combination (governed by certain laws of nature) of an oxygen atom and two hydrogen atoms.

Malcolm wrote:
Nāgārjuna shows that bhāva is incoherent, therefore, dependent existence is incoherent. Production from conditions is not incoherent because it does not involve use the term "bhava", existence. You will never find Nāgārjuna defending any species of existence at all.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 16th, 2014 at 2:55 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
Sherab said:
In what way is this not ontological?

The tantra of the basis is the reality [gnas lugs] that is present [gnas pa] to be known. It is not cultivated by buddhas nor do sentient being contrived it through cleverness. It is not established by any words or letters. It is the intrinsic reality of the great perfection free from extremes that is in no way incomplete.

Malcolm wrote:
It is saying that one cannot apply ontological predicates such as being, non-being and so on to the unfabricated mind, the continuum of the basis.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 16th, 2014 at 1:51 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Since the stains of the afflictions have never existed, there are no obstacles to clear away and no qualities to develop. All phenomena are perfect from the beginning in the state of essential identity, with no need for acceptance or rejection, prohibitions or remedies: this view of primordial enlightenment is known as the great perfection.

Malcolm wrote:
Even the perfection of wisdom states this, Hevajra states this, Kalacakra states this. This not a unique feature of Dzogchen.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 16th, 2014 at 1:13 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
There is no need to talk about ontology since there the four extremes are all invalid.

gad rgyangs said:
saying that is already talking about ontology.

so, since you are already talking about ontology, you need to explain these separate, self-contained monad-bases that you claim are found in each sentient being. Its unclear mereologically what is their relation to each other and what is their collective relationship to a context that would include them all. If the context is "kadag, lundrup and thugje" then that is pointing to a basis that is their collective context.

Malcolm wrote:
I would say that kadag, lundrup and thugje are a generic context, just like "red" is a generic context for all cows that are red.

The Dzogchen tantras are not inventing a brand new theory of Buddhism, they are just riffing on Tantric Buddhism as it already exists. That being the case, Dzogchen tantras, just like all other Buddhist tantras, do not deny conventional doctrines such as mind streams (citta saṃtana) and so on, that are necessary for receiving impressions or traces (vasana, bag chags) etc.

In other words, Dzogchen tantras exist in a continuum with other texts upon which later Dzogchen tantras like the sgra thal 'gyur (which are clearly influenced by the gsar ma tantras) are based. You want to define the basis as ye shes. The sgra thal 'gyur defines wisdom as encompassed by shes pa, and its commentary indicates that the shes pa that encompass wisdom, whether in Buddhas or sentient beings, is individual and unique to each buddha and sentient being. So what this basically boils down to is a discussion of how individual sentient beings are liberated.

I don't really care about what meta discussion we can have about "what it means". I am interested in what the texts themselves say so that we can understand their intention.

Therefore, since the discussion of the basis is premised on the concept of the three continuums, and since that continuum is just the continuum of an individual sentient beings consciousness,  it is pretty meaningless to me to try and insist that the Dzogchen tantras should be saying something other than what they clearly all say, i.e., sentient beings become deluded, and sentient beings become Buddhas.

You might not be satisfied with this, but so what?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 16th, 2014 at 1:03 AM
Title: Re: Dr. Sanderson: Phowa etc. are directly from Saivism
Content:


haha said:
Such passage/myth does not support the textual conversion but provide the hypothesis for textual conversion. So do the bio of Yogeswora Virupa.

Malcolm wrote:
All it proves is that Buddhists and Hindus were in competition.

haha said:
The Aṣṭaṇgahridayam that gives these organs in this order: Heart, lung, liver, gall bladder, spleen, kidney. But quoted passage did not used yang organ (gall bladder). Then, there are five yin organs. Thus, it is related with Wu Xing theory.

Malcolm wrote:
Not really. These five don snod, may ultimately have come from the arrangement the functional organs in Chinese medicine, but their place is so firmly established in Tibetan medicine by the 13th century when this text was written that any Chinese connection would have been long been obscured.

haha said:
lalana, rasana and avadhuti
These three are purely buddhist in origin (name as well as meaning). Ida, Pingala and Susumna are purely non-buddhist (name as well as meaning).

Malcolm wrote:
Kalacakra uses Ida, Pingala and Susumna.

haha said:
In buddhist context without Vipasyana one cannot work with avadhuti; especially in vajrayana it is directly related with sampannakrama(completion stage meditation). How can such thing derive from non-buddhist tradition?

Malcolm wrote:
Easily, as Sapan points out the two stages exist in Hinduism, the difference is in view.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 16th, 2014 at 12:43 AM
Title: Re: Difference between consciousness and the mind
Content:
PadmaVonSamba said:
So, basically you are denying that a sperm responds specifically to something other than itself.

Malcolm wrote:
I am denying that there is any awareness involved in such interactions.

PadmaVonSamba said:
maybe you wouldn't call it "awareness" in the common Buddhist use of the term,
because there is no cognitive grasping.
But then what would you call it?
Responsiveness?

Malcolm wrote:
I wouldn't call it awareness in any usage of the term. Unicellular organisms, fungi, plants, and so on, do not have minds and thus to not have awareness at all in any measure. They are non-sentient life.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 16th, 2014 at 12:38 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
It is not an ontological doctrine, it is epistemic.

gad rgyangs said:
ok so if you want to co-opt the basis for your epistemology, then you simply need to use new terms to talk about ontology. So what are they? (and no cop-out saying "since there are no "beings" there is no need for "ontology").

Malcolm wrote:
There is no need to talk about ontology since the the four extremes are all invalid.

In case you missed it:

When we talk about the basis, we are talking about what is termed by the sgra thal 'gyur commentary as the tantra of primal nature [rang bzhin gyi rgyud]:


The tantra of the basis is the reality [gnas lugs] that is present [gnas pa] to be known. It is not cultivated by buddhas nor do sentient being contrived it through cleverness. It is not established by any words or letters. It is the intrinsic reality of the great perfection free from extremes that is in no way incomplete. 
The tantra of the path is two-fold: the path is made into a direct perception and into a post-meditation phase on the basis of the capacity of different people. 
The tantra of the result is the naturally perfected tantra of the three kāyas and the originally pure tantra of the exhaustion of dharmatā.

This passage in the sgra thal 'gyur commentary is an elaboration upon a discussion found in an early 11th century text, The Mahāyānapathakrama by Subhagavajra:

Now then, the tantra of the basis is the nature of the two truths; the method is the two stages; and the result is the two kaȳas, the dharmakāya and rūpakāya. Therefore, since the result is obtained when the method is cultivated in dependence on the basis, a tantra is so called because it connects.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 16th, 2014 at 12:31 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
Sherab said:
Based on your meaning of 'to establish', I read the first quote to mean that the mind is not real because it does not exist dependently nor inherently.  This implies that the mind existence is only imagined.

Malcolm wrote:
The mind is not real because it arises from conditions, whatever arises from conditions does not arise in truth and cannot be found on examination. The mind is not unreal because there is clarity, and so on.

Sherab said:
Previously, you said that the mind is not real because it cannot be established.  You said that cannot be established means cannot be proven to exist dependently or inherently.

Now you said that the mind is not real because it arises from conditions.  Is this not equivalent to saying that the mind is not real because it is established to exists dependently (i.e. from conditions) and not inherently?

So can or cannot the mind be established?

Malcolm wrote:
The mind cannot be established because it arises from conditions, therefore it is illusory and free from extremes.

Dependent existence is just a crib for inherent existence, as Nāgārjuna quite clearly shows in the chapter 15 of the MMK.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 16th, 2014 at 12:29 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
pensum said:
"Presence Itself"?

Malcolm wrote:
sems nyid.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 16th, 2014 at 12:28 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The mind is the basis, it doesn't have "the basis".

Sherab said:
That being the case, scientists should be able to find the mind in a rock, a river or the wind.  Scientists should not be finding molecules, atoms, sub atomic particles, etc.

Malcolm wrote:
The origin of this language of "the basis" is in the trio of the basis, path and result (sthana, marga, phala), i.e. the three tantras.

It is not an ontological doctrine, it is epistemic.

When we talk about the basis, we are talking about what is termed by the sgra thal 'gyur commentary as the tantra of primal nature  [rang bzhin gyi rgyud]:


The tantra of the basis is the reality [gnas lugs] that is present [gnas pa] to be known. It is not cultivated by buddhas nor do sentient being contrived it through cleverness. It is not established by any words or letters. It is the intrinsic reality of the great perfection free from extremes that is in no way incomplete. 
The tantra of the path is two-fold: the path is made into a direct perception and into a post-meditation phase on the basis of the capacity of different people. 
The tantra of the result is the naturally perfected tantra of the three kāyas and the originally pure tantra of the exhaustion of dharmatā.

This passage in the sgra thal 'gyur commentary is an elaboration upon a discussion found in an early 11th century text, The Mahāyānapathakrama by Subhagavajra:

Now then, the tantra of the basis is the nature of the two truths; the method is the two stages; and the result is the two kaȳas, the dharmakāya and rūpakāya. Therefore, since the result is obtained when the method is cultivated in dependence on the basis, a tantra is so called because it connects.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 16th, 2014 at 12:26 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
Andrew108 said:
]
And for 'Presence Itself' you may as well use the term 'life itself'. There is no need to establish the identity of mind in order to overcome delusion. Neither is there a need to posit a final destination in Buddhahood as the epitomy of wisdom. When you have confidence that knowledge of 'life itself' is never seperate from an experience of 'Presence Itself' then what else do you need?

Malcolm wrote:
Presence is not a good translation for "sems nyid". It just means mind-essence and is a reference to bodhicitta, the mind-essence.

The passage that prefaces this discussion runs:

Since cause and effect are differentiated
into mind, phenomena and knowing, 
phenomena are established. 
But it is never said to establish a
differentiation into cause and effect
in the self-originated knowing mind. 
[What] is to said that should be established
is that everything is established
by clearly including all phenomena
in the mind-essence, the great perfection.

This is really very much the same as what the perfection of wisdom sutras say:
Śariputra, that which is absence of change and the absence of concepts in all phenomena is called "the mind essence of the mind".

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 15th, 2014 at 11:14 PM
Title: Re: Difference between consciousness and the mind
Content:
PadmaVonSamba said:
So, basically you are denying that a sperm responds specifically to something other than itself.

Malcolm wrote:
I am denying that there is any awareness involved in such interactions.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 15th, 2014 at 11:04 PM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Further, there is ample evidence that Dzogchen tantras are merely discussing the nature of individual consciousness and nothing more.

gad rgyangs said:
and what is the basis of those posited multiple, individual consciousnesses?

Malcolm wrote:
There is no posited basis for those multiple, individual consciousness since they are all empty, free from extremes.

As explained before, the term སྦྱི་གཞི, generic basis, is just a generic set of attributes that all shes pas possess. That is why the sgra thal 'gyur clearly explains that shes pa, consciousness, exists in all buddhas and sentient beings, and that is has two basis states, pure and impure and so on.

We can continue around and around on this if you want, but there really is no further satisfactory answer. Instant presence, rig pa, is just a quality of one's mind.

As soon as one accepts that all of this is just a way of trying to describe how minds become deluded, and then free from that delusion, then at that point one has understood the purpose of the discussion. If you think Dzogchen texts are positing some permeating basis which supports instantiations of buddhas and sentient beings, then you have understood nothing.

As you know, in the end I have concluded that the Dzogchen theory of a basis is not really different from the Sakya theory of the all-basis cause continuum, or the Kagyu theory of "mahamudra of the basis". All three are clearly based on the Uttaratantra of the Guhyasamaja's statement:

A tantra is a continua. 
That become three,
divided by basis, likewise, nature, 
and nothing to abandon, 
the basis and the nature are the cause, 
likewise the result has nothing to abandon. 
The basis is called “the method.”
The topics of tantra are included in three.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 15th, 2014 at 10:51 PM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
A mental event is distinct from a mind exactly how?

gad rgyangs said:
"mind" is a conceptual overlay, a non existent (in the son of a barren women sense) posited substratum or possessor that "has" mental events, or, even worse, "has" the basis.

Malcolm wrote:
The mind is the basis, it doesn't have "the basis".

Sure, mind is just a convention, so is "basis", so is "mental event", etc. When subject to analysis, each term is just as incoherent as the other two.

Therefore, all of this discussion of the basis, the arising of the basis, mind, mental events, etc., is all strictly conventional.

Further, there is ample evidence that Dzogchen tantras are merely discussing the nature of individual consciousness and nothing more.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 15th, 2014 at 10:46 PM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:


Andrew108 said:
So which type of Buddhahood do you want? The type that comes from the realization of mind or the type that doesn't exist, can't be seen, can't be designated?

Malcolm wrote:
They are the same.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 15th, 2014 at 10:42 PM
Title: Re: Longde before Dzin Dharmabodhi?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
or the the increasingly detailed bios of Padmasambhava resulting in a 12 volume one "revealed" by a Bon master in the 19th century.

mutsuk said:
What is that ?


Malcolm wrote:
I don't know, Tulku Orgyan mentions he read one.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 15th, 2014 at 10:41 PM
Title: Re: Longde before Dzin Dharmabodhi?
Content:
heart said:
I don't agree. Zhangton wrote an an important Dzogchen history, the Great History of the Dzogchen Nyingtik (rdzogs pa chen po snying thig gi lo rgyus chen mo). I think he is simply retelling the story of the nyingthik as his masters told him (no matter how strange its seemed) but If you like Malcolm is suggesting that he wrote the 17 tantras himself that whole text is not true, which would make it a lie

Malcolm wrote:
I think the story of their origin was largely created by Chegom Nagpo, who communicated this to Zhangton. Zhangton clearly received the 17 Tantras from Chegom Nagpo with whom he studied for one year when he was 10, in 1107.

I think that Dangma Lhungyal (and perhaps some others) and Chetsun Senge Wangchuk wrote the seventeen tantras over a period of 30-40 years or so during 11th century, with six of them being written after the Hevajra tantra was translated, i.e. the the rig pa rang shar, the rig pa rang grol, the bkra shis mdzes ldan, the sgron ma 'bar ba and the mu tig phreng ba, with the sgra thal 'gyur being the last of the whole collection to be written down.

Further, Zhangton claims that he alone receives the unsurpassed secret cycle of teachings which are the Vima Nyinthig. Zhangton wrote large parts of the Vima Nyinthig, i.e. the gold, copper, agate, conch and turquoise lettered between 1115-1118. I think some of the other texts in the collection are texts he received from Chegom.

Nyang ral reports the existence of the 17 tantras in a lineage that stems from Chegom in his Dharma history, but makes no mention of the Vima Nyinthig, indicating it was not well known yet. The fact that Nyang ral's story of Vimalmitra's life (based on his treasure revelation that Eric translated as "The Lotus Born") contradicts many details of Vimalamitra's life in Zhangton's slightly earlier story [but both composed in the 12th century] shows that Zhangton's Vima Nyinthig was not widely known in the late 11th century and only circulated in a small circle of his immediate disciples surrounding his son, Nyibum.

heart said:
But perhaps you would like suggest that "the Great History of the Dzogchen Nyingtik " is an early work of fiction?

Malcolm wrote:
Of course it is.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 15th, 2014 at 10:05 PM
Title: Re: Difference between consciousness and the mind
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
A sperm has no mental organ or any other kind of organ, it cannot be aware.

PadmaVonSamba said:
I agreed that it has no mental organ.
But it is attracted to a chemical excreted by the egg
and it swims to that egg.
it responds to the actions of the egg.
That function of response,
that attraction,
is what i am talking about.

Malcolm wrote:
That does not constitute evidence of awareness.


PadmaVonSamba said:
Nearly all "alive" things exhibit some sort of response to some stimuli that they themselves do not create.

Malcolm wrote:
That does not constitute evidence of awareness.

PadmaVonSamba said:
Hence, the propensity for the experience of self/other is already there.

Malcolm wrote:
No, I don't think so.

PadmaVonSamba said:
This is the basic awareness I am talking about,

Malcolm wrote:
I think you have confused panpsychism with Buddhism.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 15th, 2014 at 9:59 PM
Title: Re: Longde before Dzin Dharmabodhi?
Content:
heart said:
this was how he actually thought it happened. If I was Zhangton I would have made a more believable story.

Malcolm wrote:
Two things about Zhangton. Zhangton demonstrates a very shaky grasp on events in the 11th century, placing atisha one hundred years too early and so on. Second, fabulous tales were very believable to Tibetans (and many of their students) right up to the present day.

When I have discussions with Tibetans about all of this, they demonstrate a lot of indifference to these issues, mainly being concerned with focusing on one practice or lineage. Plus they are basically hostile to text critical analysis of their tradition unless it is within the context of traditional lineage concerns. So for example, if Gorampa criticizes the kun byed rgyal po it is one thing, but if a Western scholar does the same thing it is quite another. They distrust the motives of Western scholars, and dislike the  impression that Western scholars like Gyatso, Davidson, Germano etc., are just doing this because they need a job. Whereas a critic like Sapan or Gorampa is regarded as being a realized person (with Sakya), so their opinions carry great weight.

Many western students have the same attitude. I have heard students of ChNN proclaim that if ChNN says something is so, we must believe it is so.

Finally, the purpose of lo rgyus, narrative accounts, are to generate faith in the lineage. Therefore exaggeration and so on are the norm in such accounts because they generate a dramatic tone which fosters receptivity. In the Indo-Tibetan tradition it seems, the more fantastic the better it is received. Of course there are skeptics, like Taranatha, who found the whole literature of the Padma Khathangs to be worth less than the paper they were written on, so he provided the account of Padmasambhava he heard from his Indian master, Buddhaguptanatha as a corrective to the exaggerations of tertons like Nyang ral.

So what I observe in Tibetan literature of this kind is a kind of one upsmanship, like that one sees when comparing the simpler and less elaborate "sems sde" origin stories with the elaborate story of the man ngag sde lineage, or comparing the increasingly detailed accounts of the early masters of Lamdre as time moves on, or the increasing detailed bios of Milarepa, etc., or the the increasingly detailed bios of Padmasambhava resulting in a 12 volume one "revealed" by a Bon master in the 19th century.

These are, in my view, facts of text that we have to accept.

In terms of Dharma there is basically no difference in meaning between the words in the "emptiness" mantra, oṃ svabhāva śuddha sarvadharma svabhāva śuddho' ham (The nature of all phenomena is pure, also my nature is pure) and the term "original purity".

In the end, these issues of text origin should be kept separate from practice. I think that the traditional accounts should always be presented, whether we really believe them or not, when we are being presented with teachings for practice. When we are studying these texts for their history however, we should subject the texts to all the best methods of text criticism, archaeology, history and so on that we can muster. In some people's mind this will cause them to lose faith in this or that lineage or tradition, and that is a pity, but that is also the price of scholarship. Many Christians lost faith in Jesus because of text criticism that began to be used by german scholars in the 19th century, but we, as Buddhists, don't really care if Christians lose their faith.

My contention is that if we lose our faith in Buddhadharma (due to text criticism and a better understanding of history) because the origin of some text turns out to have been originally written Tibetan and not some Indic language, than our faith was is pretty shaky to begin with and is not based on the principles of Dharma but rather on some strange beliefs that we have decided to cultivate. If we lost faith in the man ngag sde tantras because it turns out they were written in Tibetan in the 11th century, and not taught by some ancient teacher in a heaven during the first eon, then it means we have not really understood the theory and practice contained in those texts on any level at all . If we lose our faith in Kalacakra because the notion that it was taught by the Buddha in a stupa in South India and then was later set down in writing by the seventh king of Shambhala, Mañjuśrīyasa, and only brought to India some 1000 years later during the 10th century turns out to be just a didactic legend, then it means we have understood nothing of the teachings contained in that tantra. If we decide that we have no faith in the Prajñāpāramita sūtras because it turns out that it is impossible they were recovered from under the ocean by Nāgārjuna then we have not understood one word of the Prajñāpāramita.

I keep on stressing that what is most important about all Buddhist texts is not where they are from, but rather, what they say. We are left to our own devices to engage in the experiment and test for ourselves the truth of practices in Buddhist texts. When we have some evidence that the practices in these texts lead to the promised results, our faith moves from aspiring faith to unshakable faith -- but that unshakable faith does'nt mean that we then necessarily have to believe all the origin legends that accompany these texts. It means we have moved from hypothesis to confirmation for ourselves.

In the meantime, there are interesting things to learn.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 15th, 2014 at 8:43 PM
Title: Re: Difference between consciousness and the mind
Content:
PadmaVonSamba said:
Well, if the sperm is attracted by the chemical from the egg.
so, if you don't want to call it "mind" what would you call it?
I called it "bare awareness".

Malcolm wrote:
A sperm has no mental organ or any other kind of organ, it cannot be aware.

PadmaVonSamba said:
You can't deny that there is a responsive, intentional (meaning not random) contact between two separate entities.
Somehow the sperm 'knows" to swim to the egg.

Malcolm wrote:
A sperm has no mental organ or any other kind of organ, it cannot be aware.

PadmaVonSamba said:
an awareness of another object occurs even to a single-cell organism,
which has no brain, no sense organs, no nerve endings.

Malcolm wrote:
Single cell organisms have no sense organs, etc., so they cannot be aware.

Attributing awareness to them is a category error.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 15th, 2014 at 8:37 PM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
Sherab said:
Based on your meaning of 'to establish', I read the first quote to mean that the mind is not real because it does not exist dependently nor inherently.  This implies that the mind existence is only imagined.

Malcolm wrote:
The mind is not real because it arises from conditions, whatever arises from conditions does not arise in truth and cannot be found on examination. The mind is not unreal because there is clarity, and so on.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 15th, 2014 at 8:36 PM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
Sherab said:
...Taken as a whole, the first quote seems to say that the mind is unreal because it is only imagined.  But because of imagination (of feeling, thinking and so on), it is not unreal.  The whole argument in the first quote therefore seems rather incoherent to me.

Andrew108 said:
Well the other thing is that Malcolm is saying the realization of mind's nature leads to Buddhahood. There must be something realized? if he says that mind cannot be found, then I wonder how can Buddhahood be realized?

Malcolm wrote:
Kun byed rgyal po:

Since one's mind free of proliferation is the dharmadhātu
all buddhas enter into that freedom from proliferation.

And:

A buddhahood that is an object of sight cannot be seen;
since buddhahood does not exist, also there is no name "buddhahood";
The teacher has said that since buddhahood designated by a name it is an error;
the mistaken path is obtaining buddhahood somewhere else.

And:

Also the teaching of the all-creating kind
is that one's mind has always been the liberated dharmatā.

There you go, Andrew, how it is explained in the bodhicitta texts of which you are so fond.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 15th, 2014 at 8:10 PM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
personally I don't think there is such a thing as "mind" even conventionally. "mental events" yes, but "mind" no. it stinks of reification.

Malcolm wrote:
I don't think there is such a thing as "mind" even conventionally.

???

gad rgyangs said:
mental event, no substratum or possessor

Malcolm wrote:
A mental event is distinct from a mind exactly how?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 15th, 2014 at 8:01 PM
Title: Re: Longde before Dzin Dharmabodhi?
Content:


heart said:
We are still waiting for your translation of the 17 Tantras in order to evaluate its actual content. But in my opinion if you wanted to make a believable story about the origin of a text you wrote you would have traveled to India and made sanskrit copies of them. The lineage that Zhangton Tashi Dorje provide is laughable in comparison the Sarma lineages. No wonder so relatively few people believed in them at the time. This is what don't make sense.

/magnus

Malcolm wrote:
The Sanskrit originals for the 17 tantras are accounted for Zhangston's legend. They are asserted to be the sole copies brought from India with no other copies in India, hidden by Vimalamitra in Tibet just before he departed for China. The origin legends of all the other tantras are no more believable than Zhangton's. The difference of course is that there is no elaborate account of concealment and retrieval in Tibet to contend with for the gsar ma tantras.

In gsar ma, the general mode of the introduction new teachings is through visionary encounter.  Marpa meeting Naropa, Sachen meeting Virupa, or through dreams.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 15th, 2014 at 11:15 AM
Title: Re: Three Turnings.
Content:
jeeprs said:
all things have no-essence, no arising, and no passing away, are originally quiescent, and are essentially in cessation
Even though this is something that is said a lot, I don't really understand what it means.

(I *think* there is a similarity to the early Greek philosophers, specifically Parmenides [and Zeno's paradoxes which were intended as proofs of Parmenedis], which originated from around the same historical time. Parmenides also was concerned with 'what truly is', in comparison to which the 'phenomenal' did not truly exist.
How could what is perish? How could it have come to be? For if it came into being, it is not; nor is it if ever it is going to be. Thus coming into being is extinguished, and destruction unknown.
B 8.20-22. )

So I would be very interested to hear an explanation of what this phrase actually means in terms of modern or analytical philosophy. When it is declared that things are 'not arisen', this doesn't seem to account for the fact that things -  creatures, trees, mountains, planets, and so on -  actually do 'arise' or come into and then go out of existence.  So what does it mean that they don't really arise?

Any supplementary readings on that, preferably from a 'Buddhist studies', rather than traditional, perspective?

Malcolm wrote:
They seem to, but not really.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 15th, 2014 at 11:12 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
personally I don't think there is such a thing as "mind" even conventionally. "mental events" yes, but "mind" no. it stinks of reification.

Malcolm wrote:
I don't think there is such a thing as "mind" even conventionally.

???


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 15th, 2014 at 8:37 AM
Title: Re: Difference between consciousness and the mind
Content:


PadmaVonSamba said:
When this basic ground of awareness arises, or interacts with an object,
the result is that is experienced is mind.


Malcolm wrote:
There is no awareness outside the mind.

PadmaVonSamba said:
So, when a plant's roots grow specifically in the direction of a source of water,
or a sperm cell swims to an egg,
or white blood cells attack an infection,
that is mind?
.
.
.


Malcolm wrote:
None of these things have minds, so they do not have awareness either.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 15th, 2014 at 8:35 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
Sherab said:
What is the meaning of established as you have used here?

Malcolm wrote:
Proven to exist.

Sherab said:
What does exist mean here?  For example, to exist can mean to exist inherently, to exist dependently, to exist as an imagination.

Malcolm wrote:
Proven to exist. There is no difference between existence and inherent existence. There is no difference between dependent existence and inherent existence.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 15th, 2014 at 8:27 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
Sherab said:
So by "mind" you are really referring to the ordinary deluded mind?


Malcolm wrote:
By mind I mean that entity which can become deluded or nondeluded.

gad rgyangs said:
you sure you want to call mind an "entity"?

Malcolm wrote:
Conventionally, sure. I don't mean it has a essence, an ens. I mean it is a subject for discussion. A mind is what experiences samsara or nirvana. It can be pure or impure, to put it the way the sgra thal 'gyur puts it, wisdom is encompassed by the mind. "Vimalamitra", having clarified that sems, blo and yid are all synonyms for shes pa, states:

The wisdom that is encompassed by the mind is inseparable in all buddhas and sentient beings as mere mind, but since it ultimately pervades them without any nature at all, that [wisdom] is encompassed by the mind [shes pa] of each one.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 15th, 2014 at 7:56 AM
Title: Re: Three Turnings.
Content:
Astus said:
Therefore, the unconditioned does not exist."[/i]

Malcolm wrote:
Indeed, and there goes gzhan stong up in smoke hoisted on its own petard.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 15th, 2014 at 7:55 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
Sherab said:
So by "mind" you are really referring to the ordinary deluded mind?


Malcolm wrote:
By mind I mean that entity which can become deluded or nondeluded.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 15th, 2014 at 7:55 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
Sherab said:
What is the meaning of established as you have used here?

Malcolm wrote:
Proven to exist.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 15th, 2014 at 7:18 AM
Title: Re: Difference between consciousness and the mind
Content:


PadmaVonSamba said:
When this basic ground of awareness arises, or interacts with an object,
the result is that is experienced is mind.


Malcolm wrote:
There is no awareness outside the mind.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 15th, 2014 at 7:16 AM
Title: Re: Three Turnings.
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
If one claims the "third turning" is definitive, defines it as a number of sutras like the Saṃdhinirmocana and so on, and then you cite a "first" turning sūtra, you have contradicted yourself.

jeeprs said:
Not necessarily.  It might be the case that the so-called 'later' teachings unpack or explicate deeper meanings that were inherent in the earliest texts. That is why Nagarjuna could say that he was affirming the true meaning of the Buddha's teaching, even though to many of his contemporaries he seemed to be radical (well that is a point made in many of the scholarly studies of early Mahayana anyway.) But that is because the Buddha's teaching, right from the outset, was vast, profound, difficult to fathom, deep and perceptible only to the wise. It accomodates many different kinds of perspectives. So in some ways you can see as the tradition developed, there was the attempt to harmonize some of these perspectives, whilst not claiming that the later ones conflicted with or undermined the earlier. (//edit//although of course from the viewpoint of the traditionalists, the so-called 'later turnings' were simply ways to rationalize heterodoxy.)


('Unborn, unconditioned' comes from http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.8.03.than.html.)

Malcolm wrote:
You are missing my point again, the gzhan stong pas like SOB, generally assert that Buddha's career had three distinct phases.

Maitreyanatha rejects this interpretation and asserts that all three turnings were turned at the same time.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 15th, 2014 at 7:14 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
No, I should use "mind", since it is the realization of that which results in buddhahood and nothing else.

Sherab said:
What is your reason for putting the word mind within quotation marks?


Malcolm wrote:
Because A108 did.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 15th, 2014 at 6:42 AM
Title: Re: Three Turnings.
Content:
jeeprs said:
“There is, monks, an unborn, unbecome, unmade, unconditioned. If, monks there were not that unborn, unbecome, unmade, unconditioned, you could not know an escape here from the born, become, made, and conditioned. But because there is an unborn, unbecome, unmade, unconditioned, therefore you do know an escape from the born, become, made, and conditioned.”
How could such a statement be 'provisional'?  Wouldn't that then be a 'conditioned unconditioned'?


Malcolm wrote:
...Not sure you got my point. If one claims the "third turning" is definitive, defines it as a number of sutras like the Saṃdhinirmocana and so on, and then you cite a "first" turning sūtra, you have contradicted yourself.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 15th, 2014 at 4:57 AM
Title: Re: Difference between consciousness and the mind
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
I have shown where the Buddhas says the 5 aggregates are suffering.
You claim that the suttas that say such are provisional...


Malcolm wrote:
I respond here: https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=15837#wrap


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 15th, 2014 at 4:56 AM
Title: Three Turnings.
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
I have shown where the Buddhas says the 5 aggregates are suffering.

Malcolm wrote:
Of course they are, but there are also pure aggregates.

Son of Buddha said:
You mentioned the Diamond Sutra.....well the Diamond sutra is provisional the third turning deems all 1st and second turning to be provisional,only glimmers of the absolute truth can be found in the provisional teachings and even then they rely on interpretation from the third turning,now if you ask me to prove that with Buddhist scriptural reference I can.......im only you to do the same with your assertions.

Malcolm wrote:
There is really only one reference to the three turnings of the wheel in a single sutra. The Samdhinirmocana. The way I read the Samdhinirmocana is that it confirms the teaching found in the second turning and renders it indisputable.

The Bhagavan, well disclosing the correct entry into all vehicles, beginning from the nonexistence of the inherent existence of all phenomena, beginning from their absence of arising, absence of ceasing, being peaceful from the beginning, being parinirvana by nature, turned a third very amazing wheel of Dharma. This wheel of Dharma is unsurpassable, not circumstantial, of definitive meaning and indisputable.

This is hardly a smoking gun that confirms that you are basing your opinions on the so called third turning. Frankly, there is virtually no attention this teaching in the Indian canon, though a big deal about it is made in Tibetan and Chinese Buddhism. The idea that the three turnings are based on three distinct historical epochs is rejected out of hand by such India scholars as Dharmamitra in his Abhisamayālaṃkārakārikāprajñāpāramitopadeśaśāstraṭīkā prasphuṭapadā.



Son of Buddha said:
http://ancient-buddhist-texts.net/English-Texts/Exalted-Utterances/8-Pataligamiyavaggo-03.htm
“There is, monks, an unborn, unbecome, unmade, unconditioned. If, monks there were not that unborn, unbecome, unmade, unconditioned, you could not know an escape here from the born, become, made, and conditioned. But because there is an unborn, unbecome, unmade, unconditioned, therefore you do know an escape from the born, become, made, and conditioned.”

Malcolm wrote:
By your own criteria this is provisional since it comes from the first turning.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 15th, 2014 at 4:16 AM
Title: Re: What major Tibetan Buddhist texts are still missing?
Content:
Indrajala said:
I recently heard about large amounts of Indian Sanskrit texts having been kept in Tibetan libraries and actually seen by foreign visitors prior to the Chinese invasion. From the sounds of it they were basically stored away and seldom ever touched, but nevertheless they were there. A similar situation existed in China where original Indian manuscripts were stored in various places and left alone for centuries only to be burnt in the Cultural Revolution.

It would be interesting to know the fate of those Indian manuscripts in Tibet.

Malcolm wrote:
The Library at Sakya still has many original Sanskrit manuscripts.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 15th, 2014 at 4:11 AM
Title: Re: Pronouncation (yes one of these)
Content:
vinodh said:
Additonally to Malcolm's way, I've also been taught that it's pronounced "gya" (I think this may be the most common way now, but not necessarily the most historically accurate)
Usually, this is the North Indian pronunciation of the syllable.

South Indians (including me) still pronounce it as - <dʒɲa> (dʒ is same as English /j/ & ɲ is same as spanish ñ)  You'll find South Indian pronunciation of Sanskrit more conservative compared to North India. For Instance, <ai> <au> are mostly realized as monophthongs in most of North India. But they are properly realized as diphthongs only in South India (and Maharashtra).
also "dnya" which just seems weird to me, but is also supposedly correct
It is the Marathi/Oriya way of pronouncing the letter.

----

Well... Ofcourse... You can pick any of the above pronunciations and still sound "native".  But I would suggest to go with <dʒɲa> - the closest English rendering of which is <jnya>.

V

Malcolm wrote:
Sakya Pandita renders jñā and "gnya". Also in Varanasi, that is how it is taught there. In general, Tibetans who spoke Sanskrit followed the N. Indian mode of pronunciation and consider this the most correct. It may not match up with linguistic history, but indeed it is how they see it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 15th, 2014 at 3:07 AM
Title: Re: Longde before Dzin Dharmabodhi?
Content:
heart said:
Calling the 17 Tantras a scam is really close to turning people against the Dharma. Because scams are not Dharma, pretty simple.

Malcolm wrote:
Did I call the 17 tantras a scam? No. I simple asserted that they were composed in the 11th century. Just like Kalacakra was composed in the 10th century, Hevajra and the Laghusamvara in the 9th, Guhyasamaja in the 8th and so on.

heart said:
Inventing a lineage is a classic scam, no?

/magnus


Malcolm wrote:
If you choose to see it that way. I don't. I see it very much along the same lines as placing the words of Mahāyāna sūtras in the mouth of the Buddha, when it is impossible that the historical Buddha even spoke one word of them, let alone all 108 volumes of them and more. I evaluate the texts on what they say, not on the basis of their supposed origins. I think it is a superior approach when a text is evaluated on its actual content rather than who supposedly spoke it.

Let me put it another way, when Amoghavajra [i.e. Shingon tradition] claims that Nāgārjuna took the tantras out of an iron tower in South India, I also do not believe that story. That does not mean I think that the practice of the Vajradhātu mandala is spurious or worthless.

Given the environment of the 11th century, if the authors of the 17 tantras came out and said "We wrote these books, and because we have realized the meaning contained therein, you should practice this" no one would have believed them.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 15th, 2014 at 3:02 AM
Title: Re: African Americans & people of Color, & Buddhism in the W
Content:
zsc said:
T

The Buddha's teaching is that our current circumstances are not only due to the karma from past lives.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, the Buddha's teaching is that our current circumstances are due only to our actions from past lives.
The in the Karmavibhanga, the Buddha states:

SN 36.21 said:
"Now when these ascetics and brahmans have such a doctrine and view that 'whatever a person experiences, be it pleasure, pain or neither-pain-nor-pleasure, all that is caused by previous action,' then they go beyond what they know by themselves and what is accepted as true by the world. Therefore, I say that this is wrong on the part of these ascetics and brahmans."
2. "Master Gotama, what is the reason, what is the condition, why inferiority and superiority are met with among human beings, among mankind? For one meets with short-lived and long-lived people, sick and healthy people, ugly and beautiful people, insignificant and influential people, poor and rich people, low-born and high-born people, stupid and wise people. What is the reason, what is the condition, why superiority and inferiority are met with among human beings, among mankind?"

3. "Student, beings are owners of kammas, heirs of kammas, they have kammas as their progenitor, kammas as their kin, kammas as their homing-place. It is kammas that differentiate beings according to inferiority and superiority."

Malcolm wrote:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nanamoli/wheel248.html#top


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 15th, 2014 at 2:58 AM
Title: Re: African Americans & people of Color, & Buddhism in the W
Content:
Unknown said:
On the other hand, having complete strangers who don't care about you ask "What are you?" is annoying, as plenty of Asian-Americans say. Black women get this in the form of invasive questions about our hair ("Can I touch it?" "Do you wash it?" "Is that your real hair?" etc.). This ascribes an "alien" quality to someone that is dehumanizing. It's creepy, like we are regarded as zoo animals who need to be carefully studied.

Malcolm wrote:
Try having long blond hair in Tibet, if you want to feel like a zoo exhibit. You think these experiences are unique to black people in the US? They are not. They are experienced by anyone who travels somewhere where they are not the majority. Most of us here are widely travelled people, not ignorant rednecks in the N. Georgia mountains.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 15th, 2014 at 2:50 AM
Title: Re: African Americans & people of Color, & Buddhism in the W
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
[quote="zsc"

@Malcolm - To continue on what I touched on, your position of the suffering of people being only the result of their past lives ignores that documented fact that Gotoma opposed the caste system, which is the logical conclusion of your stance. Gotoma even opposed the caste system *even while he directly benefited from it*. There is a metaphor in there about how we should respond to all other forms of social inequality.[/quote]

The in the Karmavibhanga, the Buddha states:

Brahmaputra, therefore, listen well and bear this in mind: from knowing the various actions [karma], the various afflictions, the various views and the various behaviors of sentient beings one can describe the ripened results of positive and negative actions. Brahmaputra, there is birth among hell beings, animals and pretas because of negative actions, birth among humans, asuras and devas because of positive actions. 

Brahmaputra, a short life is a vicissitude of karma, a long life is a vicissitude of karma. Frequent illness is a vicissitude of karma, infrequent illness is a vicissitude of karma. A poor complexion is a vicissitude of karma. Beauty is a vicissitude of karma. Inferior social standing is a vicissitude of karma. Superior social standing is a vicissitude of karma. Noble birth is a vicissitude of karma. Ignoble birth is a vicissitude of karma. Great wealth is a vicissitude of karma. Little wealth is a vicissitude of karma. Low intelligence is a vicissitude of karma. High intelligence is a vicissitude of karma. Birth as a hell being is a vicissitude of karma. Birth as animal is a vicissitude of karma. Birth as a preta is a vicissitude of karma. Birth in the human realm is a vicissitude of karma. Birth as a deva enjoying bliss is a vicissitude of karma. Birth as a form realm deva is a vicissitude of karma. Birth as a formless realm deva is a vicissitude of karma. Certainty of birth is a vicissitude of karma. Uncertainty of birth is a vicissitude of karma. Ripening in another land is a is a vicissitude of karma.

You ignored my observation that the fact that social inequality is in fact a result of karma from the Buddha's point of view does not mean we deal with it passively.


Unknown said:
But I will say, it is ironic that you chose to affirm the reality of karma from our past lives while denying other karmic circumstances in which we are born into, such as where we are born...

Malcolm wrote:
All of this comes from our past karma, I have not ignored any of it.

Unknown said:
And yet, my basic recommendation to examine personal complicity (which is woven into your own karmic situation) to see your role in today's social conditions is met with resistance.

Malcolm wrote:
All of us together mutually created the karmic ripening we observe today, and the ways in which we treat other sentient beings determines what kind of karmic reality we will experience in the future. You very well may have been a privileged white slave owner in a past life. I may have been a slave whose children were ripped away from me and sold at auction. Jews killed in the holocaust may have been reborn as Israelis, while Nazis may have been reborn as Palestinians. We have all been mothers, fathers, sons and daughters, enemies, friends, murders, rapists, thieves, kings, wealthy merchants, libertines, etc., not to mention pretas, gods, hell beings, fish, whales, bugs so many times, that to insist that others must adopt our social view based in the very temporary karmic circumstances we find in this life is just absurd.

The law of karma is unerring. If someone, like Tibetans for example, are experiencing torture, murder and so on at the hands of the PLA, for example, there is a karmic reason for it. That does not mean that Tibetans, for example, need to be passive and not insist on their rights to dignity as human beings, the same thing with Palestinians, Mayans, Rohingyas, etc. But as Buddhists we also must understand that famine, diseases, wars, etc., as well as the beauty and good fortune we have to live in the US (as imperfect as it may be) all comes from karma. How we manage this is what will determine where we take rebirth in the next life and what kind of circumstances we will meet there.

Unknown said:
Meanwhile, my insistence that how we relate to the dharma (which includes to how we relate to each other) is conditioned by our karmic situations (which includes our experiences due to our race) is met with denial. Neither statement is a concept that is alien to Buddhist thought.

Malcolm wrote:
You really must not be paying attention to what I said.

Unknown said:
In light of that, race is a fake social construct, to you "there are no black people" but to people who do everything from deny us opportunities to gun us down there certainly are black people. The same "Sunday-only" dharma referenced above that ignores the lived reality of racism that black Buddhists face, and other poc, is unsurprisingly not one that many poc will adopt. Above I have outlined why I believe this isn't Buddhist at all.

Malcolm wrote:
Race is a social construct that is quite real to many people, but it is still just an illusion. "Black people" and "White people" are just dividing labels. The extent we wish to reinforce them is the extent to which they will continue to bind us.

Unknown said:
Just like with Johnny Dangerous, I would also ask why the solutions of people of color--in your words, a "black power sangha"--must be palatable to you?

Malcolm wrote:
I can see you really do not read what I said carefully. I said the very idea of such racially divided sanghas violated the intent of the Buddha, who did not differentiate people by caste when they became followers of Buddhadharma.

Unknown said:
Also, it should be clear from history why "white power", an assertion of power by the powerful, is a hate movement, while "black power", a reclamation of agency by systematically oppressed people, is a civil rights movement. Therefore, the two concepts are apples and oranges.

Malcolm wrote:
From a Buddhist point of view, it is just worldly bullshit caught up in the eight worldly Dharmas.

Unknown said:
In reality, black people in America have to face racism and frame it in one way or another as a necessity, to make sense of the world, whether publicly or privately.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, of course they do. There are a lot of racists out there. Many of them have "black" skin too. They are all to be pitied for their narrowness and lack of compassion.

Unknown said:
A lot of black parents dread the eventual "racism talk" they have to have with their young children for their protection. At the same time, I have read white people resenting having to have the same discussion when they were younger if they happened to have committed some social faux paus that could have been misconstrued as racism. Some white people resent having the racism talk as adults. Both ignore the fact that this talk is thought of as "optional" for them because of white privilege, while it is "required" in one way or another, for black people.

Malcolm wrote:
My mother, a caucasian women, and founder of the feminist movement in New England, marched in many Civil Rights rallies in the sixties. I was with her at these as I was a small child. I was raised in a household where it was normal to discuss racism and its negative impacts on African Americans.

I am a Buddhist, and while I sympathize with the suffering of any sentient being, I also recognize that the suffering of any sentient being comes strictly from their own karma and no one else makes it for them. You are making a common error in assuming that karmic causes and conditions are "interdependent" in a broader sense. They are not.

The discussion of general cause and condition comes first. Then the subject of dependent origination. Finally, the discussion of karmic cause and condition, i.e. how afflicted minds act, and what kinds of results they can expect to ripen as a result of those acts, both positive and negative. My karma does not ripen on you, and you have no hand in making it. Your karma does not ripen on me, and I had no hand in making it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 15th, 2014 at 1:50 AM
Title: Re: Longde before Dzin Dharmabodhi?
Content:
heart said:
Calling the 17 Tantras a scam is really close to turning people against the Dharma. Because scams are not Dharma, pretty simple.

Malcolm wrote:
Did I call the 17 tantras a scam? No. I simple asserted that they were composed in the 11th century. Just like Kalacakra was composed in the 10th century, Hevajra and the Laghusamvara in the 9th, Guhyasamaja in the 8th and so on.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 14th, 2014 at 10:37 PM
Title: Re: African Americans & people of Color, & Buddhism in the W
Content:
zsc said:
T

The Buddha's teaching is that our current circumstances are not only due to the karma from past lives.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, the Buddha's teaching is that our current circumstances are due only to our actions from past lives. You really don't want me to trot out the numerous citations illustrate this.

There are some revisionists who would like to deny this, but they are wrong.

This does not mean we cannot improve our current circumstances. Of course we can. But that too depends on our past karma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 14th, 2014 at 9:41 PM
Title: Re: Crowned Buddha images around Bodhgaya.
Content:
Indrajala said:
Does anyone know why many of the late period images of the Buddha (9th century onwards) around Bodhgaya and Nalanda have crowns and necklaces? At first I thought they might be Vairocana, but many are clearly Śākyamuni "touching the earth" at his enlightenment. Not all the late period images have such adornments, though many do.


Malcolm wrote:
The central imagery in the yoga tantras is bound up with courtly notions of the Cakravartin. That is why Sambhogakāya Buddhas wear crowns and so on.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 14th, 2014 at 9:39 PM
Title: Re: African Americans & people of Color, & Buddhism in the W
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
It seems like the unintended consequences here are that you will be left with a project that has ceased to be Dharma, and is simply political. Ironically enough, there is all kinds of what some posters would call "white Buddhism" that is basically this, Dharma that has morphed into liberal activism with some Buddha images. Personally I think the things Malcolm and others have said are much too dismissive of the legitimate experiences of those who might be shut out..however, it IS worth considering that part of what is he is getting at is that this is Dharma practice, eventually, somehow, you have to do something that is removed from the values and goals of conventional political activism, and that includes the all-important issue of identity. It is not fair, and it seems to make Buddhism a tough row to hoe
for particularly oppressed peoples - but donctrinally, it is true. It is not fair, it IS much easier to do that as white person, but it is still true...Buddhism does not leave much room for identity of the type typically cultivated in this sort of activism..IMO Malcolm has a legitimate point there, no matter how uncomfortable it may be.

Malcolm wrote:
I am not dismissive of their experience. One cannot contextualize one's experience (be social, political or economic) in Buddhism in absence of the teaching of karma, which states quite plainly that all sensations, pleasant, unpleasant and neutral, the social status into which one is born, one's opportunities in life, and so on result from one's own past actions in previous lives. Buddhists, of whatever "race" are well advised to use this precious human birth (that they may use to attain liberation) to good use. Meanwhile, as part of their practice, they can devote themselves to whatever social causes strike their fancy depending on their social, political and economic concerns. Thus, if you are a person of color and you wish to devote yourself to causes involving people of color, fine. But don't buy into the non-Buddhist narratives of oppressors and victims, the non-Buddhist narrative of privileging one form of sentient life (human) over the lives of billions of other kinds of sentient life. The teaching of karma is not fuzzy, warm, and it does not feel good. The teaching of karma indicates that what we experience in this life is a result of how we have acted in past lives. If we are oppressed in this life, we can be sure that in a past life we were oppressive, and so on.

This is not a recommendation for inaction or indifference to the plight of people are not so fortunate as to have a precious human birth where they can meet the Perfect Dharma and practice it. We have to be aware of the plight of others and help where we can, and when we are asked to, it's "the bodhisattva" thing to do, and not because we wish to turn others into coreligionists. But in the end, don't ask me to respect you because you are a person of color. I respect you already because you are a human being.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 14th, 2014 at 9:05 PM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The "natural condition" as you call it, isn't something real; it is baseless. It isn't out there, like "atoms", "stars" and "galaxies"; it isn't inside like "blood cells", "mitochondria", etc. This "natural" condition is just the nature of your own mind. It is not an objective condition.....

Andrew108 said:
It's based on the fact that no phenomenon exists that isn't the natural condition.....No one said that the natural condition is 'real' in the limited sense that you use the term 'real'. The way you use the term 'mind' is also limited. The term you should use instead is 'life'.

Malcolm wrote:
No, I should use "mind", since it is the realization of that which results in buddhahood and nothing else.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 14th, 2014 at 8:26 PM
Title: Re: The Dalai Lama Says Gay Marriage Is OK
Content:
Simon E. said:
Care to name this country which embodies all the virtues of non -prejudice ?


Malcolm wrote:
I think Dzoki is from the Czech Republic.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 14th, 2014 at 8:19 PM
Title: Re: Longde before Dzin Dharmabodhi?
Content:
dzoki said:
Hey, he bought a book, in a free society he can do whatever he wants with it.

Malcolm wrote:
It's a fundamentalist act, that is the point. Sure, he can do what he likes, just like I can fart in a car full of people, but that does not mean that everyone will like it.



We have huge problems with fundamentalism in the world today, Christian fundamentalism, Muslim Fundamentalism, etc. Let's not add to it with Buddhist fundamentalism.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 14th, 2014 at 8:14 PM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
.....This is so vague as to be utterly meaningless.

Andrew108 said:
It's based on the fact that no phenomenon exists that isn't the natural condition. So ordinariness is far from ordinary. A practitioner integrates into this natural condition that is right here. There is no projection through views, or filtering through logic, or wishing through goals.

Malcolm wrote:
The "natural condition" as you call it, isn't something real; it is baseless. It isn't out there, like "atoms", "stars" and "galaxies"; it isn't inside like "blood cells", "mitochondria", etc. This "natural" condition is just the nature of your own mind. It is not an objective condition— there is no "objective condition" because there is no "subjective condition". There is no "natural" condition because there is no "unnatural condition".

There is no wisdom apart from the mind and there is no consciousness apart from the mind, there is no buddhahood apart from the mind, there is no delusion apart from the mind, there is no samsara apart from the mind, no nirvana apart from the mind. Apart from the mind, nothing else needs to be recognized.

The mind is not real because it cannot be established, it is not unreal because one cannot deny that one is feeling, thinking and so on, therefore we say it has "no reality" i.e. there is no state of being that pertains to the mind, since the mind is beyond any extreme, it's nature is sheer clarity and emptiness inseparable. You won't find the mind by resting your attention on a rock, you won't find it by resting your attention on a thought, you won't find even if you rest your attention on the mind's own sheer clarity. You won't find it even if you ascertain sheer clarity is empty. You won't find in nāḍīs, vāyus and bindus, deities, mandalas, etc.

However, that being said, if you do not have a proper method, your afflictions will not cease, you will not gather the twin stores of merit and wisdom, you will not expand your mind to the point of omniscience and you will not realize buddhahood.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 14th, 2014 at 6:52 PM
Title: Re: Longde before Dzin Dharmabodhi?
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
Why? It is an interesting book. Sounds like Nazis burning books because they were written by Jews.

heart said:
Should I have thrown it in the garbage instead, is that more respectful? Anyway you just lost the argument.

/magnus


Malcolm wrote:
No magnus, you should have given it to a library. Burnng books is like censoring views, we don't encouragre that in a free society.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 14th, 2014 at 5:22 AM
Title: Re: Longde before Dzin Dharmabodhi?
Content:
Sherlock said:
You can read his book, large portions are available on Google books. But basically he didn't accept the idea of termas at all.

Sarah Harding compiles some of the https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=rlxdncBwpbgC&pg=PA151&lpg=PA151&dq=aris+pema+lingpa&source=bl&ots=5unP_g0u1-&sig=_dsZ1jOoWaBJ4sKpgLJV-RGhYVQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=CAQiU72WO9S2hAf_n4GQAQ&ved=0CD4Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=aris%20pema%20lingpa&f=false of Aris' approach even from a scholarly perspective.

heart said:
I read that book years ago, then burnt it. He seems to have beef with Pema Lingpa that goes far beyond any rationale explanation.

/magnus

Malcolm wrote:
Why? It is an interesting book. Sounds like Nazis burning books because they were written by Jews.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 14th, 2014 at 5:21 AM
Title: Re: Longde before Dzin Dharmabodhi?
Content:
heart said:
A burnt seed can never be the cause of any fruit, so whatever we think about this subject if we don't believe these teachings comes from "someones" realization then we have broken samaya and left the sphere of vajrayana altogether. That said I do like you a lot pensum and even if I never met Malcolm I do enjoy his brilliant intellect and his flair for drama.

Malcolm wrote:
There is no samaya that says we must believe this or that text is a product of someone's realization, even a tantra or a sutra.

Why do you think there was and is controversy around things like Shugden, Termas etc.? Certainly the Shugden folks believe their protector comes from someone's realization. The people who disbelieve in Shugden think the person who tells them Shugden is a mistaken practice is realized.

In general the recommended approach is that if you are not sure of a teaching, don't criticize it because you might unwittingly criticize and authentic teaching of the Buddhas.

However, origin stories are not Dharma. Disbelieving the claim that some text was written by Padmasambhava or Vimalamitra, then hidden and then dug up 800 years later in some backwater in Kham where it is unlikely Padmasambhava ever set foot hardly constitutes breaking "samaya". Disbelieving that Buddha taught Guhyasamaja to Indrabhuti I hardly constitutes breaking samaya. Disbelieving that the eighteen tantras fell on the roof of King Za's house and then he had to recruit Kukuraja to understand them is hardly breaking samaya.

"Breaking samaya" means trying to turn people against the Dharma. No one is doing that here.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 14th, 2014 at 2:01 AM
Title: Re: Longde before Dzin Dharmabodhi?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
I intended to mention his papers, but I do not have his PhD thesis, it is not on the web yet.

mutsuk said:
It has been published in 1999 by Brepols Publisher.
Not really.
Well your opinion. I worked on both and the 17 tantras from JLA and it went pretty fast...

Malcolm wrote:
I was pointing out that the two texts, Longchenpa's short texts, and Nyibum's are dissimilar.

Of course if you are cutting and pasting citations it would go much faster.


mutsuk said:
JLA informed me on the phone today that he has also done a version of it in the meantime and that he has a Nyingma student preparing another one in French, not to mention a very well-known tibetologist who has prepared a paper on that text with sources based on a second mss of the text. This last one will appear in the RET I think but I don't know when.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, I will look forward to seeing it. In the meantime, our book is due sometime this spring. I am writing the introduction as we speak.
The main point in  my mentioning this, of course, was to point out that there are examples of termas where entire texts are lifted from earlier Tibetan scholars with no hint of attribution, concealed by including a setting at Samye [despite the fact that Vimalamitra only came to tibet at least a decade if not more after Trsing Detsen passed away, during the reign of Ralpacan].


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 14th, 2014 at 1:23 AM
Title: Re: What major Tibetan Buddhist texts are still missing?
Content:


TsultimNamdak said:
Where does that 10% estimate come from?

Malcolm wrote:
Dezhung Tulku.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 14th, 2014 at 1:22 AM
Title: Re: Longde before Dzin Dharmabodhi?
Content:
Sherlock said:
Aris straight out accused Pema Lingpa of fabricating termas for personal gain.

Malcolm wrote:
Yup, so did Drukpa Kunley. But he is a national hero in Bhutan.


Sherlock said:
We can't really know if the 17 tantras were revealed in this way or composed and edited intellectually

Malcolm wrote:
Yes we can.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 14th, 2014 at 1:19 AM
Title: Re: Longde before Dzin Dharmabodhi?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Guess I should just lay down and die right now then.

mutsuk said:
There is no shame at referring at other people's work, especially if they have done a nearly similar job before.

Malcolm wrote:
I intended to mention his papers, but I do not have his PhD thesis, it is not on the web yet.


mutsuk said:
After all, what is the point of doing any scholarship or translating anything into English?
Well in this field, if you read only english, then you're pretty limited. You have no idea the amount of works that have been done in Germa, French and Italian on Dzogchen...

Malcolm wrote:
I have some.

mutsuk said:
THis is how close they are actually.

Malcolm wrote:
Not really.
M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 14th, 2014 at 12:41 AM
Title: Re: Longde before Dzin Dharmabodhi?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
a text definitely authored by Zhangton Tashi Dorje's son, Nyibum (1158-1213), that is included word for word as a terma in the Gongpa Zangthal (revealed in 1366),with its authorship attributed to Vimalamitra. Honestly, it is incredible that no one has noticed this yet, but it is true.

mutsuk said:
It is because you don't read french. .

Malcolm wrote:
Guess I should just lay down and die right now then. After all, what is the point of doing any scholarship or translating anything into English?

More to the point, since Nyibum's text has only recently become available, how could anyone have noted that dgongs pa zang thal text was a [sloppily] reattributed version of it?

Finally, Nyibum's text and Longchenpa's text are pretty different. For one, Longchenpa's text has few citations. Nor does it contain a discussion of the Nidānas and so on. It is much shorter.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 14th, 2014 at 12:31 AM
Title: Re: Longde before Dzin Dharmabodhi?
Content:


pensum said:
Well, as Malcolm just pointed out, within the Tibetan tradition itself there are countless cases of highly regarded lamas denouncing the terma tradition as just that—a scam. Unfortunately, due to personal and political allegiances the authors of the few modern books on the terma tradition available (for example Tulku Thondrup and Andreas Doctor) do not give adequate voice to such criticism and opposition, but rather perpetuate the claims of the tertons themselves..

Malcolm wrote:
There is the late Michael Aris's book which got him exiled from Bhutan for life and earned him the permanent ire of Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche. And we have to remember that until Chogyur Lingpa secured the endorsement of Khyentse Wangpo, even Kongtrul was doubtful, not to mention all those who thought he was a total fraud up to that point.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 14th, 2014 at 12:27 AM
Title: Re: What major Tibetan Buddhist texts are still missing?
Content:
conebeckham said:
Sikkim was a hidden land of Guru Rinpoche, actually.

Malcolm wrote:
It was only opened in the late 17th century.

conebeckham said:
Maybe, but it was there before then..and according to the Sikkimese, Guru Pema was there.

Malcolm wrote:
That does not mean there is a library there filled with old texts dating from before 1959, which is kind of the point of the discussion.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 14th, 2014 at 12:15 AM
Title: Re: Longde before Dzin Dharmabodhi?
Content:
heart said:
The point I am making is that the 17 Tantras are not supposed to be compositions.

Malcolm wrote:
The kun byed rgyal po is not supposed to be a composition, but it clearly is and no one seriously doubts this anymore. It is very clear that the larger Mahāyāna sūtras are layered text productions. The only people who doubt this are Mahāyāna fundamentalist. They are the same people who insist that Mt. Meru is real and that the sun revolves around it. Honestly, such people sound just like Christian and Muslim fundamentalists who insist that the Bible and the Koran were written by God and Allah respectively.

We all want our books to be "special" and the non-fabrication of a book is generally the key criteria that makes one book more sacred and one less. For example, the Vedas are sacred because they are "self-originated". Dzogchen tantras too claim the same status -- they are self-originated texts.

When we look at this sort of thing, we have to understand that these are just strategies for acceptance. Another interesting strategy is one by Padmasambhava in the main commentarial text in the dkon mchog spyi 'dus, the Sumeru Commentary, where he remarks his own tantra (which is the root of that cycle) is superior to Indian tantras in Sanskrit because it is the speech of the Sambhogakāyā.

So the question will be asked? Can the practice of dkon mchog spyi 'dus lead to Buddhahood? Of course it can because all the Dharma in it is sound. The story of its account is just candy for children, like all these mythological accounts.


heart said:
That is the whole point of the terma tradition.

Malcolm wrote:
The point of the terma traditions is that termas are supposed, for the most part, to be the compositions of Padmsambhava, Vimalamitra and so on.

The book I am working on publishing is a translation of a text definitely authored by Zhangton Tashi Dorje's son, Nyibum (1158-1213), that is included word for word as a terma in the Gongpa Zangthal (revealed in 1366),with its authorship attributed to Vimalamitra. Honestly, it is incredible that no one has noticed this yet, but it is true.

heart said:
If Malcolm theory is correct, that the 17 Tantras were composed then the whole lineage would be a lie.

Malcolm wrote:
Not a lie, rather it is a didactic myth. But the seventeen tantras definitely did not exist as texts earlier than dates to which I have assigned them.

Pretty much we have to accept the origin stories of all Mahāyāna texts are either lies or didactic myths. I prefer the latter term.

heart said:
And it would be a very elaborate lie, very close to what we call a scam these days.

Malcolm wrote:
Certainly there were Tibetans who regarded such text production as scams, writing vociferous renunciations of such practices. We have Nyingma authors denouncing the nefarious intent of gold-seeking Indian Panditas who forged tantras on demand in the 13th century, and Sarma authors denouncing gold-seeking tertons who made shows of digging up texts in the very same century.

heart said:
Also we have a living example in ChNNR how texts like these can be discovered, I don't really see the point of doubting him.
/magnus

Malcolm wrote:
I have no doubt that Norbu Rinpoche teachings appear to him in his dreams exactly as he describes them. This does not endorse the authenticity of the origin myths cooked up Zhangton, Nyangral Nyiozer, nor for that matter the myths cooked up to explain the origin of Kalacakra, the Prajñāpāramita, and so on. We, as well as Tibetans before us, tend to take things historically literal that were always regarded as "myth" in the Indian mind. Thus, Indians can manage many competing and contradictory origin myths about the same set of phenomena, but we can't, because we, and also Tibetans, tend to be historical literalists, a literalism you have just admirably demonstrated, i.e. "If the story isn't true, it must be a lie". The Indian mythic imagination thinks "This story is but one story of many". This is why, for example, the authors of the Kalacakra could elaborate a cosmology that they _knew_ for a fact contradicted their mathematical calculations for the position of the sun and so on. Indian tantric authors simple borrowed myths and repurposed them, so the story of Rama's defeat of Ravana becomes the defeat of the Rudra King of Lanka by Hayagriva in Buddhist tales.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 13th, 2014 at 11:43 PM
Title: Re: Longde before Dzin Dharmabodhi?
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Is samapatti a Vajrayāna form of meditation?


Malcolm wrote:
It can be, just as śamatha can be.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 13th, 2014 at 11:28 PM
Title: Re: Longde before Dzin Dharmabodhi?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Tregchö is just a name for samapatti.

dzogchungpa said:
Does that mean you can correctly practice Tregchö without transmission?


Malcolm wrote:
Like any Vajrayāna form of meditation, it cannot be practiced without transmission.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 13th, 2014 at 9:55 PM
Title: Re: Longde before Dzin Dharmabodhi?
Content:


heart said:
so their value is completely based on the intellectual capacity of the composer?

/magnus

Malcolm wrote:
Of course. Not all Mahāyāna sūtras present the Buddha in the best light, for example. We have clear evidence of Buddhist/Hindu intertexuality, etc. Some termas are much clearer than others. Some terma cycles borrow entire texts authored by early Tibetan scholars and attribute them to people like Vimalamitra. Some tantras are more interesting than other tantras. Some authors of these texts were more realized than others.

I think we are long past the time where we can accept the traditional accounts of Buddhist textual origins. We have far too much evidence of the gradual development of Buddhist texts over centuries to doubt that the evolution of Buddhist ideas from the Nikayas to Vajrayāna is anything other than human beings working out their religious impulses in a Buddhist context.

It does not mean that I disagree with or disregard the ideas expressed in these texts, quite the contrary, I agree with them very much and regard them highly overall. I am after all a practitioner. I simply do not need to subscribe to the origin myths of Mahāyāna and Vajrāyāna texts to find religious meaning in them for myself, just like I do not need to believe in Mt. Meru to do mandala offerings.

In all of this, I am not saying any thing that I have not maintained for years. The difference is that now I have more confidence in my perspective because I have read more texts more closely.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 13th, 2014 at 9:44 PM
Title: Re: Longde before Dzin Dharmabodhi?
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
You say "revealed", I say "composed".

heart said:
So, do you also think the Hevajra, Chakrasamavra the Guhyasamaya and all other Tantra's and the many Mahayana sutras where composed based on various socio-political pressure?

/magnus

Malcolm wrote:
Of course. As well as the Pali Canon. All of these things were written by human beings. Some of them were buddhas. Text production comes from people; people live in societies; societies exert pressures, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 13th, 2014 at 9:43 PM
Title: Re: African Americans & people of Color, & Buddhism in the W
Content:
zsc said:
the lived experiences of black people mean nothing (specifically, this is what Malcolm is saying, over and over), then I will do my best to address it.

Malcolm wrote:
I didn't say that.

What I do maintain is that for a Buddhist things like race, class, gender, etc., really should not be very important as identity markers for oneself as well as for others. To some extent is unavoidable, because we are human beings. But they are not a desiderata, they are barriers. Sanghas that consciously define themselves on the basis of race, class or ethnicity go against the Buddha's message that dismantled caste. Then it winds up being:

The White Power Sangha
The Black Power Sangha

etc.

This is wrong. If there is a Buddhist teacher you want to study with, then go and study. Do not pay attention his or her race, do not pay attention to the race of the people attending that teacher.

Actually, there is no such thing as race. Race is a stupid word. There are different cultures, languages and histories, but is only one human race. There are no black people, no white people, only human people.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 13th, 2014 at 9:28 PM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
Andrew108 said:
Sorry, but when I use the term Presence, I don't have a Tibetan word in mind.

Malcolm wrote:
Then I have no idea what you are taking about. It is useful to have Tibetan words in mind when you are making claims about Dzogchen doctrine.

Andrew108 said:
The objective condition is right in front of you. Here it is now. Calling it 'Presence' is indeed a reification, but then thinking we need to give it a Tibetan name is going way too far away from the intentions of Dzogchen.

Malcolm wrote:
This is so vague as to be utterly meaningless.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 13th, 2014 at 9:26 PM
Title: Re: Longde before Dzin Dharmabodhi?
Content:
Sherlock said:
Orgyenpa described the land he visited as Oddiyana and Buddhaguptanatha still called the place Oddiyana centuries later, so Oddiyana was probably real.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, while Oddiyana was certainly to the north and west of Bodhgaya, Pakistan and Afghanistan are big places. We do not have any definitive proof of exactly where Shambhala or Oddiyana might have been.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 13th, 2014 at 9:22 PM
Title: Re: Longde before Dzin Dharmabodhi?
Content:
Stewart said:
1. Do you believe Mennagde Dzogchen as we know it: Rushan, Trekcho, Togal etc was ever practiced at all, in any form, in India?

Malcolm wrote:
It is my opinion that many of the rushan practices we find in man ngag sde have antecedents in Buddhist yogic circles in India. Tregchö is just a name for samapatti. Thogal has antecedents in Buddhist pratyahara practices, in my opinion.

Stewart said:
2. Or, do you hold that Semde and Longde have roots in India and came to Tibet via Sri Singha/Vairocana, and that Mennagde is a later development from these, solely developed in Tibet?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, this is pretty much what I think. Actually, what I think is that the terms sems sde and klong sde are totally anachronistic and have no meaning or value since they originate in the Vima Nyinthig. Actually, what I think is that the man ngag sde systems was developed because of the importation of the new tantras during the eleventh century from India. The evidence suggests that the man ngag sde system did not develop wide acceptance even in the Nyingma school until the mid 13th century. 13th century Nyingma authors like Rog ban make absolutely no mention of it, even though he discusses in quite some detail the history of Dzogchen, Vairocana and Śri Siṃha in his book on Dharma history. Davidson discusses this briefly in his book. He also fails to mention the terma tradition.

Stewart said:
3.What about pre Sri Singha?

Malcolm wrote:
Its all pretty hazy before 1000 CE. But I see no reason doubt the historical existence of Śrī  Simha or Vimalamitra, or for that matter Mañjuśrimitra or Garab Dorje.

Stewart said:
4.What about Dzogchen in Oddiyana? Was Oddiyana even real?

Malcolm wrote:
Good question. We are not even really sure where Oddiyana was.

Stewart said:
5.Was there Dzogchen in Zhang Zhung?

Malcolm wrote:
Pre- Buddhist? Very doubtful in my opinion.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 13th, 2014 at 9:01 PM
Title: Re: Longde before Dzin Dharmabodhi?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Yes, you like the traditional narrative, it is like comfort food. As far as I can tell, the sgra thal 'gyur was among the last of the seventeen tantras to be composed (along with the rig pa rang shar, the rig pa rang grol, the mut rig phreng ba and the bkra shis mdzes rgyan), somewhere between 1060 and 1100, most likely by Chetsun Senge Wangchuck himself. The other twelve are earlier, dating between roughly 1020-1050, very likely composed by Dangma Lungyal.

heart said:
Love comfort food. Anyway, I think I have never heard about composing Tantra's, you don't mean revealed?

/magnus


Malcolm wrote:
You say "revealed", I say "composed".

The tradition has it that Dangma Lhungyal takes the "seventeen" tantras out of their place of concealment around 906. But the fact that Dangma knows about the Kadampas and mentioned Atisha by name, and the fact that Dangma and Chetsun were a contemporaries of Drogmi Lotsawa, and the fact that four of the 17 tantras use terms introduced to Tibet by the Hevajra tantra places the composition of all seventeen tantras in the 11th century, and the composition of a large number of them in the late 11th century. There is virtually no evidence of the type of completion stage practices using nāḍīs, vāyus and bindus that we find in the yogini tantras in Tibetan texts prior to the 11th century, especially not in Dzogchen texts. It is only with the seventeen tantras that we begin to find a body centered praxis in Dzogchen. It is my opinion, not very popular amongst "the faithful", that man ngag sde was elaborated as a response to the arrival of new tantras from India. We even have Nyingma masters [Rog Ban] from the early 12th century complaining about these new fangled heretical practices involving nāḍīs, vāyus and bindus borrowed from Hindus [probably a complaint about Kalacakra's use of Hindu terms for the rasanā, lalanā and avadhūti].


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 13th, 2014 at 7:20 PM
Title: Re: Dr. Sanderson: Phowa etc. are directly from Saivism
Content:
haha said:
Gerge, thanks for the link.
Discussion was interesting but that did not continue further.

There is nothing to say but the biography of Virupa also supports Sanderson's theory.

Malcolm wrote:
Virupa's bio does not support text conversion. His bio indicates that he went around India converting non-Buddhists through acts of magical terror.




haha said:
Analyzing
-There are five Yin organs (heart, lungs, kideny, liver, and spleen), which are probably Wu Xing/ Five Elements theory from Chinese origin.

Malcolm wrote:
No, for example, there is a passage in the Aṣṭaṇgahridayam that gives these organs in this order:

Heart, lung, liver, gall bladder, spleen, kidney.

haha said:
-Then, they are associated with three major nadis (lalana, rasana and avadhuti), clarity and energy/bliss; it is the buddhist origin, especially from masters of Mahamudra.

Malcolm wrote:
The names are from Buddhist tantra, but it is not certain whether the concepts of the three main nāḍīs are Hindu (ida, pingala or śusumna) or Buddhist in origin.

So, I don't really agree with you about "adaptation" in this instance. There is some evidence that the nāḍī system was borrowed by the Hindus from Buddhist tantra. But in fact at this point we simply don't know.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 13th, 2014 at 6:51 PM
Title: Re: Longde before Dzin Dharmabodhi?
Content:
heart said:
I really don't think that socio-political pressure is the main formative force in Buddhism or in Dzogchen. I fully believe ChNNR when he says he isn't the composer of the Longsal teachings and that the Dra Thalgyur is a very ancient Tantra.
/magnus

ratna said:
I, too, fully believe ChNN's description of the mode of discovery of visionary teachings.

Malcolm wrote:
I don't really want to get into a discussion of this, but no one doubts that klong gsal comes from his capacity in dream yoga and that they are not fabrications.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 13th, 2014 at 6:48 PM
Title: Re: Longde before Dzin Dharmabodhi?
Content:


heart said:
In fact I was thinking about vinaya, the first rule seem to have been "no rule" and then there seem to have been added a lot of rules because "no rule" made some monks misbehave in the strangest ways. Wouldn't it then be reasonable to assume that the first empowerment was "no empowerment" and that elaborations where added on that?

/magnus

Malcolm wrote:
No, because the ritualism in Buddhism was a response to external pressure to perform in the socio-political sphere in a way that was previously not imperative.

heart said:
I really don't think that socio-political pressure is the main formative force in Buddhism or in Dzogchen.

Malcolm wrote:
In terms of Buddhist ritualism found in the tantras, it most certainly is. When it comes to terma, the reasons for their concealment and revelation are always linked to social and political conditions. The same is true of the anuttarayoga tantras (i.e. they are the most effective practice for the degenerate times we live in).


heart said:
the Dra Thalgyur is a very ancient Tantra.
/magnus


Malcolm wrote:
Yes, you like the traditional narrative, it is like comfort food. As far as I can tell, the sgra thal 'gyur was among the last of the seventeen tantras to be composed (along with the rig pa rang shar, the rig pa rang grol, the mut rig phreng ba and the bkra shis mdzes rgyan), somewhere between 1060 and 1100, most likely by Chetsun Senge Wangchuck himself. The other twelve are earlier, dating between roughly 1020-1050, very likely composed by Dangma Lungyal.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 13th, 2014 at 11:01 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
just one more reason to leave rigpa untranslated

Malcolm wrote:
Agreed, though I prefer vidyā.

anjali said:
Why do translators seem to have such a hard with translating just the word "rigpa" into English? If we just focus on the word, the English translation is fairly simple.  rigpa<--vidya-->wisdom. Wisdom is the combination of wis + dom where, Wis is Old English and can be traced back to Proto-Indo-European wid- "to see," hence "to know" (vid).
Dom is also Old English and in this case means "state or condition". So, the root meaning of wisdom is the state of knowing.
If the word has additional technical meanings, no problem. Just provide a good glossary entry explaining the nuances. Philosophers do that sort of thing all the time--taking a commonly used word and giving special, more nuanced meanings.
Obviously, I'm missing something.


Malcolm wrote:
I tried it once, it didnt work since vidya does not have the same sense as wisdom in English. It is a case where the kn/gn phoneme has shifted meanings with vid phoneme.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 13th, 2014 at 7:07 AM
Title: Re: What major Tibetan Buddhist texts are still missing?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Nepal is well accounted for already, as is Ladakh. Sikkim is a backwater, Bhutan does not have that many libraries. Assam has virtually nothing.

kirtu said:
And Tawang?  They seem to have a large library.

Kirt


Malcolm wrote:
Still a backwater.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 13th, 2014 at 7:06 AM
Title: Re: What major Tibetan Buddhist texts are still missing?
Content:
conebeckham said:
Sikkim was a hidden land of Guru Rinpoche, actually.

Malcolm wrote:
It was only opened in the late 17th century.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 13th, 2014 at 5:45 AM
Title: Re: Question: "Antinomianism" in the Higher Yoga Tantras
Content:
Heterodox Garden said:
the Cakrasaṃvara Tantra


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 13th, 2014 at 5:12 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
just one more reason to leave rigpa untranslated

Malcolm wrote:
Agreed, though I prefer vidyā.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 13th, 2014 at 4:26 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
what Tibetan term does Rinpoche have in mind when he uses the term "instant presence"?

Malcolm wrote:
Rig pa.

Presence = dran pa, i.e. mindfulness.

Some translators like to translate byang chub sems, bodhicitta, as "pure perfect presence".


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 13th, 2014 at 3:41 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
Andrew108 said:
Sorry, but when I use the term Presence, I don't have a Tibetan word in mind.

Malcolm wrote:
Then I have no idea what you are taking about. It is useful to have Tibetan words in mind when you are making claims about Dzogchen doctrine.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 13th, 2014 at 2:40 AM
Title: Re: What major Tibetan Buddhist texts are still missing?
Content:
kirtu said:
Tibetan borderland sources?
The borderlands I had in mind were Lhadak, Nepal, Sikkim, Bhutan, Tawang and anything that might have been saved in Assam.

Kirt


Malcolm wrote:
Nepal is well accounted for already, as is Ladakh. Sikkim is a backwater, Bhutan does not have that many libraries. Assam has virtually nothing.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 13th, 2014 at 2:23 AM
Title: Re: Longde before Dzin Dharmabodhi?
Content:
Sherlock said:
Isn't dialectic a better way to put it rather than puffery? Otherwise you can conclude in the end that tantra really is no superior to sutra.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, kriya tantra isn't, really. It is only when we come to "carya" and "yog"a tantras that we begin to find statements that indicate there is something more rapid than sūtra.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 13th, 2014 at 2:21 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:


Andrew108 said:
In the case of Kalachakra it is said that the 'space particle' exists as the objective condition prior to minds that arise dependent on that.

Malcolm wrote:
Kalacakra merely states that physical matter is composed of atoms. But when it describes the source of the universe, the Vimalaprabha states:

When the universe withdraws, this karmavāyu (by which the the perishable universe and buddhaverses were created in the past) has two natures. One is like the stars fixed in space, never moves, and never goes to any region of the perishable universe and buddhaverse. The second has the nature of revolving just like the wheel of houses in the sky. In the same way, the inanimate things included in the the perishable universe have the nature of not moving. The creatures have the nature of moving. The karmavāyu [that creates them] is a quality of consciousness [of sentient beings [that is not nondual]]"...as such, infinite karmavāyus create the the perishable universe and the buddhaverses.

We can clearly see here that what creates the universe is a quality of consciousness. That quality is called karmavāyu. The empty atoms arise from the collective consciousness of all sentient beings. The same is true in Dzogchen teachings.


Andrew108 said:
In Dzogchen, Presence is the objective condition.

Malcolm wrote:
What tibetan term do you mean by presence?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 12th, 2014 at 11:36 PM
Title: Re: Longde before Dzin Dharmabodhi?
Content:


heart said:
In fact I was thinking about vinaya, the first rule seem to have been "no rule" and then there seem to have been added a lot of rules because "no rule" made some monks misbehave in the strangest ways. Wouldn't it then be reasonable to assume that the first empowerment was "no empowerment" and that elaborations where added on that?

/magnus

Malcolm wrote:
No, because the ritualism in Buddhism was a response to external pressure to perform in the socio-political sphere in a way that was previously not imperative.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 12th, 2014 at 11:35 PM
Title: Re: Longde before Dzin Dharmabodhi?
Content:
heart said:
Makes the whole thing seem completely constructed.
/magnus

Malcolm wrote:
Well, it is just how the texts appear over time that makes it seem that way. Yogacara and its sutras were a reaction to Prajñāpāramitā and Tathagagarbha sūtras. So too with the tantras, each successive generation of texts claims its superiority over the previous generation, both in the primary texts themselves as well as the commentaries written by their exponents.

Thus you have gsar ma claiming its superiority over snying ma; mother tantras over father; ati yoga over mahā; unsurpassed secret cycle declaring its superiority over sems sde and klong sde, as well as the outer, inner and secret cycles; yangti over everything else; terma over karma; Gelugs declaring Tsongkhapa's views superior to the previous Sakya school they grew out of and so on. One aspect of the history of Buddhism is but the history of a contest of puffery and exaggeration.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 12th, 2014 at 9:41 PM
Title: Re: Longde before Dzin Dharmabodhi?
Content:
Sherlock said:
Do you think that maybe around the 8th century, the distinction between Mahayogatantra and yogatantra wasn't as clear-cut as it seemed later?

Malcolm wrote:
There was not distinction, the Indians only knew of three classes of tantra then, kriya, carya and yoga, with Guhyasamaja and the Buddhasamyoga included among yoga tantra.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 12th, 2014 at 8:57 PM
Title: Re: Longde before Dzin Dharmabodhi?
Content:


heart said:
I am sure I miss a lot of points Malcolm. But don't you think that the direct introduction is the original empowerment that with time was elaborated with various variations of methods as well as an outline of the path?

/magnus


Malcolm wrote:
No, I think the original empowerments were the elaborate abhisheka mandala rituals found in what is now known as "kriya tantra" which never included a "nature of the mind" or "formless" abhisheka until we come to what are now known as "yoga tantra". It is characteristic of kriya tantra empowerments that they only have a body and speech blessing, but no mind blessing.

Then I think "yoga" tantra morphed in anuttarayoga tantra into India. In Tibet yoga tantra, and especially the Guhyagarbha, morphed into mahā and ati, with anu added later because Tibetans did not go to receive any new teachings in India due to the economic chaos that caused the fall of the Tibetan empire in the 840's.

In India, anuttarayoga tantra morphed into the father, mother and Kalacakra tantras, with Kalacakra representing the final development of Indian tantras; just as the 17 tantras represent the final development of Tibetan tantra. In other words. the evolution of tantras was complete in the 11th century, as process that started in the 7th century.

One thing you should understand that is that the tantras written in Tibet are far more homogenous than post 8th century Indian tantras. I chalk this up the isolation of Tibetans from India during this period between 850 and roughly 1000.

Also I should add, the realization of the Anuttaratantra in general lead to the Mahāmudra dohas and the Dzogchen lungs.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 12th, 2014 at 8:33 PM
Title: Re: Longde before Dzin Dharmabodhi?
Content:
Sherlock said:
What do you mean by you have no doubt about Vairocana's teachings? You mean the Vajra Bridge? Isn't it also 11th centuy?

Malcolm wrote:
What I mean is that I think Vairocana went to India, met an Indian teacher named Śrī Siṃha (who is happens was also the master of Vimalamitra and perhaps Padmasambhava), and returned with this teacher's oral instructions. I think that Śrī Siṃha is the original source of Dzogchen teachings. I think it is perfectly reasonable to accept the Vajra Bridge instructions as well.

We have not done enough analysis on the other texts to see which ones might be accepted as Indian in origin, and which one's are Tibetan in origin. Any so called treasure texts we can automatically exclude as Tibetan compositions. Other criteria which indicates native Tibetan composition would be etymologies of terms like "byang chub sems" or "ye shes" which bear no relationship to their original Indian etymologies (bodhicitta, jñāna), but are based wholly on their Tibetan phonemes. The point is this is not to impugn the spiritual worth of Tibetan compositions, but to know what is what so we can have a better understanding of the early history of Dzogchen and Nyingma Tantra in general. Unfortunately, the compilers of the rnying ma rgyud 'bu, rather uncritically combined kama and terma tantras together. So for example, in the klong sde section of the atiyoga section, we find Dorje Lingpa's lta kpong yangs tantra, which is definitely a man snag sde class text.

Sherlock said:
What are the historical works we know for sure (accepted by Sarma too) that were written by Vairocana? I think there was a shamatha text but what else?

Malcolm wrote:
de kho na nyid sgron ma zhes bya ba phyag na rdo rje'i sgrub thabs thams cad rdzogs pa'i rgyan / (tattvapradIpa-nAma-vajrapANisarvasAdhanapUrNAlaMkAra.)
[A] klu sgrub / (nAgArjuna.), [Tr] padma 'byung gnas / (padmAkara.), [Tr] glang dpal gyi seng ge (zrIsiMha.), [Rev] rgya gar phyag /
[P. No.] 3048, rgyud 'grel, bi 183a8-209a5 (vol.68, p.173)
[D. No.] 2204, , dzi 147b4-168b1. [N] bi 160a1-183b2. [Kinsha] 1052, bi 223b1 (p.113-2-1)

thugs kyi sgo lcags / ([cittatAlaka.])
[A] zrIsiGhi (zrIsiMha).
[P. No.] 4758, rgyud 'grel, mu 159a8-164a7 (vol.83, p.241243)
[D. No.] -. [N] mu 164b4-168b7. [Kinsha] 2757, mu 182b4 (p.93-1-4)

u SHN'i SHa sngags kyi man ngag gi bsgrub thabs zhes bya ba / (uSNISamantropadezasAdhana-nAma.)
[A] zrIsiMha., [Tr] vairocana., [Tr] zrIsiMha.
[P. No.] 4851, rgyud 'grel, zu 149a1-153a5 (vol.86, p.111113)
[D. No.] -. [N] zu 145b1-150a2. [Kinsha] 2850, zu 194b1 (p.99-1-1)

'khor ba rtsad nas gcod pa gtan tshigs 'khor lo'i man ngag (saMsAramUlacchedakahetucakropadeza.)
[A] zrisiGGa (zrIsiMha).
[P. No.] 5031, rgyud 'grel, ru 1a1-3a2 (vol.87, p.109-111)
[D. No.] -. [N] ru 1a1-3b3. [Kinsha] 3030, ru 1b1 (p.1-2-1)

'khor ba rtsad nas gcod pa bdud rtsi dri med kyi man ngag (saMsAramUlacchedakavimalAmRtopadeza.)
[A] zrisiGGa (zrIsiMha).
[P. No.] 5032, rgyud 'grel, ru 3a2-4a6 (vol.87, p.111)
[D. No.] -. [N] ru 3b3-5a2. [Kinsha] 3031, ru 3b3 (p.3-2-3)

'khor ba rtsad nas gcod pa rdo rje sems dpa'i man ngag (saMsAramUlacchedkavajrasattvopadeza.)
[A] zrisiGGa (zrIsiMha).
[P. No.] 5033, rgyud 'grel, ru 4a7-5b2 (vol.87, p.111-112)
[D. No.] -. [N] ru 5a2-6a6. [Kinsha] 3032, ru 5b1 (p.3-4-1)

'khor ba rtsad nas gcod pa gser gyi thigs pa'i gdams ngag (saMsAramUlacchedakakaJcanabindUpadeza.)
[A] zrisiGGa (zrIsiMha)., [Tr] vairocana.
[P. No.] 5034, rgyud 'grel, ru 5b2-6b3 (vol.87, p.112)
[D. No.] -. [N] ru 6a6-7a6. [Kinsha] 3033, ru 8b1 (p.5-3-1)

'khor ba rtsad nas gcod pa snyan rgyud yi ge med pa'i gdams ngag (saMsAramUlacchedakakarNatantrAnakSaropadeza.)
[A] zrisiGGa (zrIsiMha).
[P. No.] 5035, rgyud 'grel, ru 6b3-7a1 (vol.87, p.112-113)
[D. No.] -. [N] ru 7a6-7b3. [Kinsha] 3034, ru 9b5 (p.5-4-5)

lta ba nam mkha' dang mnyam pa'i rgyud kyi dka' 'grel / (AkAzasamadarzanatantrapaJjikA.)
[A] dga' rab rdo rje / (surativajra.), [Tr] vairocana., [Tr] zrisiGGa (zrIsiMha).
[P. No.] 5036, rgyud 'grel, ru 7a1-10a8 (vol.87, p.113-114)
[D. No.] -. [N] ru 7b3-10b4. [Kinsha] 3035, ru 11b1 (p.7-2-1)

bsgom pa rgya mtsho dang mnyam pa'i rgyud kyi dka' 'grel / (samudrasamabhAvanAtantrapaJjikA.)
[A] dga' rab rdo rje / (surativajra.), [Tr] vairocana., [Tr] zrisiGGa (zrIsiMha).
[P. No.] 5037, rgyud 'grel, ru 10a8-12b2 (vol.87, p.114-115)
[D. No.] -. [N] ru 10b4-12b4. [Kinsha] 3036, ru 16b1 (p.9-3-1)

spyod pa nyi zla dang mnyam pa'i rgyud kyi dka' 'grel / (sUryacandrasamacaryAtantrapaJjikA.)
[A] dga' rab rdo rje / (surativajra.), [Tr] vairocana., [Tr] zrisiGGa (zrIsiMha).
[P. No.] 5038, rgyud 'grel, ru 12b2-15b2 (vol.87, p.115-116)
[D. No.] -. [N] ru 12b4-15a7. [Kinsha] 3037, yu 19a2 (p.10-2-2)

'bras bu rin po che dang mnyam pa'i rgyud kyi dka' 'grel / (mahAratnasamaphalatantrapaJjikA.)
[A] dga' rab rdo rje / (surativajra.), [Tr] vairocana., [Tr] zrisiGGa (zrIsiMha).
[P. No.] 5039, rgyud 'grel, ru 15b2-18a8 (vol.87, p.116-117)
[D. No.] -. [N] ru 15a7-17b7. [Kinsha] 3038, ru 23b1 (p.13-2-1)

lta ba ye shes mdzod chen chos kyi dbyings / (dRSTijJAnamahAkozadharmadhAtu.)
[A] zrisiGGa (zrIsiMha).
[P. No.] 5040, rgyud 'grel, ru 18a8-19b8 (vol.87, p.117-118)
[D. No.] -. [N] ru 18a1-19b3. [Kinsha] 3039, ru 28b1 (p.15-3-1)

bsgom pa ye shes gsal ba chos kyi dbyings / (bhAvanAjJAnaprakAzadharmadhAtu.)
[A] zrisiGGa (zrIsiMha).
[P. No.] 5041, rgyud 'grel, ru 19b8-20b8 (vol.87, p.118)
[D. No.] -. [N] ru 19b4-20b5. [Kinsha] 3040, ru 30a6 (p.16-1-6)

spyod pa ye shes 'bar ba chos kyi dbyings / (caryAjJAnajvaladharmadhAtu.)
[A] zrisiGGa (zrIsiMha).
[P. No.] 5042, rgyud 'grel, ru 20b8-21b3 (vol.87, p.118)
[D. No.] -. [N] ru 20b5-21b3. [Kinsha] 3041, ru 31b4 (p.17-2-4)

'bras bu ye shes sa gcig chos kyi dbyings / (phalajJAnaikabhUmidharmadhAtu.)
[A] zrisiGGa (zrIsiMha)., [Tr] virocana (vairocana).
[P. No.] 5047, rgyud 'grel, ru 28b3-30a6 (vol.87, p.121-122)
[D. No.] -. [N] ru 27b7-29b2. [Kinsha] 3046, ru 43b1 (p.23-2-1)

rigs pa grub pa'i sgron ma / (nyAyasiddhAloka.)
[A] candragomin., [Tr] vairocana., [Tr] zrIsiMhaprabha.
[P. No.] 5740, tshad ma, ze 197b7-198b6 (vol.138, p.51-52)
[D. No.] 4242, tshad ma, zhe 187b5-188b2. [N] ze 200b6-201b5. [Kinsha] 3740, ze 261b5 (p.131-4-5)

You will note that the Sakyapas who edited the Dege Kagyur excluded most of these texts, but they are present in earlier versions of the Tenjur. Note the presence of a short text on logic last translated by Śrī Siṃha and Vairocana.

It is likely that some texts in the Bairo Gyudbum may have actually been authored by Śrī Siṃha or Vairocana.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 12th, 2014 at 8:17 PM
Title: Re: Longde before Dzin Dharmabodhi?
Content:


heart said:
I am not so sure about that. My feeling is that the duality of development and completion stages is something that wasn't so developed in the early Nyingma Tantra's.

/magnus

Malcolm wrote:
It was quite well developed which is why 9th century texts like the kun byed rgyal po went to such pains to reject it. For example the mdo bcu, thought to have been authored Vairocana states:

Since the place of Samantbhadra arises, there is not need for the creation and completion samadhis.

Or the Vajrasattvamāyājālaguhyasarvādarśa-nāma-tantra, included in the rNying ma rgyud 'bum as well as the bKa' 'gyur, states:

bskyed rdzogs thabs rim gang bstan pa/ /sgyu 'phrul dra bar 'dus pa ste

Any teaching of the stages of the method of creation and completion are included in the Māyājāla

Of course, unifying the two stages is the whole point of the process to begin with in both earlier as well as later tantra.

heart said:
I am sure your quotes are correct, but ultimately if you look deep enough in to the well of Dharma you will find the root of Dharma is actual realization. Methods were taught to facilitate that realization and without the actual realization being introduced to the student how could these methods ever work? So, from the beginning the methods taught might have been quite simple and closely related to the natural state, later (in my opinion) these become the fully fledged two phases.

/magnus

Malcolm wrote:
Well, it is certainly true that realization is the goal of any vehicle within Buddhadharma.

The point is that with the elaboration of Unsurpassed Yoga Tantra (not yet known as such in India in the 8th century), the completion stage became a fully elaborated set of practices unto itself. These eventually divorced from the creation stage in the seventeen tantras and their instructions. The fact that there is ambivalence about divorcing Dzogchen from the two stages about this is indicated by such texts as the Khandro Nyinthig, which reimport Mahāyoga and Anuyoga practices, as well as borrow the sexual yoga practices of Ghantapada's Five Stages. Not only this, but the fact that the seventeen tantras elaborate a whole brand new set of empowerments, and that there are recommendations in The Heart Mirror of Vajrasattva and the Self-Arisen Vidyā to practice the three inner tantras as a unity indicates that Tibetans had considerable ambivalence about discarding the classic gradual path system of the inner tantras.

In other words, like Mahāmudra Dohas, the original Dzogchen lungs literally describe the state of realization itself, and they do not describe a path at all. They describe a result. The three traditions of "sems sde" each take different approaches to the material found in the 21 bodhicitta texts; with the upshot that they were combined into a single system at Kahthog called "rgyud mdo rdzogs", i.e. the practice of The Tantra, the Compendium, and Dzogchen.

The key point you are missing, Magnus, is that for something to be secret mantra —and Dzogchen is part of secret mantra— it must be predicated on an empowerment of some kind and a guru. Even the five original lungs of Vairocana make this abundantly clear.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 12th, 2014 at 9:57 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Well, I like the idea of infinitely many minds and their traces generating appearances for each other. It's kind of like a mmorpg. Just to be clear, when you say appearances, those are mental events, right?

Malcolm wrote:
It's complicated.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 12th, 2014 at 8:30 AM
Title: Re: African Americans & people of Color, & Buddhism in the W
Content:
zsc said:
I am a black person.
.

Malcolm wrote:
In this birth. In another you were not human, in another you were a world emperor. In another, an untouchable. In another, Warren Buffet would look like a pauper next to you.

Buddhadharma comes first: race, gender, class, position, these things are not really terribly important.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 12th, 2014 at 8:15 AM
Title: Re: What major Tibetan Buddhist texts are still missing?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
We have only 10% of what existed in Tibet prior to 1959.

kirtu said:
WHAT?? What about the translated German, French and Russian texts in the 19th century and beginning 20th centuries?

Kirt

Malcolm wrote:
A drop in the bucket.

kirtu said:
More to the point, can the texts be recovered from the Mongolian texts coming to light (the ones saved from the Red Terror after 1924) and from Kalmyk, Siberian and

Malcolm wrote:
Virtually all Gelug, and most post- 17th century.

kirtu said:
Tibetan borderland sources?

Malcolm wrote:
Most of the texts in Tibet that were lost were lost due to the wholesale destruction of libraries during the cultural revolution.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 12th, 2014 at 6:38 AM
Title: Re: Dr. Sanderson: Phowa etc. are directly from Saivism
Content:
haha said:
What do you say about this?

Malcolm wrote:
What is there to say?

Yamala tanta has refered Risi Vashistha went to Mahacina. Does this Risi have any relationship with the lineage of Dzogchen-teachers from Oddiyana and India?
No, not at all.

Is it the synthesis of Taoist and Buddhist ideas about nadi and prana/chi?
No.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 12th, 2014 at 6:35 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
I don't see why someone who doesn't accept "out there" accepts "other minds", if only conventionally or whatever.

Malcolm wrote:
It is quite simple. If there were not other minds "out there", when you are liberated, all other beings would be liberated.

smcj said:
Well, from your perspective, at that point they are!


Malcolm wrote:
But you recognize from their perspective, they are still trapped in the fog of ignorance. This is very clearly stated in multiple texts.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 12th, 2014 at 6:34 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
I don't see why someone who doesn't accept "out there" accepts "other minds", if only conventionally or whatever.

Malcolm wrote:
It is quite simple. If there were not other minds "out there", when you are liberated, all other beings would be liberated. Vasubandhu defends the existence other minds in a mind-only world in 20 verses.

dzogchungpa said:
OK, but that seems to be begging the question since you are apparently assuming that there are other beings to begin with.

Malcolm wrote:
Conventionally, no Buddhist school rejects that there are a diversity of sentient beings.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 12th, 2014 at 3:53 AM
Title: Re: Longde before Dzin Dharmabodhi?
Content:
alpha said:
I read in the big red book that Vairochana has met Garad Dorje in Dhumastira where  he received the entire dzogchen cycle from him.So that would theoretically mean that he received Vajra Bridge as well ?
Also in Golden letters there is a mention of a lineage of Anuyoga where Dharmabodhi looks to be contemporary to  Vairochana or just a couple of generations away.If Vajra Bridge has started with Vairochana there are lots of chances that this teaching would reach Dharmabodhi without too many problems.
In this regard of some importance would also be the exegetical treatises composed on the Vajra bridge by some of Dharmabodhi's disciples but i have no idea if these works are known or available...

Malcolm wrote:
We have Dharmabodhi's disciple, Kunzang Dorje's elaborate commentaries on the Vajra Bridge.

There were seven lineage masters between Pang Mipham and Dzeng Dharmabodhi, providing I counted correctly.

Btw, I do not have any doubt about Vairocana's teachings, though it is impossible, in my opinion, that every text attributed to him or Shri Siṃha was actually penned by them. What I do not accept the historicity of is the account of man ngag sde tantras.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 12th, 2014 at 3:45 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
I don't see why someone who doesn't accept "out there" accepts "other minds", if only conventionally or whatever.

Malcolm wrote:
It is quite simple. If there were not other minds "out there", when you are liberated, all other beings would be liberated. Vasubandhu defends the existence other minds in a mind-only world in 20 verses.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 12th, 2014 at 3:43 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
Andrew108 said:
Some of us are realists.

Malcolm wrote:
Some of you have no understanding of Dzogchen, or indeed Vajrayāna, at all.

Andrew108 said:
Take a look at Kalachakra. There are systems of Buddhist thought/practice that assert an objective condition.

Malcolm wrote:
What makes you think Kalacakra asserts that outer world is real? Mipham comments on 1.6 of the Kalacakra tantra:

The essence of the secret elements come from this aspect of the subtle mind, then the stuff of the inner elements etc., and by that, the external 5 elements. From those the planets, stars etc. arise. This is an important pith of all the upāya path of the secret mantra.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 12th, 2014 at 1:52 AM
Title: Re: What major Tibetan Buddhist texts are still missing?
Content:
ConradTree said:
Isn't all this stuff in Bhutan?

Bhutan was the shelter to Gelug suppression.


Malcolm wrote:
Not even remotely. Well, there are still a lot of texts in the library of Sakya no one has ever seen.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 12th, 2014 at 1:30 AM
Title: Re: What major Tibetan Buddhist texts are still missing?
Content:
ConradTree said:
Yes, but what *major* texts are missing like the commentaries on the 17 tantras?

As you know, most Tibetan Buddhist texts are redundant.


Malcolm wrote:
Three volumes of commentary on Kalacakra by Lama Dampa Sonam Gyaltsen, there are so many...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 12th, 2014 at 1:21 AM
Title: Re: What major Tibetan Buddhist texts are still missing?
Content:
ConradTree said:
What major Tibetan Buddhist texts are still missing?

Besides some of the commentaries on the 17 tantras of dzogchen menngagde.


Malcolm wrote:
We have only 10% of what existed in Tibet prior to 1959.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 12th, 2014 at 1:19 AM
Title: Re: Longde before Dzin Dharmabodhi?
Content:


heart said:
I am not so sure about that. My feeling is that the duality of development and completion stages is something that wasn't so developed in the early Nyingma Tantra's.

/magnus

Malcolm wrote:
It was quite well developed which is why 9th century texts like the kun byed rgyal po went to such pains to reject it. For example the mdo bcu, thought to have been authored Vairocana states:

Since the place of Samantbhadra arises, there is not need for the creation and completion samadhis.

Or the Vajrasattvamāyājālaguhyasarvādarśa-nāma-tantra, included in the rNying ma rgyud 'bum as well as the bKa' 'gyur, states:

bskyed rdzogs thabs rim gang bstan pa/ /sgyu 'phrul dra bar 'dus pa ste

Any teaching of the stages of the method of creation and completion are included in the Māyājāla

Of course, unifying the two stages is the whole point of the process to begin with in both earlier as well as later tantra.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 12th, 2014 at 12:44 AM
Title: Re: Dr. Sanderson: Phowa etc. are directly from Saivism
Content:
Sherlock said:
OK thanks. Actually given the recent scientific study about tummo in some nuns and how the main mechanism behind the raise in temperature is due to the forceful breathing while visualization mainly helps the practitioners maintain the forceful breathing for longer periods, this makes a lot of sense rather than a concept of some nonphysocal force. The idea of a nonphysical force is the one you had been railing against for some time?

Malcolm wrote:
Well, it is not supported by our tradition. The so called "energy winds" are just vāyu, which is just the element of air. Of course, there are grosser and subtler kind of vāyu, but they all belong to the air element and are not different than the air element.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 12th, 2014 at 12:42 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
Andrew108 said:
Some of us are realists.

Malcolm wrote:
Some of you have no understanding of Dzogchen, or indeed Vajrayāna, at all.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 12th, 2014 at 12:32 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
Andrew108 said:
He is referring to the fact that 'mere' appearances also have functionality. They have energy. We are not remaking the world just by observing it and judging it. It has it's own condition that is independent of the mind that observes it. Some of us are realists.

Malcolm wrote:
No one asserted that world was made by judging and observing. The Dzogchen view of the world is that it's appearances generated by traces in the minds of sentient beings, and that the traces in the minds of sentient beings have the capacity to generate appearances for other minds. So all of our minds together, because of our strong traces to which we are habituated from beginning less time, generate the appearances of the Universe together. Of course this does not mean that the traces of the mind have some state other than bodhicitta. They arise because bodhicitta, the nature of the mind, has not been recognized.

Appearances range from function to non-functional, but in the end they merely appearances of our own minds. The point of view of Dzogchen, and indeed, Vajrayāna in general, is that there is nothing "out there" which objectively exists.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 11th, 2014 at 11:58 PM
Title: Re: Dr. Sanderson: Phowa etc. are directly from Saivism
Content:
Sherlock said:
So the way in which they physically exist is just our blood and lymph channels, the nuscular system etc?

Malcolm wrote:
Well, for example, in the system of the Vajra Bridge, Kunzang Dorje, a disciple of Dharmabodhi who lived in the later 12th century, describes the nāḍīs very clearly as follows:

"Since it is necessary to understand the critical point of nāḍīs and vāyu, though there are 80,000 nāḍīs in a single body, they are gathered into five in the organ of the heart [don snying]. Blood and vāyu exist in the heart nāḍī, the lalanā, which exists on the right. Lymph [chu ser] and vāyu exist in the lung nāḍī, the rasanā, which exists on the left. Vāyu and bindu exist in the kidney nāḍī, the avādhuti (kun 'dar ma), which exists in the middle. The liver nāḍī generates the pure essence of the sense organs, exists above, and illuminates [sense] consciousness. Since the spleen nāḍī is the lower end of the avadhuti, it produces bliss."

They are necessarily physical structures which contain physical things such as vāyu and bindu, blood and lymph, feces and urine etc. This is merely one example I can provide out of many.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 11th, 2014 at 11:34 PM
Title: Re: Longde before Dzin Dharmabodhi?
Content:


Sherab said:
In addition to the aggregates, there has to be certain relationships in the aggregates and between the aggregates in order for there to be a proper basis for the taking of a designation.

Malcolm wrote:
The there is no end. You cannot arbitraily decide where to end the dependency. In this case, you can only designate the universe as "a self" since everything in it is a dependent relationship. Remember, the material aggregate includes all sense organs and sense objects!

For the reason a so called "dependent" self should be rejected out of hand as incoherent. "Identity" merely exists as a designation upon a collection of parts. For example, you have "a car" because this collection of parts functions according your expectations; you have a "broken car' when it does not; and when it is an scrap yard, it is called "a dismantled car", for example, "that is a door from a BMW". But there is no dependent identity. "Identity" is merely a convention, and purely a product of designation upon an appearance, nothing more. The identity we impute is a designation based on an appearance, but the fact that identity is not dependent on the appearance can be understood from all the different identities that can be imputed upon an appearance, "Human", "Malcolm", "Löppon", "Asshole", "Heretic", "Buddhist" and so on.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 11th, 2014 at 11:24 PM
Title: Re: Longde before Dzin Dharmabodhi?
Content:
Fa Dao said:
Magnus..I remember that as well..just trying to get a little history of practice in Longde prior to that is all

heart said:
To tell you the truth I think there have always been Tantric elements in Dzogchen.

/magnus


Malcolm wrote:
It's pretty clear that Dzogchen started out life as the realization of the completion stage, identical with Mahāmudra in the gsar ma system [The Kagyupas turned Mahāmudra into an independent system in the 12th century, which as we know elicited a strong reaction from Sakya Pandita]. It was only in the 10th century that Dzogchen became a separate vehicle.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 11th, 2014 at 7:44 PM
Title: Re: Longde before Dzin Dharmabodhi?
Content:
Fa Dao said:
ChNNR has said that it was Dzin Dharmabodhi that added in the practice of Ngondzog Gyalpo into the Longde teachings. Does anyone know what they were like prior to this?


Malcolm wrote:
We have absolutely no evidence of the Vajra Bridge aka klong sde prior to Dzeng Dharmabodhi. This basically means that like everything else in Tibetan Buddhism, very little can be positively dated before the 11th century. Dates about texts and authors only begin to become clear in the 11 century. For Tibetans, even the 11th century is hazy to those in the 12th, not to mention anything prior to the 11th.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 11th, 2014 at 7:39 PM
Title: Re: Dr. Sanderson: Phowa etc. are directly from Saivism
Content:
Sherlock said:
But I thought you said before that Tibetans realized they were not physical when they dissected bodies and dddn't find any of those channels.

Malcolm wrote:
No, I have never maintained that.

What I said was that the way the nāḍīs exist in the body does not correspond to how they are visualized, not that they do not physically exist. They do physically exist because their process of development during gestation is very precisely described in tantras such as Kālacakra, sGra thal 'gyur and so on.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 11th, 2014 at 7:36 PM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
Sherab said:
Elaboration of dependent self:

A dependent self exists because of certain relationships between its parts.  These relationships in turn are dependent on the laws of nature.  Without a certain stability in the laws of nature for a certain duration, a dependent self cannot exist.

Those who wish to posit that the relative is ultimately illusory, must therefore show that the laws of nature are ultimately illusory.  As I see it, modern science is heading in that direction, but is still far from reaching a definitive answer.

Malcolm wrote:
A self is merely a designation, and does not exist apart from designation. It has no parts.A self cannot be found in a part, nor in all of the parts combined. This is why there is no "dependent self". If there were a "dependent" self, it would have to be shown which part is the key part upon which it depended. Since a self cannot be found in one of the aggregates, all of the aggregates or separate from the aggregates, for this reason one cannot accept the existence of a so-called "dependent" self. In fact the two terms are mutually exclusive, like "dependent inherent existence".

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 11th, 2014 at 6:08 PM
Title: Re: Dr. Sanderson: Phowa etc. are directly from Saivism
Content:
Sherlock said:
According to that Germano article, the Upanishad channel involved a connection from the heart to the head, it wasn't the fully elaborated system that appears in the yoginitantras. There was no fully system of channels and cakras during the initial transmission of tantra to Tibet in the 8th-9th century so it was fully elaborated only in between then and around 1000CE.
.


Malcolm wrote:
I just wanted to add, I have looked at all the Dzogchen literature extant that could conceivably be pre- 1000, and none of it has any trace of concern or interest in anything remotely resembling the nāḍī, vāyu and bindu systems present in Hevajra, Kalacakra, and so on.

This only changes when we come to the man ngag sde tantras. For this as well as other reasons, I place the composition of the bulk of the seventeen tantras no earlier than 1020-1030 with the sgra thal 'gyur, the mu tig phreng ba, the rig pa rang shar and rang grol as well as the bkra shis mdzes ldan being the last. The sgra thal 'gyur was almost certainly composed by Chetsun Senge Wangchuck, in my opinion.

Sherlock said:
What about Bon Dzogchen?

Malcolm wrote:
It is all 11th century and later, like all bon texts.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 11th, 2014 at 6:06 PM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Getting back to the topic, here's another "misleading" quotation, from "The Crystal and the Way of LIght": The Base, or Zhi in Tibetan, is the term used to denote the fundamental ground of existence, both at the universal level and at the level of the individual, the two being essentially the same; to realize the one is to realize the other. If you realize yourself, you realize the nature of the universe.


Malcolm wrote:
This is no different than saying that if one realizes the emptiness of one thing, one realizes the emptiness of all things. The principle is the same.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 11th, 2014 at 6:02 PM
Title: Re: Pronouncation (yes one of these)
Content:
Konchog1 said:
This is sort of embarrassing, one would think that over the whole internet there would be easy to find answers that agree with each other for something so simple.

Nope.

I've been reciting the excellent Sutra of Golden Light and I am unsure of the pronunciation of part of this Dharani:

NAMO BUDDHĀYA/ NAMO DHARMĀYA/ NAMAH SANGHĀYA/ NAMO BRAHMĀYA/ NAMA INDRĀYA/ NAMA CHATURNĀM/ MAHĀRĀJĀNĀM/ TADYATHĀ/ HILI HILI/ MILI MILI/ GAURI/ MAHĀGAURI/ GANDHARI/ MAHĀGANDHARI/ DRIMIDI/ MAHĀDRIMIDI/ DANDAKHUKHUNATI/HA HA HA HA/ HI HI HI HI/ HU HU HU HU/ HALODHAME/ GUDHAME/ CHA CHA CHA CHA/ CHI CHI CHI CHI/ CHU CHU CHU CHU/ CHANDESHVARA/ SHIKHARA/ SHIKHARA/ UTISHTHAHE BHAGAVĀN/ SAMVIDJÑĀYE SVĀHĀ

http://www.sutraofgoldenlight.com/2011/06/chapter-19-completed-samjnaya-lord-of.html

CHANDESHVARA/ SHIKHARA/ SHIKHARA/ UTISHTHAHE BHAGAVĀN/ SAMVIDJÑĀYE SVĀHĀ should be pronounced as CHANDE SW ARA/ SHIKHARA/ SHIKHARA/ UTISHTHAHE BHAGA W ĀN/ SAMVID NYA YE S W ĀHĀ right?

Thank you.

Malcolm wrote:
Gnya


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 11th, 2014 at 9:16 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
Sherab said:
Elaboration of dependent self:

A dependent self exists because of certain relationships between its parts.  These relationships in turn are dependent on the laws of nature.  Without a certain stability in the laws of nature for a certain duration, a dependent self cannot exist.

Those who wish to posit that the relative is ultimately illusory, must therefore show that the laws of nature are ultimately illusory.  As I see it, modern science is heading in that direction, but is still far from reaching a definitive answer.

Malcolm wrote:
So you are realist, not different at all from Sarvastivadins.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 11th, 2014 at 7:54 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
Sherab said:
I don't agree with you argument about not naming as it seems to deny that a dependent self exists in the sphere of the relative.  As for a self in the sphere of the ultimate, my take is that the experience of nirvana or enlightenment is an experience where the concept of a self or no-self as understood in the sphere of the relative becomes incoherent, but the individuality of the experience cannot be denied.

Malcolm wrote:
There is no "dependent" self, there is only a designated self. Apart its designation, the self, such as it is, is the son of a barren woman. If there were a dependent self, it would exist designated upon its parts, like a car or a cup. So what are the parts of the self upon which it is designated?

Sherab said:
There is no things, inanimate or otherwise, that exist designated on its parts.  If it did, then by taking apart say a chariot and pile them into a heap, it will not be a pile of other things, but will still be designated as a chariot.  A thing exists and functions only when the parts are in a particular relationship with each other.  When that particular relationship exists between the parts, a dependent self exists.  Upon that dependent self, a label or name is designated.

Malcolm wrote:
You just refuted a dependent self.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 11th, 2014 at 5:57 AM
Title: Re: Dr. Sanderson: Phowa etc. are directly from Saivism
Content:
Sherlock said:
According to that Germano article, the Upanishad channel involved a connection from the heart to the head, it wasn't the fully elaborated system that appears in the yoginitantras. There was no fully system of channels and cakras during the initial transmission of tantra to Tibet in the 8th-9th century so it was fully elaborated only in between then and around 1000CE.
.


Malcolm wrote:
I just wanted to add, I have looked at all the Dzogchen literature extant that could conceivably be pre- 1000, and none of it has any trace of concern or interest in anything remotely resembling the nāḍī, vāyu and bindu systems present in Hevajra, Kalacakra, and so on.

This only changes when we come to the man ngag sde tantras. For this as well as other reasons, I place the composition of the bulk of the seventeen tantras no earlier than 1020-1030 with the sgra thal 'gyur, the mu tig phreng ba, the rig pa rang shar and rang grol as well as the bkra shis mdzes ldan being the last. The sgra thal 'gyur was almost certainly composed by Chetsun Senge Wangchuck, in my opinion.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 11th, 2014 at 5:24 AM
Title: Re: Madhyamaka vs Dzogchen - Is this right?
Content:
ConradTree said:
Madhyamaka........................................ Dzogchen
freedom from extremes.......................... freedom from extremes
dependent origination.............................kadag, lhun grub and thugs rje
two truths...........................................discards two truths
no tantric features............................direct introduction, dream yoga, dark retreat, description of death process, description of empty clarity etc.

Malcolm wrote:
Something like that. Dzogchen is a part of secret mantra.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 11th, 2014 at 5:23 AM
Title: Re: Dr. Sanderson: Phowa etc. are directly from Saivism
Content:
ConradTree said:
The debate is how much of Dzogchen is Indian Buddhist vs Tibetan Buddhist.

Malcolm wrote:
My guess, about 5% Indian, 95% Tibetan.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 11th, 2014 at 5:21 AM
Title: Re: Dr. Sanderson: Phowa etc. are directly from Saivism
Content:
Sherlock said:
That's a good point -- maybe the overall concept that there are subtle, not exactly physical channels and so on in the body is not uniquely Buddhist...


Malcolm wrote:
All the channels are described in the Buddhist tantras as physical structures. They are called "subtle" (sukṣma, phra) because they are very fine, not because they are immaterial or made of some quasi-material. For example, according to Kālacakra, the lower tips of the three main channels produce urine, feces and reproductive fluids. That is hard to do if they are not physical.

All the channels form during gestation in the womb. This is the same in Dzogchen.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 11th, 2014 at 5:18 AM
Title: Re: Dr. Sanderson: Phowa etc. are directly from Saivism
Content:
Sherlock said:
According to that Germano article, the Upanishad channel involved a connection from the heart to the head, it wasn't the fully elaborated system that appears in the yoginitantras.

Malcolm wrote:
Correct.


Sherlock said:
There was no fully system of channels and cakras during the initial transmission of tantra to Tibet in the 8th-9th century so it was fully elaborated only in between then and around 1000CE.

Malcolm wrote:
Correct.

Sherlock said:
Some Hindu tantras have references to tantras orignating from Mahacina, which might be a reference to either China or an area to the Northeast.

Malcolm wrote:
Principally the Nilasarasvati tantras.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 11th, 2014 at 2:25 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
In addition, a so called “pandita” is described as “A scholar in the foundation of outer and inner objects of knowledge.” A so called “kusali” is described as “One who has the most dedication inwardly after severing all outer distractions.”
In terms of actual perfect Buddhahood: the first, having become knowledgeable about all objects of knowledge, has severed doubt through hearing, reflection and meditation. Then, because of severing doubt through meditating which makes samadhi essential, the pandita gradually attains Buddhahood after actualizing the Dharma of realization. A kusali necessarily has the same basis, but when considered alone, a pandita is closer to Buddhahood.
-- Sakya Pandita


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 10th, 2014 at 7:13 PM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
Sherab said:
I don't agree with you argument about not naming as it seems to deny that a dependent self exists in the sphere of the relative.  As for a self in the sphere of the ultimate, my take is that the experience of nirvana or enlightenment is an experience where the concept of a self or no-self as understood in the sphere of the relative becomes incoherent, but the individuality of the experience cannot be denied.


Malcolm wrote:
There is no "dependent" self, there is only a designated self. Apart its designation, the self, such as it is, is the son of a barren woman. If there were a dependent self, it would exist designated upon its parts, like a car or a cup. So what are the parts of the self upon which it is designated?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 10th, 2014 at 9:45 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
You seem to be saying that what is pointed out or introduced is nothing, i.e. what ChNNR calls our real condition or natural state is nothing.

Malcolm wrote:
What I am saying is that what is pointed out is the nature of the mind, the mind essence, which you will never find when you look for it, apart from the looking itself, which when sought, is not findable either because it is free from extremes.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 10th, 2014 at 7:35 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
From a Dzogchen point of view, and Vajrayāna in general, there is something to point out, i.e. the nature of mind, an empty clarity.

gad rgyangs said:
oh, so there is something after all! thats a relief!


Malcolm wrote:
Clarity is also not established, that is why it is called "empty". In fact, there is nothing to point out, knowing that is clarity.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 10th, 2014 at 7:26 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
jeeprs said:
sectarian polemics

Malcolm wrote:
To be perfectly honest, as I have said before, from a textual POV, Dzogchen is filled to the brim with sectarian polemics. It is the most sectarian teaching in Tibet.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 10th, 2014 at 7:17 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The view of freedom from extremes as explained in Madhyamaka is not the slightest bit different than the view of freedom from extremes as explained in Dzogchen. That is why ChNN cites Sakya Pandita's Analysis of the Three Vows...

dzogchungpa said:
OK, but why then does ChNNR, in "The Base In Dzogchen", say this:
ChNNR said:
...Madhyamika, which is a philosophical system, negates the existence of the Base completely.

dzogchungpa said:
?

Malcolm wrote:
Because Madhyamaka negates everything completely. But that does not mean that the Dzogchen view of freedom from extremes is any different at all from the Madhyamaka view of freedom from extremes, for in fact they are formulated in precisely the same way. Further, Madhyamaka is not focused on the person, but rather in eliminating any sorts of reifications about existence, etc., whereas Dzogchen is concerned with explicating the nature of the mind. In other words, from a Madhyamaka POV there is nothing to point out, since nothing is established. From a Dzogchen point of view, and Vajrayāna in general, there is something to point out, i.e. the nature of mind, an empty clarity.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 10th, 2014 at 7:15 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
A large problem for people who are approaching Dzogchen is that they fall back into classical western philosophical categories.

jeeprs said:
Why is this a problem?

Malcolm wrote:
Buddhist texts need to have their own own distinctive terminologies in English, just as they do in Sanskrit, Chinese and Tibetan in order to clearly demarcate our teachings and philosophy from those of other traditions. For this reason then using terminology like "ground of being" for gzhi is wholly inadequate.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 10th, 2014 at 4:05 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
A nice metaphor that illustrates my point again, from the chapter on demonstrating the basis of the buddhas and sentient beings as one from the rdzogs pa chen po nges don 'dus pa:

For example, though one offers a thousand lamps, 
there is no more than one nature of light.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 10th, 2014 at 3:05 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
“Hey, hey, apparent yet nonexistent retinue: listen well! There is no object to distinguish in me, the view of self-originated wisdom; it did not exist before, it will not arise later, and also does not appear in anyway in the present. The path does not exist, action does not exist, traces do not exist, ignorance does not exist, thoughts do not exist, mind does not exist, prajñā does not exist, samsara does not exist, nirvana does not exist, vidyā itself does not even exist, totally not appearing in anyway.”

-- Unwritten Tantra

gad rgyangs said:
Methinks he doth protest too much. if he really doesn't exist, shouldn't he just shut up?

Malcolm wrote:
You know that they say, the empty bucket makes the loudest noise.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 10th, 2014 at 2:56 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
if you insist there is no ultimate, no relative, no condition, no anything, then you are not really saying anything at all, at least not anything interesting.

Malcolm wrote:
Who said tathatā was supposed to be interesting? Not the Buddha:

“Hey, hey, apparent yet nonexistent retinue: listen well! There is no object to distinguish in me, the view of self-originated wisdom; it did not exist before, it will not arise later, and also does not appear in anyway in the present. The path does not exist, action does not exist, traces do not exist, ignorance does not exist, thoughts do not exist, mind does not exist, prajñā does not exist, samsara does not exist, nirvana does not exist, vidyā itself does not even exist, totally not appearing in anyway.”

-- Unwritten Tantra

“Venerable Śariputra, if one sees it like so, all phenomena are empty, without characteristics, non-arising, unceasing, without stains, and not free from stains; not decreasing, not increasing. 
“Śariputra, in emptiness there is no matter, no sensation, no ideation, no formations, no consciousness, no eye, no ear, no nose, no tongue, no body,  no mind, no form, no sound, no smell, no taste, no contact. There is no eye element up to no mental element, and also nothing up to the element of mental consciousness. 
There is no ignorance; there is no end of ignorance; up to there is no aging and death and no end of aging and death. 
Likewise, there is no suffering, cause, cessation and path.
There is no wisdom, nothing to obtain, and also nothing not to obtain.

-- The "Heart" Sutra

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 10th, 2014 at 2:54 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
The metaphor does however demonstrate the source of the seemingly contradictory statements in the Tantras, some of which clearly point to a universal basis and others which point to a personal basis.

Malcolm wrote:
Its more easily reconciled on the basis of the intellectual categories to which the authors of the man ngag sde tantras in the 11th century were clearly familiar, that of the two kinds of lakṣanas, or characteristics we find in pramāṇa, samanya lakṣanas and svalakṣanas, in other words, universal and particulars. There is so much language of pramāṇa scattered through out the man ngag sde tantras, and use of it in a classical nominalist fashion in these tantras, that it is impossible these guys meant that the universal we call the thog ma spyi gzhi, the original "general or universal" basis, was meant to be anything other than a generic description of qualities and attributes possessed by specific or individual minds.

Use of hologram metaphors does not lead us anywhere near what these gentleman themselves thought of their own textual compositions, not to mention that problem that people get into when they indiscriminately cite the bodhicitta texts as the representing the sum total of Dzogchen thought. Obviously, there is a lot of problem with anachronistic readings of these texts by classical scholars such as Longchenpa. But unless you are a true believer (tm) and accept the original account of the origin of the man ngag sde literature presented in the Vima Nyinthig as historical fact, it is irresponsible to read these texts in that way. In fact the term gzhi is barely used in the bodhicitta texts.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 10th, 2014 at 2:28 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
smcj said:
As Dudjom R. said (ibid):

What unimpededly appears on it (the mirror) are all the things of relative reality, your mind included.
(formatting mine)

Sounds undifferentiated to me. Of course you can always say D.R. didn't know what he was talking about.

Malcolm wrote:
All the things in relative reality come about, in Dzogchen parlance, from a mind that does not recognize its own display. But it takes a mind that does not recognize its essence to produce that relative. There is no mind-essence other than in the mind.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 10th, 2014 at 2:25 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
all subtle & sophisticated systems east & west (including Dzogchen) agree the ultimate is beyond description, conceptualization, categorization. So thats not really open to discussion.

Malcolm wrote:
In Dzogchen, the ultimate is not established, that is also not open to discussion. The reason why the ultimate in Madhyamala, Dzogchen, etc. is beyond description has everything to do with the basis premise of niṣprapañca and what that means.

gad rgyangs said:
what I see as an interesting difference of perspective is between systems that think something in our condition is wrong, missing, or fallen,

Malcolm wrote:
There is nothing missing in our condition, since we don't have one. If we had a condition, that would be a self, and then we would really have a problem.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 10th, 2014 at 2:04 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
smcj said:
The same applies to Yogacara, "Great Madhyamaka" (is there a singular definition of this in the first place or is it something all teachers call their own interpretation of Madhyamaka) and other themes
Whatever the specifics of Dudjom R.'s interpretation of "Great Madhyamaka" (Empty-of-Other) were should be accepted as a legitimate view of Dzogchen. His shorthand of using the idea of a mirror as the undifferentiated Basis and the images on it as apparent phenomena should be non-controversial as one way of looking at it.

Malcolm wrote:
It is an entirely dualistic metaphor, from where to the images in this mirror arise? In any case, your interpretation that the basis is an undifferentiated unity is not supported in Dzogchen tantras. It is probably not actually supported in gzhan stong either, at this point I am too busy to look.

The Mind Mirror of Samantabhadra states:

The self-originated ultimate garbha,
in the manner of being perfect without being generated, 
is a brilliant mirror existing in all.

The marginalia notes that the mirror is the wisdom of vidyā, which as we know is what the instantiated basis is termed. So we can clearly see that this self-originated, ultimate garbha is just a term for the mind-essence.

The Self Arisen Vidyā Tantra:

The light rays of all worlds issue forth
from the mirror of perfect mind.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 10th, 2014 at 1:37 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
Sherlock said:
Historical Dzogchen masters familiar with the Indian schools classified the views of those schools as wrong views and described why. If you say Dzogchen teaches a view similar to the views of those schools you are either misunderstanding something or you are implying those historical masters gave misleading statements.

The views of those schools cannot be the same as Dzogchen. If you say they are similar OK but you need to work out on which points they differ.


Malcolm wrote:
The view of freedom from extremes as explained in Madhyamaka is not the slightest bit different than the view of freedom from extremes as explained in Dzogchen. That is why ChNN cites Sakya Pandita's Analysis of the Three Vows when he describes the view of Dzogchen, the full quote as follows:

Tough indeed there are levels of view
in Śravaka and Mahāyāna,
it is never explained there is a division of views
in Pāramitā and Secret Mantra.
If there were a view superior to 
the freedom from proliferation of the Pāramitā,
that view would contain proliferation. 
If [the view of secret mantra] is free from proliferation, there is no difference. 
Therefore, the view that is comprehended
with explaination is the same, 
nevertheless, secret mantra is superior
in the methods for realizing freedom from proliferation.

Longchenpa also admits that freedom from extremes in Prasanga and the Dzogchen view are the same.

Honestly, I don't see where the controversy is.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 10th, 2014 at 1:14 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
smcj said:
if aspects of them end up sounding like some other system of thought that's fine.

Malcolm wrote:
If aspects of them sound like some other system, it means that translator has been lazy and has not done his job well.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 10th, 2014 at 1:13 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
are Dzogchen and western theology/metaphysics saying the same thing? no.

Malcolm wrote:
If the language of western theology is invited into Dzogchen, how will people be able to distinguish the two? They will not, other than the fact that there is no term in Dzogchen that matches the term "ground of being".

gad rgyangs said:
are they talking about the same thing, i.e. the nature of reality? yes.

Malcolm wrote:
Dzogchen is talking about a state in which there is no creator [i.e. lhun grub]; Tillich is talking about a state on which there is a creator [i.e. dbang phyug]. Dzogchen rejects reality in favor of freedom from extremes, in which neither an ultimate nor relative can be established in anyway. There is no ground of being in Dzogchen, there are no beings in Dzogchen. If the basis was a "ground of being" it would be expressible. Since it is free from being, non-being, etc., it is inexpressible. In the process, Dzogchen does not go beyond Madhyamaka view in anyway at all.

gad rgyangs said:
do both traditions agree that the nature of reality is ineffable and beyond thought and categories? yes.

Malcolm wrote:
Dzogchen does not agree that there is a reality per se, a state of being that pertains to things. Freedom from all extremes is not a state of being [ity] pertaining [al] to things [res].

gad rgyangs said:
so what does their talking around the nature of reality amount to? poetic metaphors.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, when people reach their level of philosophical incompetence they, at the last resort, pull out the poetry card.

gad rgyangs said:
so is there actually a nature of reality? yes: here we are.

Malcolm wrote:
If there were an actual nature of reality, we couldn't be here.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 10th, 2014 at 12:00 AM
Title: Re: Discussion of Political Topics is Wrong Speech
Content:
tobes said:
there is far more expressively political advice on other matters. I'm not sure how one plausibly could only deny that the Ratnāvalī is filled with such content.


Malcolm wrote:
It's not that filled, it constitutes somewhat less than 10% of the total.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 9th, 2014 at 10:14 PM
Title: Re: African Americans & people of Color, & Buddhism in the W
Content:
rory said:
Malcolm: Oh it's  a big issue here. In most Dharma centers you never find the rituals that are normal back in Asia.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, clearly you have never been to a Tibetan Buddhist center in the US.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 9th, 2014 at 9:53 PM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Again, if you are using the term of "ground of being", which is Christian theological term out of place in Dzogchen, you will run into many contradictions.

jeeprs said:
Interestingly, there is a Wikipedia article called https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_of_Being_%28Dzogchen%29 (albeit with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_of_Being_%28Dzogchen%29#Nomenclature_of_article:_meta-annotation.)


Malcolm wrote:
The article you mentioned is a mess. First of all, the term that gzhi translates is sthana, not aśraya. It just turns into a muddle from there.

In terms of the origins of the term, it was indeed coined by Tillich to show that "God must be called the infinite power of being which resists the threat of nonbeing." [Systematic Theology, Vol. pg. 64] You can see why such borrowing is tempting, "The ground of being has the character of self-manifestation; it has logos character" [Systematic Theology, Vol.1 pg. 158]

A large problem for people who are approaching Dzogchen is that they fall back into classical western philosophical categories. Indeed, Günther wrote once that Dzogchen essentially is not different than Parmenides's theory that whatever was contingent as non-being and whatever is permanent is being. Tillich writes:

"The Orphics, the Pythagoreans, Anaximander, Heraclitus, and Parmenides were driven to their philosophy by the awareness that the world they encountered lack ultimate reality. But only in Plato does the contrast between existential and the essential being become an ontological and ethical problem. Existence for Plato is the realm of mere opinion, error, and evil. It lacks true reality. True being is essential being and is present in the realm of eternal ideas, i.e., in essences. In order to reach essential being, man must rise above existence. He must return to the essential realm from which he fell into existence, In this way man's existence, is standing out of potentiality, is judged as a fall from what he essentially is. The potential is the essential, and to exist, i.e., to stand out of potentiality, is the lost of true essentiuality...In God there is no difference between essential and existential being. This implies the split is not ultimately valid and that is has no relevance for the ground of being itself. God is eternally what he is. [Systematic Theology, Vol.2 ppg. 21-22]

Examining this kind of presentation that the term "ground of being" arose out of, it is easy to see why those who are not trained in Indo-Tibetan scholastics as well as Western Philosophy will be very attracted to terms like "ground of being" relationship to the term "basis" or gzhi.

The gzhi is strictly defined as lacking any essence, any svabhāva, in Dzogchen texts. Indeed its potentiality is made possible because of its empty nature. Without that coreless core, the processes of the basis by which the five lights shine out and so on are simply not possible. Emptiness, naturelessness, the absence of being, the absence of reality, the absence of extremes is precisely what makes the basis originally pure. As the sgra thal gyur tantra states:

Since there is no basis or foundation, dwell in emptiness.

The commentary merely notes that this line confirms the quality of the non-existence of one's mind.

And further it states:

Due to being free from extremes, the middle does not exist.

The commentary describes this as the Great Perfection view that is totally complete freedom from extremes:

The so-called intimate instruction of the view of the totally complete space of the great freedom from activities is the view of the totally complete freedom from extremes. Since that is free from the extreme of existence, it does not fall into the position of substantiality. Since it is free from the extreme of nonexistence, it exhausts grasping to emptiness. Since it is free from both existence and non-existence, it is free from apprehending the intrinsic nature of the apprehender, since it is free from the extreme of neither existence nor nonexistence, there is also no concept of mere non-existence.

Moreover, since it is free from the extreme of emptiness, it possesses the meaning of an intrinsically clear core. Since it is free from the extreme of being non-empty, the extreme of grasping to substantiality is avoided. Since it is free from a basis [gzhi], it is not conceived as being either "clear" or "empty", since it is free from both, there is nothing to prove nor negate. In the same way, combine [the above reasoning] for all such as the extreme of appearance and so on. 

Further because it is free from extremes it is not established many. Because it is totally complete, is is not established as one. Since that is free form one and many, it is the inexpressible dharmatā that is free from falling into extremes. 

Now then, if it is said "That is not Dzogchen because it begins to abandon extremes", since it is totally complete as existence, it means there is nothing to seek. Since it is totally complete as non-existence, it means there is nothing to abandon. Since it is complete as both, it means it is beyond accepting and rejecting. Since it complete as neither, everything becomes dharmatā. 

Likewise, since empty, not empty and so on are totally complete, therefore, "Great Perfection" means not falling into hope and fear or extremes. 

Moreover, because it is one, proliferation is severed, because it is many, there is not need to abandon anything. Further, because there are extremes, the middle is eliminated, because there is a middle, likewise, the extremes are eliminated. As such, if it is wondered why, it is because since it is free from extremes the middle does not exist. Because the extremes are negated, it is empty of a middle; since the middle is negated, likewise, there is no perception of extremes. Therefore:

"Because it is totally complete, there is nothing to dedicate."

And:

Since there is nothing more, there are no parts.

In case someone still doubts whether the basis is just referring to one's own mind, Vajrasattvamāyājālaguhyasarvādarśa-nāma-tantra states:

The rootless mind itself
is the root of all phenomena.

A passage from Bhavya's Madhyamakaratnapradīpa reinforces our understanding of this passage:

Just as from the root of the lotus
leaves and so on are continually produced, 
likewise, though the mind is insubstantial
it exists as the essence of all phenomena. 

This is the meaning of that: just as the root of the lotus is not connected with anything else, exists in water, and though that root does not penetrate anything, it is able to fill a great pond with leaves, flowers, and so on. Likewise, though the mind itself is insubstantial, it exists as the nature of all external and internal phenomena in the relative. 

Just as shoots of rice in a terrace
spread everywhere without roots, 
also the rootless mind itself
pervades the furthest reaches of space. 

Here, the meaning of this is: in ponds and terraces, the plants called "rice" are interlinked, they grow on the surface of a terrace with a yellow flower, their roots do not penetrate. In the same way, while the mind is rootless, it spreads throughout all space, existing as the nature of all phenomena.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 9th, 2014 at 9:13 AM
Title: Re: African Americans & people of Color, & Buddhism in the W
Content:
zsc said:
Trying to extract culture from the dharma to make it "pure" is actually a western cultural decision, based on Protestant-driven anxiousness to find the "pure" way, the "original" way, etc.

Malcolm wrote:
That is really not an issue here. That will be more of an issue on Dhammawheel. That is mostly a Theravadin discomfort.


