﻿Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 9th, 2014 at 9:11 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
I don't think anyone, at any point on this thread said the relative is all there is. If the ultimate lacks inherency the relative does as well.

Sherab said:
"Lacks inherency" means lacking there is nothing innate and implies that there is only dependency.  In other words, everything is relative.  Therefore "lacking inherency" is another way of saying that the relative is all there is.


Malcolm wrote:
The ultimate truth is nothing more and nothing less than cognition of what remains after the relative has been examined, or the non-conceptual cognition of true nature of the relative.

To answer your earlier: causes and effects can neither be the same nor can they be different. If they are same, all causes are non-causes and all effects are non-effects. If they are different, causes remain non-causes and effects remain non-effects. When causes and effects are seen as they are, i.e., neither the same nor different, than causality, conventionally speaking, is preserved, without various identity problems. Nāgārjuna states:

It is not valid that arising and perishing are the same, 
nor it is valid that arising and perishing are different.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 9th, 2014 at 12:03 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
These days many people express the language of Dzogchen in terms which are little more than a revenant of 19th Century British Idealism...

dzogchungpa said:
Revenant? Wow.

Well, as I've said, I like your POV better, it's much easier for me to understand.
It does seem kind of strange that Guarisco is so off though.



Malcolm wrote:
I have no idea what he thinks, I can only know what he writes.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 8th, 2014 at 10:42 PM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Honestly, I am just a beginner, so I can't say whether Malcolm is correct. I can see why people might think otherwise, though. Here is a passage from Elio Guarisco's introduction to "Myriad Worlds":
In the Dzog-chen system, the primal creative cause of the universe is neither the evolutionary actions of beings nor the interrelationships of the compassion of the buddhas and sen­tient beings, but rigpa,  a state of pure and total awareness. This state of awareness is nothing other than the primordially pure ground of being itself (gzhi).

Malcolm wrote:
In Dzoghen texts, the gzhi is never described as a ground of being for the simple reason that being, non-being, and so on are not established either in the so-called "basis" or in appearances of the basis that has arisen. It is no wonder you are confused when you see use of terms from Paul Tillich out of context in this way. Tillich, the originator of the term, uses the ground of being to describe God.

dzogchungpa said:
and a little later on he says:
Kongtrul states that an understanding of the Dzog-chen view of cyclic life is essential if one is to understand the path and the result of this system. The Dzog-chen perspective holds that everything emerges spontaneously from the primordially pure nature of being, that everything always remains primordially pure, and that when this truth is recognized within one's own natural awareness  (rang byung ye shes),  one instantly recovers one's original enlightened nature, which has been there all along.
I really can't see how this is compatible with Malcolm's position.

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.

These days many people express the language of Dzogchen in terms which are little more than a revenant of 19th Century British Idealism:

Our conclusion, so far, will be this, that the Absolute is one system, and that its contents are nothing but sentient experience. It will hence be a single and all-inclusive experience, which embraces every partial diversity in concord. For it cannot be less than appearances and hence no feeling or thought, of any kind, can fall outside its limits. And if it is more than any feeling or thought which we know, it must still remain more of the same nature. It cannot pass into another region beyond what falls under the general head of sentience.

Bradley, F. H. (Francis Herbert), 1846-1924. Appearance and reality : a metaphysical essay (Kindle Locations 2251-2256). London : G. Allen.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 8th, 2014 at 7:31 PM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:



Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 7th, 2014 at 9:16 PM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
Sherab said:
If one holds the mind as a series of discrete mental moments, then by definition, there is a gap between one discrete moment and the next.  In the gap, there cannot be any consciousness and therefore knowledge.  Consequently, there is no guarantee that the transition from one discrete moment to another will be perfect since it is possible to postulate some disturbance during the transition of a mental moment from one to another that result in an imperfect transition.

Malcolm wrote:
But the mind is not a series of "discrete" mental moments in the way in which you are positing it. If you follow Nāgārjuna's reasoning, the mind is series of moments that are neither the same as nor different from each other. In the case of a person with āryan insight, there is no possibility of any disturbance between one moment of mind and the next because the mind stream has now been purified of causes for the arising of afflictions.

Āryan insight does not transform a relative mind into ultimate mind; it is relative mind that has the capacity to take the ultimate as an "object". The Gelugpa use the useful example of subjective clear light and objective clear light, subjective clear light is the mind that apprehends objective clear light.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 7th, 2014 at 9:07 PM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
Andrew108 said:
There is no first proof that mind and consciousness originated from matter.

Malcolm wrote:
Case closed.

Andrew108 said:
Not at all. Recent studies have shown that physical activity in the brain precedes mental events.

Malcolm wrote:
Still haven't discarded your brain-based physicalism, I see.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 7th, 2014 at 9:04 PM
Title: Re: African Americans & people of Color, & Buddhism in the W
Content:
rory said:
You've had two African-American posters tell you why they feel alienated and then you don't agree with their conclusions, say there are no differences, talk over them etc... Ugh.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, and we have gay people tell is why they feel alienated, white people who tell is they feel alienated, and so on. But the fact remains, ultimately Buddhadharma is not about changing the world to suit us since that is impossible. Ultimately, Buddhadharma is about overcoming suffering and the causes of suffering that lay within us, not outside us.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 7th, 2014 at 10:56 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
Sherab said:
[

Those who argue that ultimately, there is no ultimate, and only the relative is all there is, is basically saying that the traces are their own ground.  The consequence of this is that there can be no permanent liberation and any liberation is no different from annihilation.

Malcolm wrote:
Nonsense, one merely moves from an afflicted relative to a nonafflicted relative. Once one's mind is free of afflictions, it cannot revert because the cause of being free of afflictions is āryan insight, which cannot be lost.

From an ultimate point of view, the language of affliction or nonaffliction is incoherent.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 7th, 2014 at 10:53 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
Andrew108 said:
There is no first proof that mind and consciousness originated from matter.

Malcolm wrote:
Case closed.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 7th, 2014 at 2:41 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The variety of the world is created by the collective karma of sentient beings, not by some demiurge/s.

bob said:
I never said anything about demiurges. I simply indicated that a different class of beings than the human class is responsible for creating the illusion that is this 3-D environment, in contrast to Shabkar's assertion. However, since my view is apparently not within the Buddhist box, I will withdraw from further comment on this topic.


Malcolm wrote:
The Mahāyāna Buddhist point is that a given class of beings share a similar experience of a container universe because they have similar karma ripening at the same  time. You can understand this through the classic example of humans, devas, asuras, animals, pretas and hell beings all experiencing liquids differently, as water, nectar, a home, pus and blood or molten iron. Specifically the yogacara school regards the entire container universe to consist only of projections caused by the ripening of traces.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 7th, 2014 at 12:51 AM
Title: Re: Dr. Sanderson: Phowa etc. are directly from Saivism
Content:
Rakshasa said:
The 'fire puja' in Vedas

Malcolm wrote:
Upon which Buddhist fire pujas are clearly based.


Rakshasa said:
The defining feature of Shramanic indigenous religion was the belief in Karma and reincarnation - which is absent in ancient Vedicism. It is a conspiracy by Brahmins and some European scholars nowadays to give credit of Shramanistic religions to the Indo-Aryan, a Caucasian tribe related to many European peoples.

Malcolm wrote:
PIE peoples believed in reincarnation.

Rakshasa said:
Nadis and cakras, from the early Upanishads and Ayurveda
Blanket statement from a very parochialistic and biased point of view. In fact, Ayurveda came from Buddhist sages.

Malcolm wrote:
The earliest Ayurvedic text we gave is the Cakrasaṃhita. It is also the earliest source we have for Saṃkhya.


Rakshasa said:
Prāṇāyāma, corollaries to gtum mo and so on can be found in the Yoga sutras of Patañjali, and it is a daily part of Vedic practice and has been for three millennia.
The great Indian historian, Kashi Nath Upadhyaya, himself a Brahmin, has amply proven that the Patanjali Yoga sutra was in fact influenced heavily from Early Buddhism - not even later Mahayana Buddhism, but Early Buddhism.

Malcolm wrote:
However, prāṇayāma, and so on, things found in the Yoga sutras, clearly have no precedent in Buddhist texts. Just examine the Vibhūti-pādaḥ. While there are certainly very common ideas found in "early" Buddhist texts and the Yogasūtras, these commonality can be explained as coming from a common religious milieu, with different emphasis. For example, Pantañjali has the four brahma viharas, but the mode of explantion is quite different than the Buddhas.


Rakshasa said:
It is very unlikely that Buddhism has sprouted out of Hinduism,

Malcolm wrote:
I agree, but there is ample proof right in the early suttas that the Buddha's own world view was essentially informed by Vedic cosmological concepts. Later borrowings from Shaiva and other non-buddhist traditions have precedents in the Buddha's own lifetime.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 7th, 2014 at 12:41 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
Andrew108 said:
There isn't really any proof that the physical is created by the mental. This philosophical notion is just a heuristic device to promote mindfulness. And like most buddhist philosophy, it shouldn't be taken too seriously.


Malcolm wrote:
There is no proof the mental is created by the physical either.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 7th, 2014 at 12:33 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
Sherab said:
Would a madhyamika also hold the same explanation on how the physical is produce by the mental?

Malcolm wrote:
Even Abhidharma holds that matter is produced by mind, for example, when a being takes rebirth from the formless realm into the form realm, their physical body is created by their minds since here is no other cause for the matter their body is made up of.

Sherab said:
I started out with the Gelug tradition and was taught that beings in the formless realm, have a mind-made body.  I did not get any sense that the mind-made body was physical.  I was also taught that a result can come only from a similar cause, and because of that, as far as I understood, it was not held that something physical can come from something mental and vice versa.  At any rate, I never felt at home with the Gelug's take on a number of issues.

Anyway, I have yet to come across a Madhyamika's explanation that say that the physical is produced by the mental.  I posed the question in the hope that you may have come across something to the contrary to what I know and what I've learned while I was with the Gelugpas.

Malcolm wrote:
This is because the Gelugpas adhere to a sautrantika version of relative truth in their sutra explanation.

The Sakyas, Kagyus and Nyingmas tend to favor a Yogacara Madhyamaka explanation of relative truth.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 6th, 2014 at 10:50 PM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
Sherab said:
So the process by which the physical is produced by the mental is the same in yogacara madhyamaka is the same at that in cittamatra?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, since the former takes the latter as relative truth. Kalaśīla's Madhyamakālaṃkārapañjikā states:

Since the five characteristics of external cause and condition and and the dominant characteristic are false, existing as mind-only [cittamatra] is only non-arising in the manner of representation-only [vijñapati-matra]. Therefore, whatever the non-arising of the madhyamaka school might be, that demonstrates it.

Sherab said:
Would a madhyamika also hold the same explanation on how the physical is produce by the mental?


Malcolm wrote:
Even Abhidharma holds that matter is produced by mind, for example, when a being takes rebirth from the formless realm into the form realm, their physical body is created by their minds since here is no other cause for the matter their body is made up of.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 6th, 2014 at 10:04 PM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
Sherab said:
Seems very cittamitra to me.

Malcolm wrote:
Yogacara Madhyamaka, actually, ala Shantaraksita.

Sherab said:
So the process by which the physical is produced by the mental is the same in yogacara madhyamaka is the same at that in cittamatra?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, since the former takes the latter as relative truth. Kalaśīla's Madhyamakālaṃkārapañjikā states:

Since the five characteristics of external cause and condition and and the dominant characteristic are false, existing as mind-only [cittamatra] is only non-arising in the manner of representation-only [vijñapati-matra]. Therefore, whatever the non-arising of the madhyamaka school might be, that demonstrates it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 6th, 2014 at 9:39 PM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
Sherlock said:
The whole idea that the are other beings who create samsara but are not part of it is counter to Buddhadharma.

bob said:
FWIW, it might help to think of it as an adult class of beings creating a kindergarten environment for a child class of beings in need of behavior training. What I am suggesting is that there is a non-human class of beings who have created this stage for the human class of beings. It does not necessarily mean that the creator beings are beyond samsara (although at a certain level some might be considered "enlightened" beings by our limited descriptors).



Malcolm wrote:
Right, this view is outside of Buddhadharma and has no place within it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 6th, 2014 at 9:38 PM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:


bob said:
Yes, I understand that line of thinking, and at one time would have agreed. In a certain limited sense, there is even some truth to that, especially in regard to karma. We are all creators and creatures of each other, causing and bearing each other's burden within the sphere of our relations and so forth.

However, what I am referring to is the actual mechanics of this current manifestation which we are enjoying, known generally as "this world", which we as human beings have little hand in creating or maintaining (but are doing a pretty good job nevertheless of spoiling). We did not make the mountains, the rivers, or the tigers and elephants, or even our own bodies (which we think of as our own, at least).

In that sense, it is the work of another class of beings, just as is the sun, the moon, and the planets. Nor am I referring to some God-creator (although to most of us, these beings would appear god-like). In other words, there is a hierarchy, or ascending and descending classes of beings.

Now, I realize this comment might not align with the popular understanding of Buddhism, but nevertheless, it is the case. I am not trying to convince anyone of this, btw, but felt moved to insert it as a consideration. There is more to this world than meets the eye, or necessarily tallies with human philosophies or current scientific understanding.


Malcolm wrote:
The variety of the world is created by the collective karma of sentient beings, not by some demiurge/s.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 6th, 2014 at 9:22 PM
Title: Re: Dr. Sanderson: Phowa etc. are directly from Saivism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
So now you are claiming Buddhist tantra comes from China?

Zen Dude said:
I'd claim, that given the evidence I've seen, that some of the elements that are generally associated with Tantra, may have had origins in Pure Land/Proto-Tantric/Daoist practice in China, which of course, was conditioned, by Pure Land practice in India.  For instance, obviously the Chinese wouldn't have written an apocryphal sutra named the "Abhiseka-sutra", if they didn't have knowledge of what an Abhiseka was, from India.

Malcolm wrote:
In Buddhist tantra, abhisheka and fire puja are derived from the Vedas, the mantras are similar etc.



Zen Dude said:
Likewise, the earliest records of techniques related to manipulating the subtle winds, are from the Mawangdui( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mawangdui ) manuscripts, which, to my knowledge, predate anything similar from India by quite a bit.

Malcolm wrote:
Nadis and cakras, from the early Upanishads and Ayurveda

Prāṇāyāma, corollaries to gtum mo and so on can be found in the Yoga sutras of Patañjali, and it is a daily part of Vedic practice and has been for three millennia.

Zen Dude said:
Back to my original point, I think that there's sufficient evidence that Buddhist Tantra's( at least pre-yogini ), were not simply a copy and paste job from Saivites, as Sanderson seems to be suggesting.

Malcolm wrote:
He is not suggesting it is cut and paste job. He goes to great length to point out that it isn't that simple.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 6th, 2014 at 11:22 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
Sherab said:
Seems very cittamitra to me.

Malcolm wrote:
Yogacara Madhyamaka, actually, ala Shantaraksita.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 6th, 2014 at 10:45 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:



bob said:
As much as I respect your acumen, I would offer as a rough analogy that the beings who build the zoo are not of the same class as the beings who occupy the cages.

So too with the physical 3-D realm we take to be "the world", which is a stage with props provided for the training and edifying adventures of beings in a less advanced class by beings in a far more advanced class.

Of course, if we were to consider the matter from the absolute point of view, there are no beings, but that is skipping ahead a bit.


Malcolm wrote:
We build our own cage together, no one does it for us.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 6th, 2014 at 10:34 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Shabkar is basically claiming that the deluded perceptions of living beings are sufficient to cause similar appearances to other living beings of the same class.

bob said:
The beings who have created the illusion of the mountains are not of the same class as the beings who are perceiving the illusion as mountains.


Malcolm wrote:
Actually, they are.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 6th, 2014 at 10:03 AM
Title: Re: Dr. Sanderson: Phowa etc. are directly from Saivism
Content:


Sherlock said:
More like an innovation in India from whoever created the inner yogatantras.

Malcolm wrote:
Outer tantras.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 6th, 2014 at 10:03 AM
Title: Re: Dr. Sanderson: Phowa etc. are directly from Saivism
Content:
Zen Dude said:
=the first evidence of an abiseka...

Malcolm wrote:
Ummm...how about the rig veda?

Zen Dude said:
My understanding is that in that context, it would be only performed for gods/god-kings.  Introducing it's usage to commoners looks like an innovation on the Chinese side.

Malcolm wrote:
So now you are claiming Buddhist tantra comes from China?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 6th, 2014 at 9:59 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The external mountain is an entity that is capable of appearing because of the force of traces of the minds of all sentient beings. Shabkar uses the example of the woman who meditated upon herself as a tiger for a year, and frightened a village into slaying her because they perceived her as a tiger and not a human woman.

Sherab said:
Could you explain the process with which the "force of traces of the minds of all sentient beings" cause the external mountain?  In other words, how does something mental produce something physical.

The example used by Shabkar does not explain this process as far as I can see.  It explained how the meditating woman appeared as a tiger but does not explain how other tigers appear as tigers to the people of the village.  The woman could have meditated upon herself as a mountain and would appear as a mountain to the village people but that would not explain how other mountains appear as mountains to the village people.

Malcolm wrote:
Shabkar is basically claiming that the deluded perceptions of living beings are sufficient to cause similar appearances to other living beings of the same class.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 6th, 2014 at 7:14 AM
Title: Re: African Americans & people of Color, & Buddhism in the W
Content:


zsc said:
No one is an a-cultural person, but white mainstream Buddhism seems to frame their "stripped-down" practice as culture-free, when that itself is a cultural decision. Only western culture (WASP) is seen as just "normal" while poc have "cultural trappings".

Malcolm wrote:
I never maintained my practice was culture free. I still imagine Sambhogakāyas as 4th century Indian princes.

zsc said:
All I'm saying is that it's more complicated than ignoring it, or "not letting it get in your way". It doesn't "get in my way", in fact, but that doesn't mean it is a non-issue.

Malcolm wrote:
It is as much an issue as you allow it to be.

zsc said:
People do not become Buddhist unless they have the karmic connections to do so.
Not saying you are doing this, but you have to understand, poc Buddhists are told what you are saying nearly every time we dare to address racism, classism, and sexism, and it reads like "ignore how poorly you are treated and regarded" as if it doesn't matter in our every day lives. It does matter, and it also forms the experiences of many different poc in many ways.

Malcolm wrote:
Buddhism appears racist, classist and sexist to many people.

You are not really talking about how "Buddhists" treat you, you are talking about how you feel treated by caucasians.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 6th, 2014 at 6:42 AM
Title: Re: Dr. Sanderson: Phowa etc. are directly from Saivism
Content:
Zen Dude said:
=the first evidence of an abiseka...

Malcolm wrote:
Ummm...how about the rig veda?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 6th, 2014 at 4:53 AM
Title: Re: African Americans & people of Color, & Buddhism in the W
Content:
zsc said:
but I understand that a lot of black people want a black Buddhist culture of their own

Malcolm wrote:
Buddhadharma may have cultural trappings, but if you have the karma to be a follower of Buddhadharma, these things will not get in your way.

zsc said:
See the part in my post about "colorblindness", which is actually racism. Opinions like this one invalidate the experiences of people of color and attempt to shut down conversations about real world issues within the sangha.

Malcolm wrote:
It does not invalidate anything. A caucasian, I have personally experienced very intense racism at the hands of Tibetans. It did not get in my way. People do not become Buddhist unless they have the karmic connections to do so.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 6th, 2014 at 4:04 AM
Title: Re: African Americans & people of Color, & Buddhism in the W
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
For that reason and others, I feel somewhat iffy about different groups trying to consciously  create their own Buddhist sub-cultures, it seems a bit forced.

Malcolm wrote:
Seconded.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 6th, 2014 at 3:56 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
Andrew108 said:
I don't know if he is a nihilist and I couldn't care either way. I think he has more serious things to worry about.


Malcolm wrote:
You worry about your business, and I will worry about mine. In the meantime, since you obviously cannot address my citations and reasoning, be silent.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 6th, 2014 at 3:55 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
I never claimed reality existed, therefore I am free of the fault of claiming it does not exist.

Andrew108 said:
What on earth are you talking about? Just by sharing information and by posting here, you are making a claim that indeed at some level reality exists.

Malcolm wrote:
That's one of the silliest things you have ever said. It is like one illusory guy telling another illusory that because the second guy can respond to the first guy, the second is claiming the illusion is real.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 6th, 2014 at 3:53 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
I never claimed reality existed, therefore I am free of the fault of claiming it does not exist.

Andrew108 said:
What on earth are you talking about? Just by sharing information and by posting here, you are making a claim that indeed at some level reality exists. And then because you are smart you say that there is no reality.

You should stop this nonsense. Let life tell you what it is. This is much better than you and your intellect telling life what it should be.

smcj said:
Malcolm, now you're being accused of being a nihilist. This must not be your day.


Malcolm wrote:
It's not my limitation, it's mustang cave's.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 6th, 2014 at 3:49 AM
Title: Re: African Americans & people of Color, & Buddhism in the W
Content:
zsc said:
but I understand that a lot of black people want a black Buddhist culture of their own

Malcolm wrote:
Buddhadharma may have cultural trappings, but if you have the karma to be a follower of Buddhadharma, these things will not get in your way.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 6th, 2014 at 3:46 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
smcj said:
You really know how to thread the needle on this issue.


Malcolm wrote:
That's why they pay me the big bucks.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 6th, 2014 at 3:21 AM
Title: Re: eleventh fundamental downfall
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
so if its not "just emptiness", is that because its also clarity and compassion, or because emptiness is an extreme?


Malcolm wrote:
In this case it is because mere emptiness is an extreme. Clarity has to be a relative characteristic, since it is the foundation of the rūpakāyas.

gad rgyangs said:
i don't think the three characteristics of the basis are hierarchical : if emptiness is considered an extreme then so would be clarity and compassion.

Malcolm wrote:
Mere clarity is an extreme. That is why Dzogchen texts say thing like "Because it is empty, it is free from the extreme of existence; because it is clear, it is free from the extreme of nonexistence" and so on, when describing the mind-essence.

Lamdre texts say basically the same thing, as do Kagyu texts.

This is why we have the description of the mind essence as "the inseparability [thugs rje] of clarity [rang bzhin] and emptiness [ngo bo]". In reality, since the two truths are inseparable, so is clarity and emptiness.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 6th, 2014 at 3:16 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
'Malcolm said:
While it is clear that Dzogchen definitely posits the basis as a set of generic characteristics that belong to individual minds, it does not posit that appearances are mental factors.

smcj said:
So this is how you're distancing yourself from the Cittamatra?
Malcolm wrote:
One can experience only one's mind. For this reason Shabkar states in Flight of the Garuda:

Ignorance appearing as the five poisons is also the mind.
Self-originated primordial wisdom appearing as vidyā is also the mind...
There are no appearances at all apart from the mind.

smcj said:
(formatting mine)

Malcolm, I think you're in denial about having succumbed to the Cittamatra view. An intervention may be in order.

Malcolm wrote:
Subjectively speaking, all internal appearances are just mental images, whether those appearances are derived from your eyes up to your skin.

When you "see" a mountain, you are not aware of the direct perception of that mountain, since it is non-conceptual. What you are aware of is a secondary or derived perception which is an image of the mountain that your eye has captured. Gzhan stong has no theory of perception different than this.

The external mountain is an entity that is capable of appearing because of the force of traces of the minds of all sentient beings. Shabkar uses the example of the woman who meditated upon herself as a tiger for a year, and frightened a village into slaying her because they perceived her as a tiger and not a human woman.

This is not cittamatra view, this is Shantarakṣita's yogacara synthesis, where the view of relative truth is held to be cittamatra, and the view of ultimate truth is madhyamaka. Earlier Madhyamakas generally adopt the Sautrantika view for the most part for relative truth. But even here, no one confuses one's perception of the mountain, the mental image, with the mountain itself.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 6th, 2014 at 2:50 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
What is however true is that we can only experience the contents of our own minds

gad rgyangs said:
what is this "we" that would be something distinct from mind?

Malcolm wrote:
Of course not. One can experience only one's mind. For this reason Shabkar states in Flight of the Garuda:

Ignorance appearing as the five poisons is also the mind.
Self-originated primordial wisdom appearing as vidyā is also the mind...
There are no appearances at all apart from the mind.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 6th, 2014 at 2:45 AM
Title: Re: eleventh fundamental downfall
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
so if its not "just emptiness", is that because its also clarity and compassion, or because emptiness is an extreme?


Malcolm wrote:
In this case it is because mere emptiness is an extreme. Clarity has to be a relative characteristic, since it is the foundation of the rūpakāyas.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 6th, 2014 at 2:18 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
smcj said:
Therefore the distinction of calling "The Basis" either your own mind or calling it an undifferentiated universal is actually the argument between the Mind Only and Empty-of-Other schools.

Malcolm wrote:
Two problems here. While it is clear that Dzogchen definitely posits the basis as a set of generic characteristics that belong to individual minds, it does not posit that appearances are mental factors. Shabkar clarifies that the delusions of sentient beings are sufficiently strong so as to generate what seem to be concrete appearances for one another. This is why, for example, mountains do not disappear when we cease looking or thinking of them. So it is not accurate to parse this discussion in terms of a Cittamatra/gzhan stong split.

What is however true is that we can only experience the contents of our own minds, whether those minds are liberated or not. The basis mythos runs as follows: when the five lights are perceived, those five lights come from potency [rtsal] of our own minds and no where else. If we reify them as external to our own minds, then we fall into samsara. This is happening all the time. To reverse this, one must practice thogal working with entoptic visions that are understood to be produced internally, not externally. If you do not work with these visions, practicing merely tregchö, one will not be able to purify those traces in our minds that give rise to impure vision, though we may be able to realize the mind-essence and dissolve our bodies at death, we will never be able to realize the body of light.

Dzogchen practitioner are fond of saying that Dzogchen practice works with "wisdom" [ye shes] and not mind [rnam shes, sems], and this is true, but only because of a very specialized vocabulary which sharply defines the originally pure mode of consciousness [ye shes] from its derivative impure mode [rnam shes], for want of better terms in English.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 6th, 2014 at 2:03 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:


Andrew108 said:
The intent of Madyamaka is not to establish this 'no reality' thesis. It's praxis is the assertion that genuine reality (which everyone has access to) is beyond extremes.

Malcolm wrote:
No, since this would just be a statement of existence.

Andrew108 said:
If you say that there is no reality then of course you are stating that reality does not exist.

Malcolm wrote:
I never claimed reality existed, therefore I am free of the fault of claiming it does not exist. When someone points out your bank account is empty, is it their fault that you have no money? Have they destroyed money you thought you had? Of course not. It is the same when stating "there is no reality". This is merely pointing out the conclusion of freedom from all extremes.

Āryānantamukhapariśodhananirdeśaparivarta-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra states:
The Sugata said "existence" and "nonexistence" are extremes; whatever does not exist in the extremes, that also does not exist in the middle.

Ārya-varmavyūhanirdeśa-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra
Since this vehicle is without extremes, 
also the extreme of the middle does not exist.

Ārya-kāśyapaparivarta-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra:

Kāśyapa, "permanence" is one extreme; impermanence is the second extreme. Whatever is the middle of those two extremes, that also cannot be examined.

Sampuṭanāma mahātantra:

There is nothing empty, not empty, 
and nothing to perceive in the middle.

The Meditation on Bodhicitta:

The nonexistence dependent on existence does not exist, also that nonexistence does not exist. Because the extremes do not exist, the middle does not exist, also do not rest in the middle.

The sgra thal gyur:

Because of being free from extremes, do not abide in the middle.

So we can clearly see that sutra and tantra agree on one point, i.e. there is no reality in the extremes, and there is no reality beyond the extremes. Ergo, there is no reality, since reality would have to be either existence or non-existence and so on.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 6th, 2014 at 1:12 AM
Title: Re: eleventh fundamental downfall
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
in that case, conceptualizing the basis as "one's unfabricated mind" is an eleventh root downfall.


Malcolm wrote:
No, it isn't.

If you maintain that your mind-essence is just emptiness, that would be the downfall indicated. An unfabricated mind means a mind which is free from all proliferation, when the mind's own freedom from proliferation is not recognized, that mind becomes the basis for samsara; when it is recognized, that mind becomes the basis for nirvana.

However, as Jetsun Rinpoche points out, for beginners it is sufficient to recognize that phenomena are like dreams and illusions despite the fact that in reality they are free from names, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 5th, 2014 at 11:52 PM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Yeah, it does seem kind of silly to make such a big deal out of a generic characteristic. I don't know what Kangyur Rinpoche was smoking.


Malcolm wrote:
I answer you here:

https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=15767


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 5th, 2014 at 11:49 PM
Title: Re: eleventh fundamental downfall
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
From "The Treasury of Precious Qualities, Book Two":
The eleventh root downfall is to subject the ineffable, ultimate nature to logical assessment. That to which the word “dharmadhatu“ refers is beyond name, example, and indication; it is beyond all conventional labeling. And even though the discursive intellect can, in its ratiocinations, understand ultimate reality as being “emptiness“ and “lack of self,“ in fact this “no-self“ of phenomena is exclusively the field of self-cognizing primordial wisdom. It stands in clean contradiction to the conventional, dualistic mind. The sharp, investigating intellect may indeed point to what is a lesser kind of emptiness of phenomena, such as the aggregates, and say that it is ultimate reality, thereby claiming a superior view. But to evaluate the unborn nature, namely, inconceivable ultimate reality, according to the criteria of ordinary thought, constitutes the eleventh downfall.

Malcolm wrote:
The reason why this definition is not very desirable is that it means only a realized person can avoid this downfall, and since samaya is the root of the path, it means that one can never achieve awakening unless you are already a realized person.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 5th, 2014 at 11:21 PM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
Andrew108 said:
Of course it's not wrong to assert non-existence, but only when non-existence is used as an adjective that is one part of the description/experience of genuine reality. Saying that reality does not exist, that there is no reality, is far from the meaning and intent of all the Mahdyamaka texts I have studied.

Malcolm wrote:
It may not be not what you have understood, it is in fact the intent of Madhyamaka to point out that there is no reality, per se. Saying there is "no reality" [gnas lugs med pa] is quite different than saying reality does not exist. In fact it is basic "Heart Sutra" and is non-controversial.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 5th, 2014 at 11:15 PM
Title: eleventh fundamental downfall
Content:


Sherlock said:
Like this?

From Berzin's site (11) Not meditating on voidness continually

As with the ninth tantric root downfall, voidness can be understood according to either the Chittamatra or Madhyamaka systems. Once we gain an understanding of such a view, it is a root downfall to let more than a day and night pass without meditating on it.


With the caveat that maybe experiencing the "view" through practice is more important than understanding according to whatever tenet system?


Malcolm wrote:
What I mean by simple is what Sapan wrote:

"The eleventh is conceptualizing those 
phenomena which are free from name and so on."

[This means] conceptualizing phenomena free from name and so on as being phenomena free from name and so on. In brief, if one maintains that all phenomena which lack inherent existence [ngo bo nyid med, svabhāva] and are free from proliferation as being emptiness, it is a fundamental downfall.

As Berzin points out, this is related to the ninth, expressed by Sapan here:

"The ninth is doubt about
the naturally pure dharmatā"

The primal nature [rang bzhin, prakṛti] of all phenomena is free from proliferation. Since that is not understood, the doubt "Is [the nature of all phenomena] free from proliferation or not?" is a fundamental downfall.

When we consider the eleventh downfall, this effectively means that labeling phenomena as emptiness, when in fact they are free from proliferation, is a downfall.

The ninth basically means that a Vajrayāna practitioner should maintain the view at all times.

The qualm might come, how is a beginner to avoid the 11th downfall? Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen provides an answer:

"A beginner should think though indeed all phenomena are free from names, relatively, all phenomena appear like dreams and illusions", constantly training their minds in the example of illusion."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 5th, 2014 at 9:29 PM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:


Sherlock said:
Like this?


Malcolm wrote:
Continuing this on a new thread...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 5th, 2014 at 10:57 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
From "The Treasury of Precious Qualities, Book Two": The eleventh root downfall is to subject the ineffable, ultimate nature to logical assessment. That to which the word “dharmadhatu“ refers is beyond name, example, and indication; it is beyond all conventional labeling. And even though the discursive intellect can, in its ratiocinations, understand ultimate reality as being “emptiness“ and “lack of self,“ in fact this “no-self“ of phenomena is exclusively the field of self-cognizing primordial wisdom. It stands in clean contradiction to the conventional, dualistic mind. The sharp, investigating intellect may indeed point to what is a lesser kind of emptiness of phenomena, such as the aggregates, and say that it is ultimate reality, thereby claiming a superior view. But to evaluate the unborn nature, namely, inconceivable ultimate reality, according to the criteria of ordinary thought, constitutes the eleventh downfall.


Malcolm wrote:
I really dont accept this definition of the 11th downfall. It is much simpler than that.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 5th, 2014 at 4:49 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
We don't have an ultimate condition, apart from emptiness.

gad rgyangs said:
as you yourself said, emptiness is not "merely" absence of svabhava. so yes, we don't have an ultimate condition apart from the emptiness, clarity and compassion of the basis: that is the ultimate condition.

Malcolm wrote:
And that basis is just one's own mind.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 5th, 2014 at 4:20 AM
Title: Re: Tendai is a Ch'an school.
Content:


Indrajala said:
There is a lot hype and paranoia about China in the media, which is rather unfortunate, though understandable given the anti-Chinese propaganda constanly present in western (and Indian) media, to say nothing of how western Tibetan Buddhists usually uncritically accept everything their Tibetan colleagues tell them about China.

Malcolm wrote:
Having been to Chinese controlled Tibet personally, I know exactly how things there are, and things are every bit as bad as Tibetans say it is, if not much worse.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 5th, 2014 at 4:19 AM
Title: Re: Tendai is a Ch'an school.
Content:
Indrajala said:
Buddhism can operate albeit it needs to stay out of politics.

Malcolm wrote:
Right....try putting that one past Tibetans.

Indrajala said:
I really don't care what the average Tibetan thinks.

Malcolm wrote:
I know, you support Chinese imperialism in Tibet. You think it is "good for them".


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 5th, 2014 at 4:11 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
Andrew108 said:
@Malcolm. The purpose of going beyond the four extremes is that you are left positionless. This doesn't mean that you are left without reality. Certainly you can't use PrMa to assert that ultimately there is no reality. We both know that this is not possible.

Malcolm wrote:
If you claim there is some reality left over after having gone beyond the four extremes, that is an extreme.

One can certainly use PrMa to assert there is no reality. Even emptiness, suchness and so forth are empty. So in the end, all we are left with is our relative condition. We don't have an ultimate condition, apart from emptiness.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 5th, 2014 at 3:49 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
Andrew108 said:
Instead of saying that reality has no fixed identity Malcolm has made the mistake of saying that ultimately there is no reality. But everyone makes mistakes. So what.


Malcolm wrote:
Its not a mistake. There is no reality. In order for there to be "reality" (a state of being pertaining to things res+al+ity) it would necessarily be something that either existed, did not exist and so on.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 5th, 2014 at 3:47 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
you have to start with something undeniable, something that no one, buddhist, hindu, western philosopher, whatever, could reject.

the only thing that fits the bill is presence: the fact that there is something rather than nothing.

not only is this the starting point, its also the endpoint: the fact that there is something rather than nothing is ultimate reality.

Malcolm wrote:
The Dzogchen tantras don't support your position. Neither does ChNN. This is why he cites Sapan in his "Questions and Answers on the Cycle of Dzogchen":

If there is a view better than madhyamaka, 
that view would posses proliferation.

gad rgyangs said:
you seem reluctant to accept both freedom from extremes and instsnt presence. they are not in conflict.

Malcolm wrote:
Rigpa is relative, so of course they are not in conflict.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 5th, 2014 at 3:46 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
Andrew108 said:
It seems clear that the universe is in an 'on state' rather than an 'off state'. It may be that ultimately there is no ultimate reality (noone knows yet), but to assert that ultimately there is no reality is very strange. Especially since Dzogchen deals with reality as it is rather than ultimate/relative varients.


Malcolm wrote:
The only thing that is clear is that we are thinking beings subject to birth, duration and destruction. Everything beyond that is pure speculation by inconstant and impermanent mental states.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 5th, 2014 at 3:33 AM
Title: Re: Dr. Sanderson: Phowa etc. are directly from Saivism
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
Does this mean that we cannot consider Goraksha awakened?

Malcolm wrote:
I don't.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 5th, 2014 at 3:30 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
Andrew108 said:
Positing that ultimately there is no reality is a bit strange.

asunthatneversets said:
When you encounter the reflection of the moon in water, ultimately there is no moon.

Andrew108 said:
There is reality. That is what we are trying to understand. ''Ultimately there is no reality'' is the same as saying that ultimately there is no information, no energy, no display. Dzogchen doesn't refute reality.

Malcolm wrote:
Ultimately there is no information, no energy, no display. These things are all relative, not ultimate.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 5th, 2014 at 3:27 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
you have to start with something undeniable, something that no one, buddhist, hindu, western philosopher, whatever, could reject.

the only thing that fits the bill is presence: the fact that there is something rather than nothing.

not only is this the starting point, its also the endpoint: the fact that there is something rather than nothing is ultimate reality.

Malcolm wrote:
The Dzogchen tantras don't support your position. Neither does ChNN. This is why he cites Sapan in his "Questions and Answers on the Cycle of Dzogchen":

If there is a view better than madhyamaka, 
that view would posses proliferation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 5th, 2014 at 3:17 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
same question: so what is there, ultimately? if you say "nothing" you are a nihilist, and have done nothing to explain our presence.

Malcolm wrote:
Ultimately, there is no reality. If there were an ultimate reality, it would by necessity fall into one of the four extremes.

gad rgyangs said:
there is ultimate reality (there is something rather than nothing), but it is beyond the four extremes.

Malcolm wrote:
That is just an extreme.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 5th, 2014 at 2:19 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
You cannot define emptiness as being one thing or many things, since it is not a thing. It is the absence of inherent existence in things, and that is all.

ConradTree said:
But you always say emptiness is not absence of inherent existence.

Malcolm wrote:
Emptiness, in Mahāyāna, specifically refers to the absence of the four extremes in phenomena. This is the profound emptiness taught in Mahāyāna according to Gorampa and many other critics of Tsongkhapa, not the mere emptiness of inherent existence which is common which the śravaka systems.

Since phenomena cannot be found by any of the four extremes, they are illusory, and ultimately nonarisen.
I am not saying that emptiness is the mere absence of inherent existence. The "absence of inherent existence" can be understood as short hand for emptiness free from extremes. When you qualify that inherent existence which mere, it is too restrictive. It is like saying that emptiness is only the absence of inherent existence and nothing more.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 5th, 2014 at 1:44 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Regarding thugs rje, here's some more from the book. In the section "A general explanation of the fundamental nature of the ground" from Kangyur Rinpoche's commentary, he says of the ground: Consequently, the ground for what appears as samsara and nirvana (nonexistent as these are)445 is the nature of awareness ( rig pai chos nyid ), and this is primordially and perfectly endowed with the three kayas. Its pure nature ( ngo bo dag pa ) is dharmakaya; its luminous character (r ang bzhin gsal ba ) is sambhogakaya; and its cognitive potency endowed with the essence of awareness ( thugs rje rig pa'i snying po can ) is nirmanakaya.446
Footnote 446 reads as follows: It is important to note that in this account of the trikaya, the sambhogakaya and the nirmanakaya are aspects of inner luminosity, as will be explained. They are distinct from the sambhogakaya and nirmanakaya of outwardly radiating luminosity (the rupakaya in the usually accepted sense).
Maybe this distinction between the 2 types of rupakayas is relevant?

Malcolm wrote:
The only entity that can know is a mind. Positing some kind of noetic entity that is not a mind is incoherent.

Oh, and no, it is not relevant. The correct translation for "thugs rje" in a Dzogchen context is "compassion" and that's all. For example, Mipham provides "karuna" as the Sanskrit equivalent for thugs rje in a Dzogchen context.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 5th, 2014 at 1:41 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
same question: so what is there, ultimately? if you say "nothing" you are a nihilist, and have done nothing to explain our presence.

Malcolm wrote:
Ultimately, there is no reality. If there were an ultimate reality, it would by necessity fall into one of the four extremes.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 5th, 2014 at 1:19 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:


garudha said:
So if you think that ALL is truly Empty (including the basis) then who are you

Malcolm wrote:
Nominally speaking, malcolm, otherwise, no one.


garudha said:
and how do you arise?

Malcolm wrote:
Conventionally, due to causes and conditions; ultimately not at all.

gad rgyangs said:
this is why it makes no sense to say the basis is one's unfabricated mind: ultimately there is no "you" or "your mind", you & your mind are appearances of the basis. otherwise you are making your mind the basis of the basis!

Malcolm wrote:
Note that you use the qualifying term "ultimately", ultimately, there is also no basis; ergo, the basis is also something relative. That relative thing is just your own unfabricated mind, i.e. the mind essence, as Nyibum, Shabkar and many others state. It may not seem fun for modern "dzogchenpas", but the basis is just the mind essence. No mind, no essence. No dharmin, no dharmatā.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 5th, 2014 at 12:50 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
garudha said:
go amazon buy good sutra learn wisdom of Buddha.
Yes, this is good advice for you. I don't need to buy sutras in English since I read them in Tibetan.
I'm sorry. That last edit was not aimed at you. I didn't realise there might be such frisson before you put it like that.

Malcolm wrote:
No worries.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 5th, 2014 at 12:50 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
OK, why is it not invalid, if you don't mind my asking?

Malcolm wrote:
Because in Dzogchen, thugs rje is what generates mental appearances, thugs rje has/is what we call "rtsal".

dzogchungpa said:
Right, so the Padmakara translation "cognitive potency" actually seems more accurate than "compassion", in this context, doesn't it?

Malcolm wrote:
No, since it is a translation that is not based on the early commentarial imperatives. In others words, the definitions provided by "Vimalamitra" in his commentary on the sgra thal 'gyur should be regarded as the most authoritative and there can be no doubt that the term must be translated as compassion, and not whatever other glosses there are out there these days.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 5th, 2014 at 12:39 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
OK, why is it not invalid, if you don't mind my asking?

Malcolm wrote:
Because in Dzogchen, thugs rje is what generates mental appearances, thugs rje has/is what we call "rtsal".


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 5th, 2014 at 12:29 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:


garudha said:
So if you think that ALL is truly Empty (including the basis) then who are you

Malcolm wrote:
Nominally speaking, malcolm, otherwise, no one.


garudha said:
and how do you arise?

Malcolm wrote:
Conventionally, due to causes and conditions; ultimately not at all.


garudha said:
Or am I completely misinterpreting Eastern mysticism ?

Malcolm wrote:
Well, to begin with, there is no such thing as "Eastern mysticism", there are a bunch of religions loosely grouped as Hinduism, there are a bunch of religions loosely grouped as Buddhism. I happen to be a follower of Buddhadharma in its Tibetan expression.

garudha said:
go amazon buy good sutra learn wisdom of Buddha.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, this is good advice for you. I don't need to buy sutras in English since I read them in Tibetan.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 5th, 2014 at 12:00 AM
Title: Re: Tendai is a Ch'an school.
Content:
Indrajala said:
Buddhism can operate albeit it needs to stay out of politics.

Malcolm wrote:
Right....try putting that one past Tibetans.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 4th, 2014 at 11:50 PM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
There is no such as "oneness", at least not in Buddhadharma.

All experiences are subjective.

Anyway, you have not defined what your oneness is. Are all phenomena "one" in that they are all empty? Of course. Is there some existent underlying fabric that unifies all phenomena? Not in Buddhadharma. In Hinduism of various stripes, definitely, but not Buddhadharma.

garudha said:
Look, there's no truth to be found in a play of words.

I say simply as follows:

If all dharmas are empty,
Then the true dharma is like a diamond.

Are there other diamonds? -Yes, perhaps there are, perhaps the goddess wears the diamond in a ring on her finger (but this would be pure conceptualisation and fantasy).

AFAIK; the diamond is one.

Malcolm wrote:
You cannot define emptiness as being one thing or many things, since it is not a thing. It is the absence of inherent existence in things, and that is all.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 4th, 2014 at 11:48 PM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The meaning of the wisdom of thugs rje from the sgra thal 'gyur commentary:

Thugs is the affection for sentient beings in the heart. rJe is the arising of a special empathy for them.

dzogchungpa said:
Well, I'm a little confused. From "Treasury of Precious Qualities, Book Two", translator's introduction: In the context of the Great Perfection, thugs rje means, in the words of Yonten Gyamtso, “pure and unadulterated awareness that has not yet stirred from its own true condition or state,” but which has the potential to do so.


Malcolm wrote:
Yes, this is a much later philosophized definition, and while it is not invalid, it really does not address the point that the mind's naturally present compassion is the basis for the arising of the nirmanakāya at the time of the result.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 4th, 2014 at 11:22 PM
Title: Re: Possible confusion regarding language - Dharmadhatu
Content:
garudha said:
Because the "Dharmadhatu" is itself aware.

Malcolm wrote:
No, it isn't. The dharmadhātu is one thing, wisdom is another. You cannot say they are the same, all you can say is that they are inseparable.

garudha said:
If you have basis in something, and you are aware, then the something is aware too.

Malcolm wrote:
Apart from one's own mind, one has no other basis, and no other basis is needed. "The basis", in Dzogchen is just a way of describing an imagined state of how one's mind might have been prior to an equally imaginary bifurcation of samsara and nirvana.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 4th, 2014 at 11:12 PM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
garudha said:
Furthermore, You seem to have completely misread my intention. My intention was to describe dharmadhātu as a shared fabric.

Malcolm wrote:
No, I understood exactly what your intention was, and I completely disagree with it. Dharmadhātu is not a fabric, it isn't a thing. It is just a categorization of emptiness.

garudha said:
do you really reject Oneness?

Malcolm wrote:
There is no such as "oneness", at least not in Buddhadharma.

garudha said:
And what about so many peoples reports of Oneness...  Do you suggest that the experience "Oneness" is only to experience our own individual personal basis --and the "Oneness" is not the basis of all phenomena ?

Malcolm wrote:
All experiences are subjective.

Anyway, you have not defined what your oneness is. Are all phenomena "one" in that they are all empty? Of course. Is there some existent underlying fabric that unifies all phenomena? Not in Buddhadharma. In Hinduism of various stripes, definitely, but not Buddhadharma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 4th, 2014 at 10:57 PM
Title: Re: Possible confusion regarding language - Dharmadhatu
Content:
garudha said:
Because the "Dharmadhatu" is itself aware.

Malcolm wrote:
No, it isn't. The dharmadhātu is one thing, wisdom is another. You cannot say they are the same, all you can say is that they are inseparable.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 4th, 2014 at 10:54 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and the Two Stages
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Not for me. Mahayoga and Anuyoga are not my path. They can be someone elses path, but they are not mine.

Yudron said:
I'm curious:  In 2008 you posted you were practicing bum chen and advised everyone to do the same.  Did that not pan out for you was you had hoped?

rai said:
now i am curious, what is bum chen? is it some breathing exercise?


Malcolm wrote:
Khumbhaka.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 4th, 2014 at 10:53 PM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
responsiveness!!

Malcolm wrote:
Except for the _fact_ that the commentaries on the Dzogchen tantras clearly define thugs rje of the basis as "compassion" in the standard conventional sense of the term.

gad rgyangs said:
is compassion just a feeling or does it not also include responding to the needs of those who require compassion?

Malcolm wrote:
The meaning of the wisdom of thugs rje from the sgra thal 'gyur commentary:

Thugs is the affection for sentient beings in the heart. rJe is the arising of a special empathy for them.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 4th, 2014 at 10:51 PM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
garudha said:
Furthermore, You seem to have completely misread my intention. My intention was to describe dharmadhātu as a shared fabric.

Malcolm wrote:
No, I understood exactly what your intention was, and I completely disagree with it. Dharmadhātu is not a fabric, it isn't a thing. It is just a categorization of emptiness.

garudha said:
do you really reject Oneness?

Malcolm wrote:
There is no such as "oneness", at least not in Buddhadharma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 4th, 2014 at 9:55 PM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
responsiveness!!

Malcolm wrote:
Except for the _fact_ that the commentaries on the Dzogchen tantras clearly define thugs rje of the basis as "compassion" in the standard conventional sense of the term.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 4th, 2014 at 9:50 PM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:


garudha said:
Three things in favour of a Shared-Dharmadhatu:

1. All those who have thus-gone report it to be infinite (so it includes everything else).

Malcolm wrote:
Suchness, emptiness, luminosity (all synonyms) lack finitude so this hardly novel.

garudha said:
2. Quantum physics can only be explained by a Shared-Dharmadhatu.

Malcolm wrote:
The dharmadhātu has nothing to do with quantum physics.

garudha said:
3. The Buddha gave sermons in higher realms. How could there even be communication if a shared fabric didn't exist ?

Malcolm wrote:
In Mahāyāna, dharmadhātu is just a generic characteristic (samanyalakṣana). Vasubandhu notes in his commentary on the Madhyantavibhaga:

Apart from the absence of self in phenomena, there are no phenomena. Therefore, dharmadhātu is a so called "generic characteristic of phenomena", and whoever understands it like that, he or she will be unmistaken about the generic characteristic.

The dharmadhātu is not a "fabric", it is an abstraction. And abstraction of what? It is a abstraction of the emptiness of phenomena. By definition, samanyalakṣanas are considered unreal in Buddhadharma.

Sthiramati adds:

The dharmadhātu is emptiness. Since it is a generic characteristic, however it is in one thing, it also like that in all things.

There is really no difference between how dharmadhātu is defined in Dzogchen as opposed to sūtra.

As one of the Nāgārjunas stated:

The dharmadhātu does not arise, 
nor does it ever cease;
totally without affliction at all times, 
untainted in the beginning, middle and end.

There is no significant different between this statement and how the basis is defined in Dzogchen save for one minor point. Indeed, the basis is just the dharmadhātu. And the dharmadhātu is just a generic characteristic which describes the emptiness of phenomena in toto. The minor difference between the basis in Dzogchen and the dharmadhātu however, is that the basis is not "inert", the basis describes the generic characteristics of minds. However the basis is in one mind, it is like that in all minds. This is related to the principle of gcig shes kun grol, "knowing one liberates all".


garudha said:
Without a Shared-Dharmadhatu rebirth could not occur.

Malcolm wrote:
Of course it could.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 4th, 2014 at 3:55 AM
Title: Re: Dhyana (samten) in Vajrayana, especially Dzogchen
Content:
Sherlock said:
According to the Dan Martin article, Milarepa had 2 dzogchen teachers. Sgyerston dbangnge and the other one who was called either Dre lhadga or rongston. Sgyerston was his first teacher after the magic and hailmaking teachers.

The story aboutZhangston Chosbar shows that he taught Dzogchen more openly than lamdre.

Malcolm wrote:
My point was that Milarepa had ten teachers before he met Marpa. Milarepa received a major Vajrapani teaching cycle before he met Marpa. He understood creation and completion stage quite well.


Zhangston Chosbar only had one student for Lamdre, i.e., Sachen, as far as we know. My point was that while he may have taught Dzogchen, his own practice was Lamdre.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 4th, 2014 at 3:24 AM
Title: Re: Tendai is a Ch'an school.
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Are there then 5 types, one for each skandha?


Malcolm wrote:
No, just two, because the sensation and perception skandhas, while being mental factors in fact, are isolated because of their power in keeping one attached to samsaric phenomena.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 4th, 2014 at 3:23 AM
Title: Re: Dr. Sanderson: Phowa etc. are directly from Saivism
Content:
Sherlock said:
Is there actually Phowa in the sense of transference of consciousness to a pure land in Shaivism or other Hindu tantras? I know there is transference to corpses.

Malcolm wrote:
Read Sanderson's paper.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 4th, 2014 at 3:22 AM
Title: Re: Dr. Sanderson: Phowa etc. are directly from Saivism
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
Is the Mahasiddha view necessarily a Buddhist view?

Malcolm wrote:
It is necessarily a view consistent with dependent origination, emptiness and so on, otherwise, we couldn't consider a siddha "mahā" i.e. awakened.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 4th, 2014 at 2:50 AM
Title: Re: Dr. Sanderson: Phowa etc. are directly from Saivism
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
So, in regards to the various Nath and Kapalika Mahasiddhas, it was the Mahamudra view and not the practices that lead to their realisations?

Malcolm wrote:
Which siddhas do you have in mind?

Sherab Dorje said:
Carbaripa (Carpati), Kapalapa, Minapa...


Malcolm wrote:
We have to examine whether they are "siddhas" or mahāsiddhas. There is a difference. In general, it would be their practice of tantric practices combined with Buddhist view.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 4th, 2014 at 2:43 AM
Title: Re: Dhyana (samten) in Vajrayana, especially Dzogchen
Content:
Sherlock said:
Thanks Malcolm.

Historically though Milarepa didn't seem to be expert in the two stages when he met his Dzogchen teacher. But then I don't know what his hailmaking would have involved. Zhangston Chosbar also seemed to teach Dzogchen openly.


Malcolm wrote:
Milrepa was already quite expert in the two stages before he met Marpa. He studied with ten teachers prior to meeting Marpa.

According to the Lamdre histories, Zhang ston Chos 'bar taught the Brahmin cycle of Dzogchen "by day", but he secretly practiced Lamdre, "by night".


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 4th, 2014 at 2:06 AM
Title: Re: Tendai is a Ch'an school.
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Kirt, they have no universal health care at all. If you go to hospital, you must bring cash with you or they will not even admit you. The barefoot doctor thing does not exist anymore, not for decades.

kirtu said:
If you go to most hospitals in the US you must also bring some kind of payment with you.
Kirt


Malcolm wrote:
That is not true, Kirt, at least not in my experience. It is illegal for emergency rooms to turn you away for want of cash. I have never had to pay up front for any services, and in some places, like Cambridge, they have community hospitals that are chartered to provide free service. When I lived in Cambridge, I used Cambridge City Hospital often.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 4th, 2014 at 1:53 AM
Title: Re: Tendai is a Ch'an school.
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
and then other countries that are in absolute absolute shambles despite having self-governance like India compared to authoritarian states like China which actually ensure a basic standard of living for most people despite their shortcomings.
China does not provide a basic living for most people. They do not even provide universal health care.

kirtu said:
Aside from the treatment of Tibetans, Mongolians and Uighurs (and those are huge "asides"), China is not as bad as it could be.  And the US also does not provide universal health care in any form (not even the recently introduced so-called "Obamacare" does although it is a step in the right direction as far as coverage goes).  One of the moderate successes of the PRC is that they did attempt to create universal health care through the Barefoot Doctors and then expanded from that point.

Kirt


Malcolm wrote:
Kirt, they have no universal health care at all. If you go to hospital, you must bring cash with you or they will not even admit you. The barefoot doctor thing does not exist anymore, not for decades.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 4th, 2014 at 1:05 AM
Title: Re: Tendai is a Ch'an school.
Content:


Indrajala said:
I used to think otherwise, but after traveling around Asia and living in several countries I've decided otherwise. For instance, I've seen countries that work well and are only semi-democratic if not having been authoritarian in the past (Japan, Taiwan, Singapore),

Malcolm wrote:
Did it occur to you this is more cultural than "human"?

Indrajala said:
and then other countries that are in absolute absolute shambles despite having self-governance like India compared to authoritarian states like China which actually ensure a basic standard of living for most people despite their shortcomings.

Malcolm wrote:
China does not provide a basic living for most people. They do not even provide universal health care.

Indrajala said:
So over time I've taken on a rather Confucian approach to political values, as offensive as it might be to a lot of westerners.

Malcolm wrote:
It is not offensive, but it is amusingly anachronistic.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 4th, 2014 at 1:00 AM
Title: Re: Karma
Content:
kresh said:
thanks for the replies!!
I have a follow up question:
is there an amount of good or bad karma? what I mean by that is: is there a difference in bad karma between say stealing a candy bar or killing someone? good karma? picking up somebodies garbage verses helping a homeless man/woman in need?

thanks

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, there are differences, but it mostly has to do with the force of your intention.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 4th, 2014 at 12:59 AM
Title: Re: Dr. Sanderson: Phowa etc. are directly from Saivism
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
So, in regards to the various Nath and Kapalika Mahasiddhas, it was the Mahamudra view and not the practices that lead to their realisations?

Malcolm wrote:
Which siddhas do you have in mind?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 4th, 2014 at 12:53 AM
Title: Re: Dhyana (samten) in Vajrayana, especially Dzogchen
Content:
Sherlock said:
E. Successful shamatha through kyerim also makes your mantras work


theanarchist said:
Mmh, as far as I understand it to make vajrayana really meaningful you have to have an experience of emptiness nature (otherwise everything involving a deity is still contrived) and shamatha does not provide an insight into emptiness nature (that would happen with vipasshana).

Malcolm wrote:
That is what happens during empowerment/direct introduction.

theanarchist said:
I see it rather the other way, mantra is a good focus of your shamatha practice. For example very occasionally I wake up during the night with a nightmare. In that non-meditative emotionally upset state to recite mantra is a powerful antidote to the disturbed feeling. After a short while the negative state completely dissolves and makes room for comfortable peace. So obviously mantra can work very well in a disturbed state of mind.

Malcolm wrote:
The meaning of mantra is Manas + tra, i.e. protector of the mind.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 4th, 2014 at 12:51 AM
Title: Re: Dhyana (samten) in Vajrayana, especially Dzogchen
Content:
Allan Wallace said:
I have also heard of many people who say they have achieved shamatha and dhyana, many claiming to have done so within a mater of days, weeks, or just a few months. But despite such reports, few appear to be able to effortlessly maintain flawless samadhi for at least four hours, with their senses fully withdrawn, while abiding in a luminous state of blissful samadhi.

Pero said:
Malcolm, is your first dhyana the same as Wallace's first dhyana? I haven't read everything available about Dzogchen or Vajrayana but in what I have I haven't seen such a requirement for practice. Seems a bit odd really.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, when you have attained the first dhyāna, you have the capacity to remain in that for as long as you want with no discomfort. It doesn't matter if it is 20 minutes or twenty hours.

The downside of the 1st dhyana is that it is easy to become addicted to it. Then you are just creating traces for rebirth in the form realms. So I think Wallace is being a little bit sutrayāna in his approach here. However, being able to sit comfortable in one posture for a long while is definitely beneficial for longde and thogal practice.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 4th, 2014 at 12:46 AM
Title: Re: Dhyana (samten) in Vajrayana, especially Dzogchen
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Rongzom is neutral on this point. He maintains that whether one is doing standard śamatha or mantra practice, one must develop these five mental factors. He does not claim one is superior to the other.

Sherlock said:
OK, but you are not really neutral, are you?

Malcolm wrote:
In fact I am neutral.

Sherlock said:
The point you had been developing is that two-stages are important for wannabe Dzogchenpas too right? Nothing wrong with sutra-style shamatha but kyerim offers more carry-over to Dzogchen practice?

Malcolm wrote:
You can either go with the classic Nyingma three inner yana approach, or follow someone like ChNN. I don't really think one can claim one approach is superior to the other. For some, sutra mahāmudra style practice might be all they need.

Sherlock said:
According to that Germano article, Longchenpa also regarded the two stages as important preliminaries. However, he also talked about the completion stage with little elaboration for those with difficulties with the developing stage. Do the other schools have practices like what we find in the 7th lojong in order to stabilize dhyana or do they typically depend on kyerim (whether with mantra or without)?

Malcolm wrote:
The point of completion stage is to allow one to rapidly access the nonconceptual state associated with a deep samadhi. Creation stage is the container for that. Dzogchen classically would be practiced by people quite expert in the creation and completion stages. This is no longer the case.

Sherlock said:
My knowledge of two-stages is quite lacking. So far I'm just trying to follow the Precious Vase. If I have the opportunity maybe I should receive teachings on more elaborate sadhana practices and try to find a teacher to clarify my doubts on how it is exactly done.

Malcolm wrote:
If you are content with ChNN's teachings, Mandarava is quite elaborate enough in terms of creation and completion.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 4th, 2014 at 12:41 AM
Title: Re: Dr. Sanderson: Phowa etc. are directly from Saivism
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
Most of the time when I hear claims like these I think to myself:  "So what if they are?"

Buddhists do not have a monopoly on Dharma after all.

If a practice works why not use it?


Malcolm wrote:
Sapan clarifies that what distinguishes Hindu and Buddhist tantra is view, not practice.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 4th, 2014 at 12:17 AM
Title: Re: Tendai is a Ch'an school.
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
...your strongest attachment is through the sam̋jñā skandha, rather than the vedana skandha...

dzogchungpa said:
This is interesting. Is it a traditional Buddhist idea that people typically have a strongest attachment through a particular skandha?

Malcolm wrote:
It comes from the Kosha.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 4th, 2014 at 12:07 AM
Title: Re: gaden nyen gyu?
Content:
Tsongkhapafan said:
You'll be glad to know that the Ganden Oral Lineage is alive and well and living in this world They are mainly special practices of Guru Yoga and Mahamudra views and methods.


Malcolm wrote:
Yes, this is indeed a good thing.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 3rd, 2014 at 11:28 PM
Title: Re: Dr. Sanderson: Phowa etc. are directly from Saivism
Content:
Zen Dude said:
I find his scholarship to be extremely lacking.  An example -


Malcolm wrote:
Well, we all have opinions. Personally, much of what he says is backed up in Tibetan accounts which give the purpose for promulgating Buddhist tantra, i.e., to attract Shaivas and others to Buddhism by providing them with a religious form they could relate to. Sakya Pandita is very clear virtually all the practices in Buddhist tantra have Shaiva, etc., counterparts.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 3rd, 2014 at 11:22 PM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
mutsuk said:
You should read JLA's study of the issue in his PhD. He has covered the whole thing in much more details.

Malcolm wrote:
I am sure, but it is a fact that the accounts about Shri Siṃha in the lo rgyus chen mo do not tally with earlier accounts of Shri Siṃha on any level. I have examined all the early accounts related to this, and there are serious discrepancies in the lo rgyus chen mo, beyond the fact that it is based on an account in Vima Nyinthig itself (which was thus penned by Zhang ston). Of course, Zhang ston's account of events of Vimalamitra's life, etc., was then eclipsed by Nyang ral's treasure bio of Guru P. So what we wind up with is three separate accounts, which are at serious variance with each other on key details, with the later ones (Zhang, Nyang ral) superseding the earlier ones (mainly the account found in the pan grub thugs bcud, which itself is most certainly the basis for Vairocana 'dra bags literature).

By the time we get to Longchenpa, it is all hopelessly garbled, with Longchenpa asserting that Zhangton and Chetsun met. Thus now you see it repeated everywhere that Zhangton was Chetsun's student, when in fact the two men never physically met, and in fact Zhangton was a disciple of Chegom Nagpo. Then of course there is the slanderous asserting preserved in Khetsun Zangpo's brief bio that the reason Zhang ston did not achieve rainbow body is that he allowed his semen to be released, resulting in the birth of his son, Nyibum.

mutsuk said:
I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about the detailed account of the revelation of the 17 Tantras and related material. In JLA published version of his PhD, it is pp. 81-82.

Malcolm wrote:
If we take Zhang ston on his word, then counting backwards, we get 210 years from the time lDang ma discovers the 17 tantras, 180 years from the time when they met, this gives us an approximate date of 916 when the tantras were revealed, and a date of 946 when Chetsun meets lDang ma. But this seems impossible to me because Chetsun was a contemporary of Drogmi Lotsawa. Chetsun has a student called Myang bka' dam pa, thus this places him after 1042, the year Atishas arrives in Purang. So Chetsun's datable era of activity must be between 1042 and around 1064 (the most probably date for the passing of Drogmi according to Davidson). This means that if Zhang ston is correct about when Chegom visited Chetsun's place of attaining rainbow body, this had to have happened roughly in around 1048, though this is maybe a little too soon.

The whole thing hinges on the identity of "Myang bka' dam pa". Since he knew lDang ma,  this places lDang ma squarely in the eleven century. I really can't believe that that 17 tantras, in general, are earlier than lDang ma. lDang ma's death cannot be earlier than mid 11th century, which places his meeting with Chetsun in the late 1040's. Of course it is possible they were written in the first half of the 11th century, but for various reasons it is my present opinion that it is unlikely that any of them predate 1000. They demonstrate far too much influence from gsar ma tantras to be very early.

As far as I can tell, Zhang ston's own dates are a little unrealistic, apart from his date for the Buddha's Parinirvana, but he clearly reporting what Chegom told him about Chetsun and lDangma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 3rd, 2014 at 6:20 AM
Title: Re: Karma
Content:
kresh said:
I understand what the concept of karma is; actions have consequences. What my question is: what renders those actions good or bad?

Malcolm wrote:
The Buddhas defined ten natural non-virtues: taking life, taking what has not been given and sexual misconduct, lying, harsh speech, calumny and gossip, malice, greed and ignorance (of cause and effects).

That is what makes a given action non-virtuous. The opposite are virtuous karmas.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 3rd, 2014 at 6:04 AM
Title: Re: gaden nyen gyu?
Content:
lama tsewang said:
i have heard of something called an ear whispered gaden tradition . is this something within the gelugpa tradition , thats a little bit separate?
ie. maybe like some of the methods that rechungpa learned.

i have heard here and there that part of it is the lama chopa and the text on gelug-kagyu mahamudra.
and maybe chod?

These thoughts come up because just a few days ago , i was notified that dechen ling press has a new commentary out on lama chopa , and appended to the commenttary in the back of the book, they added the famous text on gelug -kagyu mahamudra.
tsewang

Malcolm wrote:
It's based on a mystical book called the dge ldan sgyu phrul legs bam, the miraculous book of Ganden. According to legend, it is a book passed down to dben sa pa aka rgyal ba blo bzang don grub. There is but a single copy, and it is claimed that whenever the owner of this book needs to know something related to sutra and tantra, the answer miraculously appears in it. Indeed, Ganden Chod, Mahāmudra and the bLa ma mchod pa are supposed to be sourced in this book. Interestingly, Samten Karmey discovered a manuscript in Bhutan which is definitely from the dben sa pa lineage that bore the name blo bzang bka' 'bum. Thus the legend was grounded in fact. These days, the main promulgators of the myth of the dge ldan sgyu phrul legs bam are the Shugden folks, since they believe that this miraculous book was passed to Pabhonkga, and he to Trijiang Rinpoche. Of course, HHDL quipped once that the real dye ldan sgyu phrul legs bam was the 18 volumes of Lama Tsongkhapa's collected works. According to Karmay, the dge ldan bka' rgyud both represents the views of Lama Tsongkhapa when he was younger and also "leans" Nyingma.  It has always been a little controversial in Gelugpa.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 3rd, 2014 at 5:48 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
Sherlock said:
Leaving aside the issue of guru devotion, one of the main roles for the guru is to present all his accumulated knowledge to his students in a way that fits their capacities isn't it?

Malcolm wrote:
Indeed, but it is the job of the student to increase their capacity, and sectarianism generally arises from feeling that one's teachers presentation is sufficient, or the best, without having properly examined the presentations of others. This is why a lot of hostility on the part of some Nyingmas, Kagyus and Sakya against the views of Lama Tsongkhapa are frankly ridiculous, likewise the hostility of some Gelugpas against the views of Gorampa and Dolbuwa, and so on.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 3rd, 2014 at 5:30 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
Sherlock said:
No, but his presentation would be a bit more relevant for one's practice than others'. But it's good to read other works of course.

Malcolm wrote:
I would think the Buddha's presentation would be the most relevant, don't you?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 3rd, 2014 at 5:29 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
mutsuk said:
You should read JLA's study of the issue in his PhD. He has covered the whole thing in much more details.

Malcolm wrote:
I am sure, but it is a fact that the accounts about Shri Siṃha in the lo rgyus chen mo do not tally with earlier accounts of Shri Siṃha on any level. I have examined all the early accounts related to this, and there are serious discrepancies in the lo rgyus chen mo, beyond the fact that it is based on an account in Vima Nyinthig itself (which was thus penned by Zhang ston). Of course, Zhang ston's account of events of Vimalamitra's life, etc., was then eclipsed by Nyang ral's treasure bio of Guru P. So what we wind up with is three separate accounts, which are at serious variance with each other on key details, with the later ones (Zhang, Nyang ral) superseding the earlier ones (mainly the account found in the pan grub thugs bcud, which itself is most certainly the basis for Vairocana 'dra bags literature).

By the time we get to Longchenpa, it is all hopelessly garbled, with Longchenpa asserting that Zhangton and Chetsun met. Thus now you see it repeated everywhere that Zhangton was Chetsun's student, when in fact the two men never physically met, and in fact Zhangton was a disciple of Chegom Nagpo. Then of course there is the slanderous asserting preserved in Khetsun Zangpo's brief bio that the reason Zhang ston did not achieve rainbow body is that he allowed his semen to be released, resulting in the birth of his son, Nyibum.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 3rd, 2014 at 5:18 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:


Sherlock said:
If you are a student of ChNN, read The Precious Vase's section on how to practice the dhyanaparamita.

Malcolm wrote:
If one is a student of ChNN, is one required to limit oneself to his presentations?

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 3rd, 2014 at 1:17 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
mutsuk said:
JLA was the first to note these things in 1992. He since that time has used the commentary of the Klong drug (he obtained in Chengdu in 1994) to show that the bi ma la'i klong 'grel must be another text (still unfound).

Malcolm wrote:
IN looking at the style of the citations, they do not resemble the klong drug commentary we have at all.

mutsuk said:
Well there is a detailed chronology in the Lo-rgyus chen-mo which says otherwise. We have no reason to doubt that chronology, do we, since it sound pretty much non-apologetic...

Malcolm wrote:
We have every reason to doubt the lo rgyus chen mo. It is a piece of religious fiction. Anyway, this is the chronology given by Zhangton himself:

0 Parinirvana of the Buddha
360 AP Birth of Vajraprahe
544 AP Mañjuśrīmitra meet Vajraprahe
830 AP Shri Siṃha meets Mañjuśrīmitra
984 AP Shri Siṃha’s parinirvana
994 AP Jñānasūtra’s parinirvana
1080 AP Vimala arrives in Tibet
1093 AP Vimala leaves for China
1148 AP Nyang erects Zhwa Gon and conceals the texts
1358 AP lDang ma discovers the termas
1388 AP lDang ma gives them to lCe bTsun
1568 AP Zhang ston bKra Shis rDo rJe removes the unsurpassed secret cycle.

If we consider that Vimala arrives in Tibet after the death of Trisrong Detsen (which really is a certainty), but before 20, this means according to Nyinthig chronology, Buddha's parinirvana was between 390-370. By Zhangton's own dates them, he revealed the Vima Nyingthig between 1178-1198, which is obviously too late because he had passed alway already. If we move the dates fifty years earlier, it gives an approximate date of 1128 for the revelation of the Nyinthig. Though it is often held that Zhangton med Chetsun directly, in fact this was only a visionary encounter on a brigde in Tsang between 1122-1128 after Zhangton had already revealed the Vima Nyinthig. He says at the end of the Lo rgyus chen mo:

As such, thirty years later, having gone to the place where lCe bTsun disappeared lCe sGom Nag po of mNar mDa’ in Rong took out the outer, inner and secret oral lineage and the instruction was not promulgated to others apart from himself. These then spread widely in dBus and gTsang. Fifty years after the revelation by lCe sGom, I removed these unsurpassed secret cycles and the instruction was not promulgated to others apart from myself. At this time, one thousand five hundred sixty eight years have elapsed since the Buddha’s parinirvana.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 3rd, 2014 at 1:04 AM
Title: Re: Hardships and Downfall of Buddhism in India
Content:



theanarchist said:
I don't know, history shows that as soon as one ruling class is removed (for example by revolution) another ruling class comes into power and the whole game starts over.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, because of the karma of some people to be in power, others to be in service, some poor, some wealthy and so on.


theanarchist said:
So, yes, it definitely depends on your karma if you become victim of these structures or not but it's not "karma" that Homo sapiens as a species developed this trait through evolution and it is genetically fixed in their brain structure.

Malcolm wrote:
When considering karma, there are no "victims". And yes, it is a result of karma that human beings developed all traits they bear.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 3rd, 2014 at 12:26 AM
Title: Re: Hardships and Downfall of Buddhism in India
Content:
Indrajala said:
Those who might have veered away from Vedic orthodoxy were still accepted no matter how eccentric they became .


theanarchist said:
That sounds so familiar.... Seems to be a worldwide phenomenon that ruling classes strive to eradicate everyone who threatens the status quo. Frankly, humanity is disgusting.

Malcolm wrote:
You need to study karma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 3rd, 2014 at 12:16 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
Sherlock said:
Interesting, thanks.

Do you know what kind of practices are in the Bram ze'i skor? I think that is the earliest Dzogchen cycle mentioned by a non-Dzogchen practice lineage (Sakya). Also, if Zhang ston Chos 'bar openly mentioned the word 'Dzogchen' in opposition to the new translations to Sachen, it seems that there was an awareness about the Dzogchen and its 'old' origins among the public.

Malcolm wrote:
I am pretty sure the Brahmin cycle is a terma system, but I forget which Tibetan master was responsible for its promulgation in the 11th century. It is generally classified as yang ti.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 3rd, 2014 at 12:06 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
mutsuk said:
Concerning the age of these Tantras, JLA has shown that the Klong-drug is mentioned by title in the bSam-gtan mig-sgron (although without quote, but anyway, the Kun tu bzang po klong drug pa'i rgyud is the only Tantra I know of whose abridged title is Klong-drug, the standard abridged title for this tantra).


Malcolm wrote:
The Mu tig phreng ba commentary treats the 17 tantras as a single collection, but whether it was composed before or after the Vima Nyinthig is very hard to say.

It is true that there is a mention of a text called the klong drug on folio 17a, and there is also a text mentioned called the vi ma la klong 'grel which is mentioned three times, as mentioned by Dylan Esler in his article. However, this is extremely uncertain evidence. Until someone actually goes through the whole of the extant klong drug commentary, we cannot be sure that this commentary attributed to Vimalamitra is in fact the same as the one mentioned by Nubchen, don't you agree?

There is a second issue, which is we don't really know exactly when the bSam gtan mig sgron was composed, but it certainly could not be earlier than circa 1000 CE.

So, as far as I am concerned this still leaves the seventeen tantras as roughly early 11th century compositions, since the first external mention of them is in the Vima Nyinthig, which was definitely composed around 1122 by Zhangston.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 2nd, 2014 at 10:45 PM
Title: Re: Dhyana (samten) in Vajrayana, especially Dzogchen
Content:
Sherlock said:
So Malcolm, am I right in saying that your point here is that:

A. Dzogchen practitioners must have stable shamatha to the level of the first dhyana

Malcolm wrote:
Check

Sherlock said:
B. Creation stage is a shamatha practice that can help develop that

Malcolm wrote:
Check

Sherlock said:
C. Visualizations are used in both creation stage and in Dzogchen practices

Malcolm wrote:
Check

Sherlock said:
D. General sutra-style shamatha doesn't usually involve visualizations

Malcolm wrote:
Check (kaśina meditation aside, and then there are the impure dhyana topics, such as visualizing yourself as a skeleton and so on)

Sherlock said:
E. Successful shamatha through kyerim also makes your mantras work

Malcolm wrote:
Check

Sherlock said:
Conclusion: A major reason for Dzogchen practitioners to develop the dhyanic factors by training shamatha through kyerim is that the visualization skills developed will be useful in other practices, and also for the mantra benefit. Therefore it is more useful for Dzogchen practitioners than sutrayana style shamatha.?

Malcolm wrote:
Rongzom is neutral on this point. He maintains that whether one is doing standard śamatha or mantra practice, one must develop these five mental factors. He does not claim one is superior to the other.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 2nd, 2014 at 9:18 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
The texts are always experientially addressed to the reader, to discover his or her state, which of course is the basis, they never say "theres my basis and theres your basis, we really exist as separate subjects so we have separate bases."
to discover his or her state

Malcolm wrote:
You don't need to theorize all kinds of different heats, to understand that all fires have the characteristic of heat. The basis is the same, all sentient beings and buddhas have the same set of characteristics, essence, nature and compassion. The general basis (spyi gzhi, not gzhi gzhi) is just a set of characteristics shared by all sentients,whether buddhas or samsarins, just as all fires share the quality of heat, and that is all it is.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 2nd, 2014 at 9:14 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
Sherlock said:
constructors of this narrative attempted to sketch out why no one from India in the sarma period had heard of it and at the same time make it sound more powerful than anything the New Translators were returning with.

Malcolm wrote:
The hilarious about this is very late narrative is that guys like Nyibum, Rongzom etc., were very active in the gsar ma scene. Nyibum was a student of Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen, Nyibum's son, Guru Jober, was a student of Sapan, and so on. Chetsun Senge Wangchuk supposedly assisted Drogmi by giving him gold with which to donate to Gayadhara and so on.

The reason why no one in India had ever heard of the man ngag sde teachings is that they never existed in India at all, and were constructed by Tibetans in the 11th century. Not all Nyingma tantras were composed/revealed by Tibetans, but the Dzogchen tantras, in my opinion (as I have mentioned frequently) most certainly were composed/revealed strictly by Tibetans and never existed in India, ever, nor even "Oddiyāna".


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 1st, 2014 at 11:42 PM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:


Sherlock said:
End of the day, my Dzogchen teachers say Dzogchen is better than Mahamudra and I believe them.

Malcolm wrote:
In the end, this is mere puffery and triumphalism. It's like saying you can't get rainbow body from practicing Vajrayogini.

You may be more interested in practicing Dzogchen rather than practicing Lamdre, or Mahamudra, etc., but in the end one does not lead to a result higher than than the other.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 1st, 2014 at 11:22 PM
Title: Re: Myanmar considers law restricting interfaith marriage
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
Appearances are irrelevant, ones internal condition is what is important.

Sufism is also oppressed and suppressed by Shiite and Suni governments, does that mean there is nobody practicing Sufism in Shiite and Suni countries?

Burma is apparently a Buddhist country, if their Buddhism is being overrun by Islam then they need to ask themselves "Why?" because banning interfaith marriages is not going to be a long-term solution.

Malcolm wrote:
They are not banning interfaith marriages, they are guaranteeing the right of Buddhist women to keep their Buddhist faith if they enter into marriage with Muslims, undoubtedly to discourage Muslim men from marrying Buddhist women (who then must convert to Islam). You clearly did not read the article carefully:

The proposals include a law "to give protection and rights for ethnic Buddhists when marrying with other religions", as well as a ban on polygamy and legislation to "balance the increasing population".


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 1st, 2014 at 11:18 PM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
Sherlock said:
Kongtrul says completion is secondary in Creation and Completion.

Malcolm wrote:
Secondary in what sense? Secondary in the sense that yantra is a secondary practice?

The practice of completion stage is what causes one to achieve buddhahood. It is not merely for "reducing attachment" to the creation stage. On the other hand, what he may mean is the "completion" stage practice of dissolving the deity. This still cannot be construed as "secondary" since in a Nyingma sadhana practice, this is where one rests in tregchơ̈.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 1st, 2014 at 11:01 PM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
Sherlock said:
I was wondering about the dhyanas in relation to Dzogchen recently. Thanks for the info.

However what about just practicing the semdzins?

Malcolm wrote:
If they induce those mental factors, great. If they don't...

Developing a stable śamatha is crucial in Dzogchen. Just look at the seventh lojong. If someone wants to pursue SMS they will get nowhere without doing many months of long 2 hour sessions. And it gets more meditation heavy the higher you go.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 1st, 2014 at 10:58 PM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Contrary to popular belief, Dzogchen practitioners also need to maintain their samayas (plural), not just the groovy ones like non-existence, ubiquity, singleness and natural perfection (which can't be broken anyway).

dzogchungpa said:
What are the non-groovy ones, say, for members of the DC?


Malcolm wrote:
The standard 27.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 1st, 2014 at 10:57 PM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
Sherlock said:
It seems to me like you are in Sakya mood again, trying to see Dzogchen as just the completion stage of Nyingma. That might have been the view of Sakya Pandita

Malcolm wrote:
Actually, it's Mipham's point of view.


Sherlock said:
Dzogchen like Jamgon Kongtrul, Karma Chagmed, Namkhai Norbu all agree that Dzogchen is different from Mahamudra.

Malcolm wrote:
Of course the path of Dzogchen thögal is different than the path of the two stages, (but it doesn't really seem to be that different when you examine the sbyor drug, despite mutsuk's protests to the contrary).

None of them would say that Dzogchen produces a Buddhahood superior to the path of the two stages. That is a Bonpo point of view.


Sherlock said:
In the two stages, the completion stage is secondary to the generation stage, to reduce attachment to the generation stage.

Malcolm wrote:
Creation and completion are to be practice in union from the beginning. Completion stage is no way secondary to creation stage. Whatever made you think it was?

Sherlock said:
Trekchod and thogal, longde four das, semde four contemplations are not secondary to Mahayoga, at least as they survive today.

Malcolm wrote:
I know a lot of people who have received all of these instructions, and just about as many who do nothing with them at all. I know many people, for example, who have received Mandarava creation and completion practices, and many who apply them regularly. I would venture a guess and say that in general, advanced Dzogchen practices remain at a level of fantasy for most people.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 1st, 2014 at 10:47 PM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
Sherlock said:
You don't need to spend years to get your visualization of a specific body part of a deity perfectly right in Dzogchen, also you just visualize the relevant syllables or channels depending on the practice, not the whole deity. Are you saying that in actual practice, visualization of all the fine details in the two stages is not necessary?

Malcolm wrote:
In actual practice, when you are reciting the sadhana, you just recite it clearly, i.e. without distraction; intensely, i.e. you know what you are saying, and quickly, without lingering on any part of the sadhana until you come to the end.

Let us say you are meditating the Hevajra mandala, there there are thirty-two topics. You pick one topic per session. For example, in the beginning, for the most part, one focuses on cultivating divine pride "I am yidam X". The one focuses on getting the central eye correct. Why? Because this causes the vāyu to begin to settle in the central channel. Then you move from one to the other. Eventually, by switching topics from on to another, you can immediately recall a generic image of the whole deity without any effort. Then you can dispense with this. You don't spend hours and hours trying to get each detail perfect.

In one session you apply both some equipoise on one aspect of the mandala or another, and then one does some completion stage practice, right from the very beginning. When you are doing completion stage practice, you only focus on what you need for that completion stage practice.

Mantra recitation is considered a post-equipoise practice in Sakya because it involves activity. In Nyingma, focusing on the mantra rosary is generally considered the main practice of the creation stage, and resting in the nature of the mind at the end is considered to be the main completion stage.

Even if you are a fantastic "Dzogchen" practitioner, if you recite mantras in a state of distraction, they won't work. So in fact, whether you are doing some elaborate practice like Hevajra, or an Anuyoga practice like Dragphur, you need to have good, stable concentration, otherwise your mantras won't work. The whole point of creation stage is to develop your concentration to the point that your mantras work easily and swiftly. If you think that mantras like the 25 spaces are some exception, they are not. In this case they function only if you are in a state of natural repose, unfettered equipoise i.e. cog bzhag.

Rongzom makes the point very clearly that Dzogchen practitioners must develop the mental factors that characterize the first dhyana, vitarka, vicara, pritvi, sukha and ekagraha, i.e. applied attention, sustained attention, physical ease, mental ease and one-pointedness. If you do not have a stable śamatha practice, you can't really call yourself a Dzogchen practitioner at all. At best, you can call yourself someone who would like to be a Dzogchen practitioner a ma rdzogs chen pa. People who think that Dzogchen frees one from the need to meditate seriously are seriously deluded. The sgra thal 'gyur clearly says:

The faults of not meditating are:
the characteristics of samsara appear to one, 
there is self and other, object and consciousness, 
the view is verbal, 
the field is perceptual, 
one is bound by afflictions,
also one throws away the path of the buddhahood, 
one does not understand the nature of the result, 
a basis for the sameness of all phenomena does not exist,
one's vidyā is bound by the three realms, 
and one will fall into conceptuality


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 1st, 2014 at 10:03 PM
Title: Re: Tendai is a Ch'an school.
Content:


Indrajala said:
The way I judge Buddhists is basically based on how much broad knowledge they possess and how well they interpret Dharma in a reasonable and realistic manner. Emotions and warm feelings are not wise guides for judging people.

Malcolm wrote:
That is because, like most religious intellectuals, your strongest attachment is through the sam̋jñā skandha, rather than the vedana skandha. This is also why you promiscuously promulgate your point of view that common people should not be allowed to govern themselves, that they need guidance from their "betters" and so on. In other words your elitism is merely a factor of your afflictive make up, there is nothing objective about it at all.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 1st, 2014 at 9:47 PM
Title: Re: Myanmar considers law restricting interfaith marriage
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
The only thing Buddhists need as protection, is to act like Buddhists.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, the fact is that in some countries, like Lhadak, Buddhist women are "press-ganged" into marriages with Muslims. This also happens in Bangladesh. A lot of what is happening in Myanmar is a direct reaction to the oppression of Buddhists in the Chittagong hills. It does not make it right, but that is actually what is happening. The Buddhist communities in the Chittagong have had close ties with the Burmese for many centuries.

http://www.angelfire.com/ab/jumma/bground.html


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 1st, 2014 at 9:42 PM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:


Sherlock said:
In semdzins and rushan, the only real "mantra" is the three syllables. There are other syllables but those are not mantras.

Malcolm wrote:
Seriously, where do you get the strange idea that the six syllables of Samantbhadara are not mantras? Certainly not from Dzogchen tantras:

Realizing the meaning of the six syllables unravels the great tantra of secret mantra. Abiding in the meaning of the six syllables is a person’s nirvana. The kings that creates realization is the six sounds of syllables. All secret mantra is complete in the six syllables.

-- Mind Mirror of Vajrasattva

Sherlock said:
Your other examples are also not essential practices of Dzogchen upadesha (trekchod and thogal).

It's not important to get the fine details of the visualization compared to the two stages.

Malcolm wrote:
The fact creation and completion practices like caṇḍalī yoga are brought up in the seventeen tantras themselves and their commentarial literature proves that they are important.

The main principle of the creation stage of developing divine pride. I really don't know how much experience you have of doing elaborate creation stage practices, but your comments betray a lack of familiarity about how such creation stage is actually done in practice. Many Dzogchen/Nyingma practitioners, unfamiliar with the fine details of "gsar ma" tantras, have the idea that "sudden" or instant creation is only a principle of Anuyoga. However, the Laghusamvara Tantra explicitly teaches instant creation as well as gradual creation. The general consideration is one of experience. In the gsar ma schools, the more elaborate creation stage practices are for beginners, while advanced practitioners rely on instant creation stages. You can read about this in the Lamdre book.

In addition, there are very few people who practice thögal seriously. As Khenpo Ngachung mentions, principally thogal is used these days to stabilize tregchö. Most Dzogchen practitioners are not going to realize the body of light. Most practitioners are going attain realization in the bardo, if at all. If you maintain your samayas, no matter what system of Vajrayāna you practice, you will achieve Buddhahood within seven lifetimes, i.e. if you maintain your samayas, you are functionally equivalent to a stream entrant. Contrary to popular belief, Dzogchen practitioners also need to maintain their samayas (plural), not just the groovy ones like non-existence, ubiquity, singleness and natural perfection (which can't be broken anyway).


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 1st, 2014 at 7:53 PM
Title: Re: Family lineages vs tulku system vs "meritocracy"
Content:
Sherlock said:
It is best to follow one's guru. I think for ChNN, the outline of sutrayana he gives in the Precious Vase is what he expects his students to know if they want to learn in a more organized way.


Malcolm wrote:
ChNN only sets a minimum bar on what he expects people to know, but he expects _everyone_ to learn the base. Sadly, most people ignore him on this point, but it is partially because the translation is difficult to read.

Sherlock said:
I think it's because it starts from a fairly hard to understand and somewhat arcane position: contrasting the different schools in India. The first time I read it, I had problems getting past the first chapter and stopped. Later, I just read the later chapters, which were much clearer.


Malcolm wrote:
It's is principally a commentary on the man ngag lta phreng ba attributed to Padmasambhava.

The reason why we need to acquaint ourselves with these tenet systems is so that we avoid falling into the same errors, thinking our view accords with Buddhadharma, when it really doesn't.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 1st, 2014 at 7:48 PM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
Sherlock said:
The supreme empowerment doesn't refer to the ritualized actions of putting a vase on your head etc

heart said:
In he Vima Nyingtik the first empowerment, the elaborate, is given with a vase.

/magnus


Malcolm wrote:
As is the second, the unelaborate empowerment.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 1st, 2014 at 7:48 PM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
Sherlock said:
The only mantra recitation is the three syllables.

Malcolm wrote:
This is seriously a very silly thing to say. Where did you get this idea? What about the six syllables of Samantabhadra, song of the vajra and so on? What about the countless mantras for recitation in the rDzogs pa Rang 'byung? What about the Ekajati practices in the khro ma nag mo rgyud?

Sherlock said:
Visualization is not very important compared to tantric mahamudra.

Malcolm wrote:
Where do you get this idea? What about semzin and rushan? What about all the praṇāyama practices that involve visualization?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 1st, 2014 at 7:44 PM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:


Sherlock said:
How is the way of the practice the same?

The only mantra recitation is the three syllables. Visualization is not very important compared to tantric mahamudra. The supreme empowerment doesn't refer to the ritualized actions of putting a vase on your head etc, but to conveying the meaning of Dzogchen through whatever means, often just through oral explanations.

If anything, Dzogchen way of practice is more similar to sutrayana meditation than to tantra.

Malcolm wrote:
Nonsense. For example, the Vima Nyinthig has a detailed text on praṇāyama called the rlung gyi phra khrid, which gives sets of practices that are very important for Dzogchen practitioners. Praṇāyama, not important at all in sutrayāna meditation, is extremely important in Dzogchen. Likewise, the notion that view to be meditated is conferred through experiences gained during the empowerment. Not only this, but the whole contextualization of practice is completely based on the systems of nāḍīs and cakras in the human body and so on.

The supreme empowerment means, accordingto The Mind Mirror of Vajrasattva:

There are three kinds of empowerments, outer, inner and secret.The outer empowerment is the mandala of colored powder...The empowerments are conferred sequentially. The location of conferring them is the brahmarandhra. Having complete the outer and inner empowerments as such, one should enter into the secret empowerment. There are three syllables...As such, having completed the three empowerments, one should bestow the instructions to be bestowed. The yoga who has the complete empowerments will definitely become accomplished. The illustration of the meaning of secret mantra is granted through empowerment.

In general, the ancient texts and commentaries assume that a person who wants to practice Dzogchen will receive all four empowerments, elaborate, unelaborate and so on. Of course, the system of the direct introduction does exist in the seventeen tantras, but it is generally considered to be given only on the basis of the elaborate and so on empowerments, just as so-called "sems sde" was generally only conferred to people who had received at minimum the Guhyagarbha empowerment. "Longde" as we know, can only be practiced on the basis of an anuyoga empowerment.

And in point of fact, the Dzogs pa rang 'byung tantra mainly concerns mahayoga and anuyoga methods, various kinds of maha and anu style empowerments, as well as elaborate rites for leading practitioners through the bardo. The commentary on the sgra thal 'gyur has a very elaborate Vajravār̄ahī practice as well as other creation stage practices. These are discussed in the commentary to this passage:

Amazing, though there are countless stages
of ultimate secret practice, 
by dividing the principle ones,
[the one of] method and [the one of] supremely profound prajñā
are summarized from them.

In actuality, Dzogchen is always contextualized as a part of secret mantra in the seventeen tantras themselves.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 1st, 2014 at 7:06 PM
Title: Re: Family lineages vs tulku system vs "meritocracy"
Content:
Sherlock said:
It is best to follow one's guru. I think for ChNN, the outline of sutrayana he gives in the Precious Vase is what he expects his students to know if they want to learn in a more organized way.


Malcolm wrote:
ChNN only sets a minimum bar on what he expects people to know, but he expects _everyone_ to learn the base. Sadly, most people ignore him on this point, but it is partially because the translation is difficult to read.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 1st, 2014 at 7:00 PM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
alpha said:
Also , if you say " Dharmadhtu is a condition common to all beings " that would imply to mean the individual basis not dharmadatu since dharmadathu per Rinpoche's explanation it means "all of existence".

Malcolm wrote:
Dharmadhātu, literally meaning "source of phenomena", in Mahāyāna means the general emptiness of all things. Dharmatā means the specific emptiness of a given thing; however, dharmatā, in Dzogchen texts, also refers to how the basis is instantiated within a given sentient being.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 1st, 2014 at 6:54 PM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:


Sherlock said:
If the other paths in Buddhadharma really had the same view of the base, path, and fruit as Dzogchen, their way of practice would likewise be the same.

Malcolm wrote:
It is more or less the same.



The authors of Dzogchen texts wouldn't feel the need to contrast their path so much with that of the tantras either.


The Supreme Source said:
1. There is no view on which one has to meditate.

2. There is no commitment, or samaya, one has to keep.

3. There is no capacity for spiritual action one has to seek.

4. There is no mandala one has to create.

5. There is no initiation one has to receive.

6. There is no path one has to tread.

7. There are no levels of realization (bhumis) one has to achieve through purification.

8. There is no conduct one has to adopt, or abandon.

9. From the beginning, self-arising wisdom has been free of obstacles.

10. Self-perfection is beyond hope and fear.

Malcolm wrote:
Hevajra Tantra:

No meditator, no meditation,
no deity, and also no mantra.

And:

Here there is no method and wisdom,
the appearance of true reality,
can’t be described by another, the innate
cannot be found anywhere.

And:

All migrating beings arise from me,
also the three realms also arise from me,
I pervade all of this,
the nature of migrating beings is not seen elsewhere.

And:

Therefore, no smell, no sound, no form,
no purity of taste and thought,
nothing to touch, no phenomena, everything is pure,
having understood migrating beings pure by nature as migrating beings.

And:

[C]onsciousness is the form of all.

And:

No recitation of mantra, no austerity, no fire pujas, 
also no one in the maṇḍala, and also no maṇḍala, 
that is the mantra recitation, that is the austerity, that is the fire pujas,
that is the one in the maṇḍala and the maṇḍala,
in brief, the mind is the encompassing form.

The pure mind’s
nature is nirvana.

You see, the message of the bodhicitta texts is not really so unique in this respect.

The Supreme Source said:
Is it all just rhetoric? I don't think so. Maybe in actual terms, it still takes many years of retreat for both a Mahamudra practitioner and a Dzogchen practitioner to reach realization, but the way the view of the base, path and fruit differs in both paths strongly influences the actual practice.

Malcolm wrote:
The actual practice of Dzogchen is unifying the three inner tantras. When we talk about essence nature and compassion, this is really just a riff on the three samadhis of mahāyoga, etc. I.e.:

The samadhi of suchness = essence
The samadhi of universal appearance = nature
The samadhi of the cause = compassion

One of the seventeen tantras, The Mind Mirror of Vajrasattva explains:

Again he replied “Oh Vajraholder, listen! After my Nirvana, teach this to sentient beings of the future. Generation stage Mahāyoga is like the basis of all Dharma. Completion state Anuyoga is the like the path of all Dharma. Great Perfection Atiyoga is the like the result of Dharma. Therefore, the meaning of the inseparability of the trio of creation and completion is understood as the three syllables. [9/a] If it is asked what those are, they can be understood with Oṃ Aḥ Hūṃ. Therefore, hold in mind what I have clearly demonstrated. Without arising or ceasing, Oṃ exists in oneself. Without birth and death, Āḥ exists oneself. Inseparable, Hūṃ exists in oneself. The single unwritten tantra exists in oneself. The single undemonstrated agama exists in oneself.  The intimate instruction that discloses one’s vidyā exists in oneself. The lamp of the essence of wisdom is very bright. The meaning of the six yānas are to be understood in three. The meaning of the six syllables are to be understood in three syllables. The tantra must be unraveled with the meaning of the trio of creation and completion to sentient beings of the future. The three syllables exist in all sentient beings. Therefore, in terms of accomplishment, explained Accomplishment Mahāyoga using the ground; explain Agama Anuyoga using space; and explained Upadesha Dzogchen using the sun and moon. The confirmation of the ultimate garbha is to be understood with this tantra.”

And:

From that basis existing in the form of a halo of light, the so called “causal condition” is the actual ignorance. Since that becomes an intellectual analysis, it is called the “dominant condition”. Since is apprehended subjectively, it is called “the object condition”. For example, like face of a person shown to a mirror. Since those three happen at the same time, it is called “the immediately simultaneous and antecedent condition”. 
That is one’s own basis but it was not recognized by oneself. The samsaric three realms are formed through delusion.

This tantra also demonstrates the fault of not receiving empowerment:

The demonstration of the fault of not obtaining the supreme empowerment is that the yogin, for example, will be like a boatman with out an oar, unable to deliver to the other side. If the supreme empowerment is obtained, the secret mantra that is not accomplished will be accomplished.


When it comes to the unique feature of Dzogchen, it lies in the the anatomy of thögal, and that's about it. But even in this respect, that fact that path depends on human physical anatomy classifies it along with other highest yoga tantra systems.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 1st, 2014 at 6:25 PM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
the basis is the basis of all phenomena of samsara and nirvana, including sentient beings and their minds. A mirror is the basis for all reflections, but it is not contained in the reflections. You said "The basis is a generic set of qualities, essence, nature and compassion, that all minds possess.". This is like saying "The mirror is a generic set of qualities that all reflections possess." This makes no sense.

Malcolm wrote:
No, it is like saying that all mirrors possess a general set of characteristics, such as reflectivity, and so on.

Again, you are just reifying the basis as if it were something like "brahman".


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 1st, 2014 at 6:06 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The ultimate is emptiness free from proliferation. When there is proliferation, there are sentient beings, buddhas, worlds, universes, etc. In order for there to be a presence or absence of proliferation, there has to be a basis for the the presence or absence of proliferation, and that basis is just the mind of a sentient [i.e. buddhas or beings].

gad rgyangs said:
this is totally circular: first you say that sentient beings are the result of proliferation, and the ultimate is free from proliferation. so far so good. then you say that the ultimate is "just the mind of a sentient being". totally circular, and also total reification of both sentient beings and the ultimate.

Malcolm wrote:
The ultimate described in words is merely a reification of a mind.


gad rgyangs said:
relatively there is a concept of a basis in the mind of a sentient being. If, however, that sentient being recognizes instant presence, then all such distinctions of "ultimate" and "relative" fall away.

Malcolm wrote:
Which proves my point that the basis is just the  mind of a sentient being, for simplicities sake, when there is no proliferation in that mind, when it is unfabricated, that is buddhahood. When there is proliferation, sentient being hood.

It is inane to discuss things like a basis without discussing what a basis is a basis of (samsara and nirvana). That discussion of the basis of samsara and nirvana is only meaningful with regards to sentient beings. And yes, we are referring to an ālaya of sentient beings, not in the specialized man ngag sde usage of the term, where it refers only to ignorance, but in the more general way, in the way it is used in non-man ngag sde, in some terma cycles like the dgongs pa zang thal, and in the gsar ma schools. In short, what we are talking about is the ālaya cause continuum.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 1st, 2014 at 5:08 AM
Title: Re: IS THE DALAI LAMA SAFE?
Content:
odysseus said:
There´s nothing to worry about. The Dalai Lama can handle himself. These "enemies" are not dangerous, they´re just angry.


Malcolm wrote:
Don't be so sure...

https://tinyurl.com/l337nwj


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 1st, 2014 at 4:51 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
the basis is not the "cause" of samsara and nirvana, and you may choose to create an actual duality of delusion/non-delusion, but as you know that is a mistake of the lower vehicles.

Malcolm wrote:
Of course it is, that is how it is defined by Dzogchen tantras. As Nyibum notes:

The trio of the essence, nature and compassion of the original basis becomes the three ignorances.



gad rgyangs said:
this clearly says that mind "arises from intrinsic luminescence of dharmatā manifesting as the five lights". Isn't that simple enough?

Malcolm wrote:
Dharmatā here is wisdom. If the basis is not wisdom, it is inert, non-sentient. How can there be sentience apart from instantiations of sentience, i.e. minds?

gad rgyangs said:
It is important to understand that "light" in this context refers only to the luminescence [gdangs] or clarity [gsal ba] of one's own consciousness, it is not an "outside" light, it is not physical light which can bleach color out of pigments, etc.
this is what keeps tripping you up. You insist on taking the fiction of "one's own consciousness" as an absolute, imagining that "inside/outside" is an objective distinction.

Malcolm wrote:
It doesn't trip me up at all. Your problem is you think all this is all a description of some ultimate. It isn't. It is all purely conventional.

gad rgyangs said:
I have been all over these texts, and there is never any satisfactory explanation for how a mind arises out of the basis acausally. Since the basis is described as a wisdom, a wisdom must in fact be something which bears noetic capacity, and it must in fact arise as a diversity, i.e., as individual instantiations,
so why do you keep saying "the basis" instead of "bases?" why do you keep referring to the basis as an "it" rather than a "them"?

Malcolm wrote:
As I pointed out, the basis is merely a generic term, just like vijn̄āna in vijñānadhatu is a generic term which covers all instances of consciousness.



gad rgyangs said:
Thus, there is no contradiction at all in considering the basis a general description for the nature of the mind which can either realize buddhahood or fall into samsara.
same problem: all you have done is passed the buck and now you must explain what is the basis for all those individual minds.

Malcolm wrote:
The basis is a generic set of qualities, essence, nature and compassion, that all minds possess.


gad rgyangs said:
It is incoherent to talk about the basis if the basis is not in fact one's own mind. Then one has to imagine some noetic uber-field out of which instantiations of omniscient or deluded consciousnesses somehow bootstrap themselves into existence.
you have set up this straw man and are having a ball tilting at the windmills, but no one says this: the basis is not a field, it is not a describable thing, period.

Malcolm wrote:
It is a describable principle, that is why Dzogchen tantras spend so much time describing it.

gad rgyangs said:
Notice that you never pull up any of the thousands of quotes in the corpus that say it is beyond conceptual constructs and free of all extremes, so of course for you it must either be X or Y, black or white, etc.

Malcolm wrote:
Those citations are not useful for the purpose at hand, which is explaining how delusion arises from something supposedly undeluded.


gad rgyangs said:
see, there you go: if you can't fit it into a category then its unacceptable to you.

Malcolm wrote:
Your inability to see that it is merely a catalogue of qualities forces you to basically assert one of the five faulty positions of the basis, i.e., that it is indeterminable.


gad rgyangs said:
yes, claiming that sentient beings with multiple bases exist is the product of a mind which reifies.

Malcolm wrote:
Right, which is your claim.

gad rgyangs said:
Your problem is that you want to avoid any discussion of the relative. But Dzogchen tantras are not so shy, and they acknowledge the two truths also, as the String of Pearls states:
The universe and inhabitants have always been empty, 
the ultimate endowed with the form of the relative.
haha and how is this "ultimate" different from God or Brahman exactly? What is the "form of the relative" except illusory universes and beings?

Malcolm wrote:
The ultimate is emptiness free from proliferation. When there is proliferation, there are sentient beings, buddhas, worlds, universes, etc. In order for there to be a presence or absence of proliferation, there has to be a basis for the the presence or absence of proliferation, and that basis is just the mind of a sentient [i.e. buddhas or beings].

In the end, Dzogchen does not actually go beyond the yogacara madhyamaka synthesis.

gad rgyangs said:
And finally, the sgra thal 'gyur states:

Because mind pervades all the embodied, 
there are no buddhas without sentient beings.
and the PP sutras say there are no buddhas or sentient beings.

Malcolm wrote:
Ultimately there are no sentient beings, no basis, etc.

Relatively there is a basis, i.e. the minds of sentient beings, and so on.

So, what we demonstrated here is that Dzogchen in the end, despite a lot of hyperbole and rhetoric is just another conventional scheme for describing the four noble truths: suffering, the cause, the cessation and the path.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 1st, 2014 at 4:37 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
There seems to be a slight disparity between what you, Malcolm and pensum, are saying, but I will think about it. Maybe we can discuss the first paragraph of the note: What we call the “ground" is the union of emptiness and lumi­nosity. It is the dharmatā: motionless, ultimate reality, the tathāgatagarbha. At the slightest arising of the creative power of awareness (and there is no question of its not arising), there occurs what is called the appearance of the ground  (gzhi snang). The appearance of the ground and the creative power of awareness are the same thing. This creative power moves, whereas awareness itself is always motionless. It is as when the sun rises. The sun's rays cover the earth, but the sun does not move out from itself. Its rays are like the creative power of awareness. The appearance of the ground is said to “move," in the sense that it is the ground's radiance, not because it is drawn out by something extraneous.
("creative power" = "rtsal")
I find the phrase "there is no question of its not arising" kind of intriguing. It doesn't seem to explain much.

Malcolm wrote:
This is just a description of the nature of the mind. No mind, no nature of the mind.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 1st, 2014 at 3:58 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
As such, one’s mind present as the nature of all the phenomena of buddhahood is realized as buddha.
-- Nyima Bum


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 1st, 2014 at 3:55 AM
Title: IS THE DALAI LAMA SAFE?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
http://www.jamyangnorbu.com/blog/2014/02/28/is-the-dalai-lama-safe/


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 1st, 2014 at 3:51 AM
Title: Re: Family lineages vs tulku system vs "meritocracy"
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
What is lacking for lay people is a decent education in the basics of Buddhadharma. As I get older I can see that there is limited benefit to Varjayāna practice without some grounding, either prior too or simultaneously, in Sutrayāna teachings. There is any number of very good Sakya Khenpos. Basically in Sakya, you are either a scholar or a ritualist.

Clarence said:
Apologies for taking this off-topic, but how do you see that in regards of Dzogchen practice? Is it easier to practice Dzogchen vs Vajrayana without those basics in Buddhadharma?

Malcolm wrote:
I  have wavered on this over the years, as I have in so many other things, but my present thinking is that all Vajrayāna practitioners of whatever stripe need a solid grounding in Hinayāna and Mahāyāna paths.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 1st, 2014 at 3:12 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Malcolm, I like what you're saying, I'm just trying to understand. Could you please respond to my question here:
https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=15425&p=216335#p216335?

I find the use of "actualization" in the quotation kind of confusing. Would you, or anybody, happen to know what it might correspond to in Tibetan?

Malcolm wrote:
They mean that vidyā is the "instantiation" (mngon 'gyur) of the basis in a sentient being.

dzogchungpa said:
Those aren't scare quotes, are they?

OK, so how are we to understand "Therefore, while awareness is necessarily the ground, the ground is not necessarily awareness."?
To me, it seems incompatible with your position.


Malcolm wrote:
The basis is a set of qualities that all minds have. Vidyā is the specific instantiation of those qualities in a sentient being. The basis here has been defined for you as tathāgatagarbha, i.e. dharmakāya in a obscured form. Dharmakāya demonstrates in this instance nothing more than the potential for a sentient being to become omniscient.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 1st, 2014 at 3:04 AM
Title: Re: Discussion of Political Topics is Wrong Speech
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Political stability in Japan can be accounted for simply through its geographical isolation.

Indrajala said:
What are you talking about? The Yamato court was constantly at war with rivals and non-Japanese tribes (Hayato, Ebisu, etc.) until basically the 8th century. It later suffered decentralization which led to the Kamakura period and subsequent centuries of civil wars. Even in early centuries the Yamato court was at odds with Silla in Korea and invasion was a constant fear. There was a war between Japan against a Silla-Tang alliance in the 660s.

Malcolm wrote:
The Silla-Tang alliance was totally unstable, and never represented a serious threat to the Yamamoto court.

Internal stability does not mean one does not fight others. In fact, the ability to master others in war comes from internal stability. And the Yamamoto were mercenaries in the Korean Peninsula for the Baekje.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 1st, 2014 at 2:51 AM
Title: Re: Discussion of Political Topics is Wrong Speech
Content:


Indrajala said:
Actually the development of a centralized court model with a heavy hierarchy in Japan based on Chinese models actually was prompted by fears of foreign invasion. By the late Asuka and early Nara period the system was largely in place and it worked wonders for the economy and military. It also produced a respectable nation state that could hold its own weight in international dealings. The Cambridge History of Japan Volume 1 provides all these details.


Malcolm wrote:
Political stability in Japan can be accounted for simply through its geographical isolation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 1st, 2014 at 2:45 AM
Title: Re: Family lineages vs tulku system vs "meritocracy"
Content:


jiashengrox said:
Yes, i don't deny that Sakya predates Gelug by a number of centuries, but the monastic tradition somehow was not as rigorous until the recent years (again i hope i m not wrong).

Malcolm wrote:
Of course you are wrong. Ngorpas are just as strict as Gelugpas.

jiashengrox said:
in fact, i acknowledge that je tsongkhapa somehow inherited this system from the sakya (i would presume through his sakya teacher rendawa), which can pre date to the era of sakya pandita. But this monastic training in sakya is not as prevalent as the past, hence coining the phrase "in some sense following the footsteps of the gelugpas". it is the tradition of the gelugpas that has continually maintained this rigorous monastic training.

Malcolm wrote:
You really need to revise this perspective. Ngorchen (1382-1456) established a very strict monastic order. Also Nalendra was strict. And Sangphu. Perhaps in Sakya itself monks were not as strict.

What is lacking for lay people is a decent education in the basics of Buddhadharma. As I get older I can see that there is limited benefit to Varjayāna practice without some grounding, either prior too or simultaneously, in Sutrayāna teachings. There is any number of very good Sakya Khenpos. Basically in Sakya, you are either a scholar or a ritualist.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 1st, 2014 at 2:41 AM
Title: Re: Discussion of Political Topics is Wrong Speech
Content:


Indrajala said:
A monarch is only as good as his circle of power.

Malcolm wrote:
Āryadeva defines monarchs, in this day and age as fools. There are none more foolish, in fact.


Indrajala said:
Democracies don't always produce decent leaders either.

Malcolm wrote:
No, but it guarantees that an ineffective leader has a limited term. Further, governance, in a Democracy does not really depend on a figure head such as a president.


Indrajala said:
In fact, in a capitalist democracy inevitably the business elites convert their wealth into political power and then serve business interests above all else.

Malcolm wrote:
Its a process of give and take, right now we are in the give part of the cycle, just like a the end of the 19th century. It will shift back.

Indrajala said:
One advantage to a hereditary monarchy is that children are raised from birth with the skills and connections they need to run a nation.

Malcolm wrote:
There is no evidence at all in history that hereditary monarchies provide long term political stability.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 1st, 2014 at 2:32 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Malcolm, I like what you're saying, I'm just trying to understand. Could you please respond to my question here:
https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=15425&p=216335#p216335?

I find the use of "actualization" in the quotation kind of confusing. Would you, or anybody, happen to know what it might correspond to in Tibetan?

Malcolm wrote:
They mean that vidyā is the "instantiation" (mngon 'gyur) of the basis in a sentient being.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 1st, 2014 at 1:51 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:


heart said:
gad rgyangs is, I think, referring to a method of giving direct introduction that ChNNR use, called Yeshe Sangtal.
/magnus


Malcolm wrote:
No, he is referring to a klong gsal text called Ye shes zang thal, the red volume, volume three, I believe.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 1st, 2014 at 1:49 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
the basis is not an abstraction, neither is it a thing (res).

Malcolm wrote:
It is a mere abstraction, as such, it is not a thing.

gad rgyangs said:
nope. you are reifing sentient beings again, as those in a dream-state are wont to do.

Malcolm wrote:
Take it up with the sgra thal 'gyur:

As such, in samsara at the start and nirvana at the end,
since the buddhas did not become deluded,
the self-appearances were recognized as natureless [rang bzhin med] 
with sense organs that rose up out of the basis.
There was no lapse into mental analysis of external objects
and [the self-appearances] were ascertained to be their own movements.

It is incoherent to define the basis as timeless, and then suggest that a sense organ [here the manas-indriya] rise out of it. But clearly here, a mental organ is defined.

Nyibum states:

[D]elusion came from the basis and a special awareness of the basis. Apart from generally pervading, the so-called “basis” is totally undifferentiated, without any consideration of delusion or nondelusion. That so-called “ knower”  or “mind” (the assertion of a specific awareness demonstrated in our own texts) is deluded.

So somehow, a mind, or mental faculty arises (without any cause) from a basis that likewise has no cause and isn't a thing or a non-thing, according to you, but nevertheless is described as the cause of samsara and nirvana, and further, this mind [sems] or knower [shes pa po] is "deluded" but it arises from a state of non-delusion.

There is a coherent explanation of this, but it depends on that fact that the basis as such is merely describing the nature of the mind.

Further, when describing how delusion arises, the commentary of the sgar thal 'gyur states very clearly:

The mind [blo] of the conceptual analysis of the individual members of dependent origination arises from intrinsic luminescence of dharmatā manifesting as the five lights, i.e., the conceptuality about the very clear luminescence of five colors comes from thinking “I come from that” and “That comes from me”, and it is said that the mental faculty [yid] is captivated by the appearance of the light because of the buildup of external grasping. Since it is seen as only suffering, this non-delusion becomes delusion because of conceptual analysis.

It is important to understand that "light" in this context refers only to the luminescence [gdangs] or clarity [gsal ba] of one's own consciousness, it is not an "outside" light, it is not physical light which can bleach color out of pigments, etc.

All of this experience is happening with the context of an individual consciousness. The description is entirely subjective. Its subjectivity and the production of a so called "external universe" is quite easily understood in Yogacara terms, which in fact that Dzogchen tantras borrow from liberally, as we see in the sgra thal 'gyur:

The lamp of self-originated prajñā
subsumes all phenomena into one taste,
cutting the continuum of traces connected
with this grasping to ones appearance.

I have been all over these texts, and there is never any satisfactory explanation for how a mind arises out of the basis acausally. Since the basis is described as a wisdom, a wisdom must in fact be something which bears noetic capacity, and it must in fact arise as a diversity, i.e., as individual instantiations, as the sgra thal 'gyur states:

Other than compassion arising as diversity,
it is not defined as one thing like this.

Thus, there is no contradiction at all in considering the basis a general description for the nature of the mind which can either realize buddhahood or fall into samsara. Any other explanation is simply incoherent and runs into the inevitable problem of being indistinguishable from tīrthika ideas such as brahman, etc., a flaw, incidentally, that Dzogchen tantras and commentaries express a great deal of interest in avoiding and spend an inordinate amount of time addressing so as to avoid the charge of being outside Buddhadharma.

It is incoherent to talk about the basis if the basis is not in fact one's own mind. Then one has to imagine some noetic uber-field out of which instantiations of omniscient or deluded consciousnesses somehow bootstrap themselves into existence. We can see from this passage in the String of Pearls that the basis is the basis of delusion and can become contaminated:

The general basis is called “the basis of delusion” [28b]
because of ignorance and contamination.
Further, the object of knowledge itself appears tainted
because memory and thought arise in the mind.
The essence itself is contaminated by concepts
because the grasping aspect of the six minds is unceasing. 
Further, dharmakāya is bound by apprehension
due to being associated with subtle atoms.
Further, luminosity forms traces
due to the impure perception of the four conditions.
Further, appearances arise as multiplicity
because those appearances are apparent objects.

gad rgyangs said:
Conventionally speaking, samanya-lakṣanas (universals) are considered completely unreal, as opposed to svalaḳsanas (particulars), which are allowed a certain species of conventional reality.
the basis is not a universal. neither is it a particular.

Malcolm wrote:
Thus, you agree, it is an abstraction. Therefore, there is no basis, unless it is a set of characteristics of one's own mind.


gad rgyangs said:
radical or not, the basis is definitely not the mind of a reified sentient being.

Malcolm wrote:
In order for there to be a reified sentient beings, there has to be a mind which reifies, it is an inescapable reduction. Reification cannot occur without a reifying mind. When a mind ceases to reify, it simple dissolves into its own nature, which is described in Dzogchen texts as the basis. The basis is just one's own unfabricated mind. Any other explanation is complete gibberish.

Your problem is that you want to avoid any discussion of the relative. But Dzogchen tantras are not so shy, and they acknowledge the two truths also, as the String of Pearls states:
The universe and inhabitants have always been empty, 
the ultimate endowed with the form of the relative.

And finally, the sgra thal 'gyur states:

Because mind pervades all the embodied, 
there are no buddhas without sentient beings.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 1st, 2014 at 12:27 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
pensum said:
Another way to demonstrate this is that the basis of all trees is wood, but there is no wood apart from trees. Without trees there would be no wood. Similarly the basis of all sentient beings is lucid emptiness (gsal stong), yet this empty lucidity does not exist apart from sentient beings.
It's quite simple really.

gad rgyangs said:
sentient beings definitely do not exist apart from the lucid emptiness. In the yeshe sangthal, instant presence is discovered within the vast dimension of emptiness, not the other way around.

Malcolm wrote:
And lucid emptiness does not exist apart from sentient beings and all things:

"Matter is empty, emptiness is matter, there is no matter apart from emptiness, there is not emptiness apart from matter, so too for sensation, perception, formation and consciousness."

"There is no mind in the mind, but the primal nature of the mind is luminous"

The basis in Dzogchen is merely that luminosity described in the PP Sūtras.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 1st, 2014 at 12:25 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The basis is an abstraction, thus it is not real apart from its instantiations.

gad rgyangs said:
so what, its real in its instantiations?

Malcolm wrote:
Heat is an abstraction derived from instantiations of fire.

The basis is an abstraction derived from instantiations of sapients, both buddhas and sentient beings. Conventionally speaking, samanya-lakṣanas (universals) are considered completely unreal, as opposed to svalaḳsanas (particulars), which are allowed a certain species of conventional reality.

The basis is the description of the dharmatā of dharmins. Without a dharmin, a dharmatā is unintelligible, so in the end, the Dzogchen presentation of the basis is not nearly as radical as it is made out to be.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 1st, 2014 at 12:20 AM
Title: Re: Family lineages vs tulku system vs "meritocracy"
Content:


jiashengrox said:
Then, one might wonder, "Wouldn't it be a little too old for most of the monks to uphold the lineage only after they have completed the studies?" And there is what is an advantage of this system: it ensures quality. If you are unable to even grasp sutric concepts at the very fundamental level, then u are probably not suited to do tantra. I know Sakya has a unique POV of combining sutra and tantra and practicing them concurrently, we realise that even so, sakya is also setting up monastic colleges, which in some sense (i might be wrong again!) following the style of the gelugpas.

Malcolm wrote:
You are totally wrong considering that Sakya predates Gelug by a number of centuries and that the latter school arose out of the former.


jiashengrox said:
However, a concerning question in mind should not just be ensuring the survival of the lineage alone (I used the word alone to further emphasise that i concur that it is important to ensure the continuity of the teachings), but the quality of the teachings that are preserved. I m sure that for us who have read the history of Lam Dre lineage from "Taking Result As the Path" by Cyrus Stearns, we note that some did not continue (as in the case of Segom Jangye, the disciple of Se Kharchungwa, page 212-213 of the book) because of not being able to "sustain the practice, develop wisdom, and so forth".

Malcolm wrote:
The structure to implement the continuation of the Sakya lineage is in the hands of the 'Khon family, the Ngorpas and the Tsharpas (and the Dzongpas too).


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 28th, 2014 at 11:22 PM
Title: Re: Discussion of Political Topics is Wrong Speech
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Rome, China, India, Britain, US etc.

Indrajala said:
Rome, China and Britain had empires that arose along meta-ethnic frontiers. In the case of Rome, it was continual conflict with the Gauls that facilitated the development of high asabiya, i.e., social cohesion that lent itself to strong political stability until overpopulation meant inter-elite competition became problematic. In the case of Chinese dynasties the constant eternal enemies were from the northern steppes, such as the Xiongnu, Turks and so on, all of whom were basically permanent aliens and a dangerous "other". But that being said it was less about geography and more about a clash of civilizations. Chinese were settled on plains while the Xiongnu and their kin were largely nomadic horsemen. The Chinese could have just as well, and did, settle the pasture land of nomadic peoples. Likewise the Romans settled Gaul territory.

Malcolm wrote:
The purpose of my example was to show positive (India, US, Britain) and negative examples (China, Rome) of how geography is a key factor in political stability.


Indrajala said:
Resource distribution, unless done at gun point, tends to follow its own internal logic.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, usually becoming a pyramid scheme in which wealth concentrates more and more in the so called upper classes who prove to be too venal to do anything more than engage in more hoarding.



Indrajala said:
This is why wise leaders of the past often suggested a return to simple living, like Marcus Aurelius for example.

Malcolm wrote:
Romantics. It never happens. Usually such guidance is long overdue.


Indrajala said:
It was autocratic forms of government that elevated them from rags to riches.

Malcolm wrote:
No, it was US money that elevated them from rags to riches because they embraced US led anti-communism. Example, Cuba, Venezuela, etc., are autocratic countries excluded from US markets tend to be impoverished because the embrace communism and we won't do business with them as much as possible. Mexico however is doing quite well.

Indrajala said:
India, a democracy in name, is still in rags while their competitor China is fairly well off by regional standards.

Malcolm wrote:
India does not sell as much to the US as China.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 28th, 2014 at 11:07 PM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
claiming that the basis is "contained" within the minds of illusory sentient beings is like claiming that the mirror is contained in the reflections!


Malcolm wrote:
It is the minds of illusory buddhas and sentient beings. Why is this not a problem? The basis is an abstraction, thus it is not real apart from its instantiations. The basis merely describes the potentiality of the mind's innate nature as the three kāyas and how the mind can deviate from that nature.  In other words, one's unfabricated mind is the mirror.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 28th, 2014 at 10:10 PM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
Sherlock said:
I don't really think it is just a metaphor. There are other ideas in Buddhadharma such as the six realms of existence, or like the Mahayanasutralamkara (?, not sure if I remember it correctly, but I'm thinking of the text ChNN likes to mention as thinking he managed to understand the first time he read it through, but the second and third times were much more difficult for him until he remembered his teacher's advice to try to understand in terms of his personal life) that both apply on a "cosmic" level as well as within the level of one's one lifetime; I think the cyclical universe idea works similarly.


Malcolm wrote:
Yes, these cycles do work on cosmic as well as personal levels. The process of the development as well as the disappearance of our bodies mimics the process of the development and disappearance of the elements in the universe, and the same cycle is repeated through waking and sleeping, etc. But this mimesis does not bear the consequence that the general basis, a set of properties inherent to all sentients, be they buddhas or beings, is a universal mind-stratum. Consciousness permeates all sentient beings, without all sentient beings having the same consciousness.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 28th, 2014 at 10:06 PM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:


Sherlock said:
If the basis is one's unfabricated mind, it is easy to see how this model applies to a personal, individual life level. However, is there a way to say that the universe as a whole has its unfabricated mind too?

Malcolm wrote:
How could there be? This would just render the universe one more sentient being.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 28th, 2014 at 10:01 PM
Title: Re: Family lineages vs tulku system vs "meritocracy"
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
To be a lineage holder in the Sakya lineage requires training from early childhood. .

theanarchist said:
Sure. But in the Tibetan monastic tradition a lot of young monks join a monastery at under 10 years of age.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, and other Kagyu and Nyingma lineages, generally only tulkus are cultivated for lineage holder training, unless, in the case of Nyingma familiy lineages, you are trained in the terma ritual cycle specific to your family.

In Gelug, however, you have to study for years and years, then you have to study some more in tantric college, then you have to study some more. By the time you are a qualified lineage holder you have spent 30+ years as a scholar/practitioner and are at least in your early forties if not fifties, having only started serious Vajrayāna training in your early thirties or forties.

Even in Sakya however, even if you belong to the Khon or one of the Ngor palaces, you are not automatically selected for such training, you have to show aptitude and interest from a very young age. For this reason, none of HH Dagchen Rinpoche sons were selected for/chose to undergo such training, but his grandson is being trained to succeed HE Ratnavajra at some point. In Ngor, the abbotship traditionally shifted every few years between Khenpos from that family. However, circumstances have lead to the Abbacy of Ngor being defacto in the hands of the Luding family at this point, the senior Luding Khenpo being the uncle of the junior Luding (who is the son of HE Jetsun Kusho). The Tshar lineage however has, as far as I know, been more of a meritocracy since it is based out of Nalendra Phenpo, which was the toughest academic school in Pre-modern Tibet. It still has family connections, but also some important Tullkus, like the Zimog Tulkus. In Derge, the Sakya school depends mostly on tulkus for succession, as that is the eastern Tibetan preference or so it seems. But they send them to Ngor for their education, for the most part.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 28th, 2014 at 9:48 PM
Title: Re: Discussion of Political Topics is Wrong Speech
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
You've been living the Sinosphere too long. Geography, not politics, has been the defining feature of political stability.

Indrajala said:
On what basis do you suggest this?

Malcolm wrote:
Rome, China, India, Britain, US etc.



Indrajala said:
Historically, most political systems fail because ineptness on the part of kings and elites.
No, it is more related to resource issues and overpopulation usually. Regardless of the political system, the elites are only part of the secular cycle.

Malcolm wrote:
Resources generally mismanaged by "elites".

Indrajala said:
The very stability and internal peace that strong empires impose contain within them the seeds of future chaos. Stability and internal peace bring prosperity, and prosperity causes population increase. Demographic growth leads to overpopulation, overpopulation causes lower wages, higher land rents, and falling per capita incomes for the commoners. At first, low wages and high rents bring unparalleled wealth to the upper classes, but as their numbers and appetites grow, they also begin to suffer from falling incomes. Declining standards of life breed discontent and strife. The elites turn to the state for employment and additional income, and drive up its expenditures at the same time that the tax revenues decline because of the growing misery of the population. When the state’s finances collapse, it loses the control of the army and police. Freed from all restraints, strife among the elites escalates into civil war, while the discontent among the poor explodes into popular rebellions.
Peter Turchin, War and Peace and War The Rise and Fall of Empires, 13.

Malcolm wrote:
Completely reinforces this point and the point below.



Indrajala said:
Elites usually become fragmented because they become decadent.
That's only part of the puzzle. In most empires the elites early on are modest and the wealth gap between them and the commoners low. It is resource abundance over time that leads to overpopulation and elite enrichment. That alone does not fragment them however.

Malcolm wrote:
Exactly my point, elites become more and more decadent as their power and wealth increases.


Indrajala said:
This is basically a recipe for a totalitarian government in this day and age.
In some places it worked out okay for a few decades. Look at how South Korea and Taiwan went from rags to riches.

Malcolm wrote:
Their economies are part of US economic resource infrastructure, as China too is now.


Indrajala said:
The problem is with the definition of "capable". Who defines it?
There is no universal authority to dictate those terms, but situation by situation it is often evident who is really suitable for leadership.

Malcolm wrote:
Only in hindsight, never in foresight.



Indrajala said:
What you actually suggesting is replacing the rule of law with the rule of persons. That's ok with me, but don't kid yourself that you are advocating anything other than a return to monarchy.
They're not mutually exclusive. A constitutional monarchy is such that you get rule of law which is derived from the authority of the crown, yet the crown is still bound by rule of law.

Malcolm wrote:
[/quote]

Such a monarch is a toothless monarch.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 28th, 2014 at 8:49 PM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
wisdom said:
Question for anyone who might know, if the basis is ones own fabricated mind, how is my unfabricated mind connected to Dharmadhatu? What is the supreme, primordial reality and how does my personal basis abide in it, what is the relationship between these two things (my personal basis, and the universal whatever within which it finds itself)?

Malcolm wrote:
For each one if us, it is the dharmadhatu. Everything that appears to us appears to us only as the light of our own consciousness. When we reify that light, it appears to us as afflictive objects. When we do not reify it, appears to us as the pure luminescence of our own minds.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 28th, 2014 at 9:08 AM
Title: Re: Family lineages vs tulku system vs "meritocracy"
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
Fortunately the Khon, Ludings, Thartses and so on are not subject to your "political correct" and "egalitarian" notions of fairness.

I personally think that the Sakya masters have done a fantastic job of maintaining the lineage just as it is for the past 1000+ years. If it works, don't fix it.


theanarchist said:
Dharma as a private elite club. Great, now THAT surely is what the buddha had in mind 2500 years ago.... As I can see it, the buddhas son didn't get a VIP treatment back then.


Malcolm wrote:
To be a lineage holder in the Sakya lineage requires training from early childhood.

The families involved in these lineages preserve not because they are private clubs but because it is what these families do and have done for many centuries. It is one thing to be a practitioner, it is quite another to be lineage holder.

Attitudes like yours come from not understanding the requirements needed to be a lineage holder.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 28th, 2014 at 3:16 AM
Title: Re: Family lineages vs tulku system vs "meritocracy"
Content:
theanarchist said:
I find it pretty unfair to put all the effort into the education of someone just based on family descendant and not based on actual talent of an individual, whereas others don't get this level of education.

That's just as with music. There have probably been 50 more Mozarts out there, that simply never got the education so they could never develop to their great potential.

If those members of this family are so above average "talented" for dharma practice then they should clearly show that in a normal monastic iducation. So, put all reasonable candidates into a proper education and then choose the best ones as lineage holders.


Malcolm wrote:
Fortunately the Khon, Ludings, Thartses and so on are not subject to your "political correct" and "egalitarian" notions of fairness.

I personally think that the Sakya masters have done a fantastic job of maintaining the lineage just as it is for the past 1000+ years. If it works, don't fix it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 28th, 2014 at 1:17 AM
Title: Re: Discussion of Political Topics is Wrong Speech
Content:
Indrajala said:
Historically it has been strong leadership and a unified elite that produced the most stable and prosperous nations able to defend themselves against barbarians.

Malcolm wrote:
You've been living the Sinosphere too long. Geography, not politics, has been the defining feature of political stability.

Indrajala said:
When you politically empower inept peoples and give them a voice,

Malcolm wrote:
Historically, most political systems fail because ineptness on the part of kings and elites.

Indrajala said:
It is only when elites are fractured that rebellions can end up in revolution and subsequent chaos and anarchy.

Malcolm wrote:
Elites usually become fragmented because they become decadent.

Indrajala said:
The common people need to be looked after by their superiors, not empowered.

Malcolm wrote:
This is basically a recipe for a totalitarian government in this day and age.

Indrajala said:
In my mind the capable should be called to positions of authority while their inferiors are governed with benevolence and tough love if need be.

Malcolm wrote:
The problem is with the definition of "capable". Who defines it?

Indrajala said:
This does not mean a totalitarian state.

Malcolm wrote:
In practice, it does.

Indrajala said:
There just needs to be strong leadership with active long-term planning. There has to be unforgiving rule of law, otherwise you end up with chaos.

Malcolm wrote:
What you actually suggesting is replacing the rule of law with the rule of persons. That's ok with me, but don't kid yourself that you are advocating anything other than a return to monarchy.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 27th, 2014 at 10:02 PM
Title: Re: Family lineages vs tulku system vs "meritocracy"
Content:
jiashengrox said:
Furthermore, it was mentioned in Dezhung Rinpoche's biography, "A Saint in Seattle":

He also said there were three ways to be recognised as a great lama. The first was by familial descent, which was worst. The second was as an "incarnate lama" ( or tulku ) which also was very imperfect. The third way was through recognized merit and saintly achievement, which was best. In this connection, Dezhung Rinpoche also repeated the view: "How much better it would be to test prospective tulkus for their knowledge after they grew up than to test them as infants for their abiliy to dientify various objects!"
( pg 259 )

kirtu said:
I don't remember that from "Saint in Seattle".  I'll have to go back and reread parts for sure.

However the Sakya tradition is relatively skeptical (or at least quite conservative) concerning tulku recognition.  Secondly this may be as close as Dezhung Rinpoche would come to open criticism.

Kirt


Malcolm wrote:
Correct, most Sakya tulkus come from East Tibet. But in reality, all the central Tibetan Sakya lineages are controlled by hereditary families.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 27th, 2014 at 9:44 PM
Title: Re: Family lineages vs tulku system vs "meritocracy"
Content:
Sherlock said:
From the thread about Ole Nydahl.
But frankly, all this makes me understand that the family lineage holder model has certain strengths that the other two models, i.e. Tulku succession, or nominated abbotships, as in  the throne of Ganden, somewhat lack. While all are subject to manipulation, the family lineage thing has more resistance to external manipulation, at minimum. On the other hand, the Gelug model is appealing too because the head of the Gelug school is nominated on the basis of their scholarship and practice rather then money and power. So, of the three, I think the Tulku system is the weakest. However, it has the most appeal because it allows cults of personality to extend through time in an unprecedented way.
M
What exactly made the Khon family the only family lineage that lasted past a century while the other Nyingma family lineages from the same period (Gnubs, Zur etc) basically spread out while the original families were lost? (One might say from kula to kaula traditions).

Malcolm wrote:
One, the Sakya branch of the Khon settled largely in the eastern limit of the former Shang Shung kingdom. Two, they were a family that had enjoyed close connections with the Yarlung dynasty. Three, they maintained the ancestral teachings of their clan, in fact Khon Konchog Gyalpo did pass Kilaya and Yangdag to Sachen directly. Four, they were wealthy traders and benefactors. Fifth, they were the chief promulgators of Lamdre, and so on. Sixth, the Sakya branch of the Khon family ruled Tibet for roughly a hundred years. Seventh, the first five Sakya founder Masters were all amazing scholars and practitioners.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 27th, 2014 at 8:36 PM
Title: Re: Jhana and non-dualism - parallels?
Content:
Thomas_Pynchon said:
Are there parallels between how the Buddha describes his experience of Jhana, as the very vehicle of his enlightenment, and how that is understood within non-dual traditions such as Dzogchen or Advaita?


Malcolm wrote:
Dhyanas are defined by the presence or absence of specific mental factors.

The Dhyanas were not the vehicle of Buddha's awakening, rather he coursed through them in order to remove traces of rebirth associated with the form and formless realms associated with the dhyanas.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 26th, 2014 at 9:07 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist Hate Crimes
Content:
tellyontellyon said:
Can I ask about the reponsibility for others.

E.g. If I know that somebody is hurting somebody else e.g. going after somebody with an axe, then I have a choice... Do I intervene or not intervene? Could something I do or fail to do change the outcome of the situation and the ensuing Karmic outcome for both the victim and the attacker.
I am not saying that I am karmically responsible for what the attacker does... but I am karmically responsible for what I do. I.e. intervening or not.

If, for example, I could phone the police but decide not to, or wash my hands on the matter, then a decision that I have made has the likely outcome of greater harm or even the death of the victim, even though I didn't swing the axe myself.

Surely there would be serious karmic consequences for myself if I failed to intervene in a situation that: I know about, and know that it is in my power to help?

Malcolm wrote:
We do what we can, and we wish happiness on all. But the best use of our time, until we really have the capacity to truly practice engaged bodhicitta, is to practice Dharma to increase our wisdom. Until that time we should not be giving away our limbs, nor risking our lives trying to "help" others thinking that this is somehow "bodhisattva" activity. As long as we have limited compassion, we should be judicious about how we decide we are going to "help".


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 26th, 2014 at 2:23 AM
Title: Re: Emptiness in Yogacara
Content:
Astus said:
As for the ultimate accomplishment, Yogacara has non-abiding nirvana, so it doesn't look like something that accepts any substantially existent things or minds.

Malcolm wrote:
We will agree to disagree.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 25th, 2014 at 4:10 AM
Title: Re: Question
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
The expert faker becomes an actual expert, but he just actualizes the Buddha Nature right...I mean, the Sambogakaya is not a thing substantially seperate from oneself right?

Malcolm wrote:
It is both a part of oneself and not.

Each sentient beings has dharmakāya as their buddhanature from the start. When that is realized, then one can manifest the sambhogakāya and the nirmanakāya.


Johnny Dangerous said:
What is ones relationship to the sambogakaya prior to enlightenment then..i.e. for the purpose of the conversation, I guess what i'm asking is are Yidam etc.  "the real thing" prior to this, or just our imagination on our side?

Malcolm wrote:
Prior to attaining the 8th bhumi, the only way you can relate to the Sambhogakāya is through a practice lineage.

The yidams are sambhogakāya manifestations to mahāsiddhis, who then develop the method connected with that manifestation and set that method down in a tantra.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 25th, 2014 at 2:42 AM
Title: Re: Ole Nydahi and Trungpa rinpoche
Content:
Stewart said:
I know for a fact that Chogye Trichen was instrumental in KTT's recognition.
Fine, can't argue with that...but from my pov, I have trust in Situ Rinpoche, I have received teachings, empowerments and advice from him over the years...I believe him to be an awakened master...but I can accept others have different opinions, that's okay. I have also received the same from Karmapa OTD, again he impressed me, but that's just my personal experience.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, of course, this all goes without saying.




Stewart said:
We don't have a stake in the game. This basically a power struggle between the Gelugs and conservative Karma Kagyus that has been going on since the war between the King of Tsang and the Ganden Phodrang in the 17th century. All of this politicking comes from that time.
Again, I accept this, and truth be told, the whole Karmapa situation doesn't concern me, it does hurt though when some of my teachers are slandered, especially in light of Akong Rinpoche's death. It's a personal thing really, my problem.

Malcolm wrote:
It is fine to want to defend your guru's reputation. You should never feel sorry about that. The situation with the Karmapas is difficult, and it is very similar to the situation with Gyalpo Shugden in Gelug. In the end, only oneself can be the judge of which perspective is right and which is wrong.

I personally generally go along with HHDL's point of view on both these matters, as does HHST, but I know there are others who disagree with him and feel that their own reasons are equally valid.

If there is a lesson to be learned, we who follow these lineages in Western dharma centers need to cautious about getting mixed up in lineage politics we do not really understand.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 25th, 2014 at 2:32 AM
Title: Re: Ethics of animal slaughter (vis. Marius the Giraffe)
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
realistically speaking viruses, bacteria, etc... are way "higher" than humans when you look at the system as a whole (in a unidirectional manner).

Malcolm wrote:
It all depends on how you are looking at an ecosystem. Then different definitions are valid, depending on context.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 24th, 2014 at 11:08 PM
Title: Re: Ole Nydahi and Trungpa rinpoche
Content:


Stewart said:
Yes, I agree, it's a mess....but I beleive that Shamar first endorsed OTD, before changing his mind... also for a long time, Shamar would not name Chogye Trichen Rinpoche as his source of support, he heavily hinted at it, but when Chogye Trichen Rinpoche was asked directly, he seemingly denied he had advised Shamar.

Malcolm wrote:
I know for a fact that Chogye Trichen was instrumental in KTT's recognition.

Stewart said:
Sakya Trizin has also gave Karmapa OTD several important transmissions, so I think the Sakyapas, perhaps wisely, have remained neutral.

Malcolm wrote:
We don't have a stake in the game. This basically a power struggle between the Gelugs and conservative Karma Kagyus that has been going on since the war between the King of Tsang and the Ganden Phodrang in the 17th century. All of this politicking comes from that time.

[qupte]
If I am completely honest, this resurfaced for me recently upon Akong Rinpoche's death, I knew him very well, for many years, and was shocked...so i reacted badly to the negative comments by various Shamar students. My bad.[/quote]

It is not your bad at all. This a part of your life and history. It is just good to recognize that it is very worldly, on both sides. If you are a Karma Kagyu however, you have to make a decision who is going to be your leader.

But frankly, all this makes me understand that the family lineage holder model has certain strengths that the other two models, i.e. Tulku succession, or nominated abbotships, as in  the throne of Ganden, somewhat lack. While all are subject to manipulation, the family lineage thing has more resistance to external manipulation, at minimum. On the other hand, the Gelug model is appealing too because the head of the Gelug school is nominated on the basis of their scholarship and practice rather then money and power. So, of the three, I think the Tulku system is the weakest. However, it has the most appeal because it allows cults of personality to extend through time in an unprecedented way.
M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 24th, 2014 at 10:57 PM
Title: Re: Ethics of animal slaughter (vis. Marius the Giraffe)
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
We tend to focus on the predation part because a) it has been discerned in biology that natural top predators such as wolves, cats, bears and so on are vital for ecosystems, which often create the conditions for many species to flourish (for example, certain kinds of beetles can only flourish if there are elk kills, which leads to other things and so on

Sherab Dorje said:
The very fact that you refer to them as "top" is indicative of the hierarchical and unidirectional  model which is being utilised, a model that emphasizes the role of the predator.  A truly ecological model has a spherical approach to ecosystems:  no elk kills, no beetles, no beetles, no elks (and thus no elk kills), etc...

Malcolm wrote:
Nonsense, greg. There are certain kinds of environmental dependencies that do break down into hierarchies, for example, without top or alternately "keystone" predators, populations of deer and so on exceed carrying the capacity of their environments. Of course there are ways of analyzing these things into mutual feedback loops and so on, but some kinds of animals play key roles in a given ecosystem, which when removed, cause the ecosystem to degrade. Other animals, when introduced into a previously stable ecosystem (rabbits in OX, mongooses in Hawaii), etc., wreak havoc on an ecosystem.

Sherab Dorje said:
We are not "top" predators.  Realistically speaking we are fodder for viruses, bacteria, internal micro (and macro) organisms, worms, etc...

Malcolm wrote:
Realistically speaking, we are both: the two are not mutually exclusive.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 24th, 2014 at 9:19 PM
Title: Re: Ole Nydahi and Trungpa rinpoche
Content:


Stewart said:
The fact of the matter is that the whole thing backfired on Shamar big time, hardly any Kagyu, or other lineages for that matter, have backed Trinlay Thaye, at best they pay him basic respect, but in reality it's always Karmapa OTD they meet publically. So, sadly, you have begun to rely on slander and conspiracy theory to give them a foot hold.

Malcolm wrote:
Hi Stewart:

This not a fair assessment of the situation.

The "Shamar" candidate was first recognize by Chogye Trichen Rinpoche, who many assert was the most realized Tibetan teacher in a century. Trinley Thaye was granted the entire sgyud sde kun 'dus by the senior Luding Khenpo in California in a private teaching that lasted for some months.

This is not the first time in history there has been more than one recognized Karmapa. In the end, it just becomes a money and power game. That, sadly, is what the tulku system has largely degenerated into, in my opinion.

The fact that Orgyen Thaye Dorje is accorded "more" respect has more to do with HHDL's patronage than anything else, as far as I can discern. He has also been something of a hostage to the Ganden Podrang, however, and given the history between the Karmapas and the Ganden Phodrang, I can see why this makes many Karma Kagyus very uncomfortable.

The fact remains that the Karma Kagyu school suffered a blow to their reputation because of the controversy. You cannot blame one side more than the other, unless you are a partisan.

As someone with virtually no connection to Karma Kagyu, who has no stake in the game on any side, I think the whole affair is a sad mess and has weakened the Karma Kagyu school considerably.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 24th, 2014 at 8:36 PM
Title: Re: Ethics of animal slaughter (vis. Marius the Giraffe)
Content:
LastLegend said:
If there are no Buddhas, then there are no sentient beings?


Malcolm wrote:
No, it does not work that way. Sentient beings are the cause for Buddhas to appear. If there are no sentient beings, Buddha get to take a break.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 24th, 2014 at 8:22 PM
Title: Re: Ethics of animal slaughter (vis. Marius the Giraffe)
Content:
LastLegend said:
If there are no sentient beings, will there be Buddhas?

Malcolm wrote:
Of course not.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 24th, 2014 at 8:02 PM
Title: Re: Ethics of animal slaughter (vis. Marius the Giraffe)
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
Actually there are infinitely more examples of mutual aid in nature then there are of predation.  Just that we focus on the predation aspect.  It appeals to our sense of hierarchy and domination through violence.


Malcolm wrote:
We tend to focus on the predation part because a) it has been discerned in biology that natural top predators such as wolves, cats, bears and so on are vital for ecosystems, which often create the conditions for many species to flourish (for example, certain kinds of beetles can only flourish if there are elk kills, which leads to other things and so on, and b) as top predators ourselves, we humans have outcompeted all other top predators. However, we are not so healthy for the primeval environment. We are also the only animals that self-consciously create our own environment and impose it on the "natural" one.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 24th, 2014 at 7:57 PM
Title: Re: Ethics of animal slaughter (vis. Marius the Giraffe)
Content:
Simon E. said:
Quite. So does your Bodhisattva vow include ' emptying samsara ' of roses, cabbages,
and pineapples ?

kirtu said:
Plant life is not held to be sentient in Tibetan Buddhism.  Otherwise, yes.  The entire three realms are to be liberated.

Malcolm wrote:
Simon has a very good point: taken literally, "emptying samsara" can be construed to have some very negative consequences.

But he needn't fear since "emptying samsara" is a mere Indian literary sentiment exhorting the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas to continue to act benevolently on our behalf. Given that there infinite sentient beings, samsara will never be emptied, therefore, buddhas will always turn the wheel of dharma and bodhisattvas in the form of bees and wasps, etc will always be there to pollinate our flowers and trees (Unless we poison them all). It is a sentiment along the lines of the Zen bodhisattva vow "Sentient beings are numberless, I vow to save them all." It is an aspirational bodhicitta, not a practical one.

So Simon, as attractive as that big glowing pudding may sound, it can never happen practically speaking.

On the other hand, samsara will be emptied during the twenty dark eons when all sentient beings take rebirth in the upper two form realms, in addition to the formless realms, at the destruction of the container universe. That is, from a Buddhist cosmological perspective, a certainty.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 24th, 2014 at 7:21 PM
Title: Re: Ole Nydahi and Trungpa rinpoche
Content:
AlexanderS said:
Natha does not mean nephew in either Tibetan or Sanskrift. I imagine a expert translator like Malcolm could clear this up.

In the Trinley Thaye Dorje camp the wrathful emation mentioned is generally thought to be Shamapa. He lives west from the place mentioned in the prophecy and the Shamarpa is traditionally considered an emanation of Buddha Amitabtha(The Buddha of the western direction). As to being an emanation of Padmasambhava

"Karmapa and Konchog Bang(the 5th Shamarpa) and Padma Jung-ney me are all just seperate in appearance; In reality there is no separation, (all) in one essence." -Padmasambhava, (from chokguyr lingpas biography).

Malcolm wrote:
Natha (savior, guide, protector) = mgon po = reference to a personal name, in this case some take this "Natha" to be the present Shamar, who is the newphew of the 16th Karmapa.

However, there are different ways of counting the Karmapa incarnations which would indicate that the troubles existed during an earlier incarnation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 24th, 2014 at 2:36 AM
Title: Re: Question
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
The expert faker becomes an actual expert, but he just actualizes the Buddha Nature right...I mean, the Sambogakaya is not a thing substantially seperate from oneself right?

Malcolm wrote:
It is both a part of oneself and not.

Each sentient beings has dharmakāya as their buddhanature from the start. When that is realized, then one can manifest the sambhogakāya and the nirmanakāya.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 24th, 2014 at 2:33 AM
Title: Re: Guru yoga not Indian?
Content:
theanarchist said:
The spiritual practice of Guru Yoga itself is not about some a text.

I think the question should rather be, were there any vastly complex visualisation exercises around Guru Yoga in ancient India or is that a Tibetan innovation.

Malcolm wrote:
The answer to the first question is no, not in any recorded text we have,  and the answer to the second is yes, as far as we know.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 23rd, 2014 at 11:44 PM
Title: Re: Guru yoga not Indian?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Yes. Yes. I mentioned two traditions, Hevajra and Vajrayogini. For example, there are three gurusadhanas translated by a Vibhuticandra into Tibetan. Another text entitled
gurumandalasamadana vidhi translated by one of three Dro Lotsawas ('bro lo ts'a ba) which describes a method of practicing the guru, he is invited in front, one makes offerings to him, praises, etc., exactly the way that guru yogas are done in the Tibetan tradition.

Matylda said:
Yeah this sounds interesting.. I Wonder why GY did not make its way to Japan... I do not know shingon or tendai, though I know many monks and nuns of both tradition, just never asked about it. After all the guru position in both Japanese traditions seems to be very important.

Malcolm wrote:
Guru Yoga comes from Anuttarayoga tantra, which never made its way to Japan.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 23rd, 2014 at 11:40 PM
Title: Re: Question
Content:
Jigme Tsultrim said:
Sorry, but I believe the standard definitions are sufficient.

Malcolm wrote:
theism: 
noun
Belief in the existence of a god or gods, esp. belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures.

I am a theist. Buddhadharma contains a whole pantheon of mundane and transcendent "gods". By the dictionary definition given above, Buddhadharma is theistic.

dogma |ˈdôgmə|
noun
a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true:

I am a dogmatic. I accept that the Buddha set forth a set of principles that are incontrovertibly true. By the dictionary definition given above, Buddhadharma is dogmatic.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 23rd, 2014 at 11:34 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist Hate Crimes
Content:
Jigme Tsultrim said:
To define compassion in the real and relative world so broadly that there can be no distinction between its application to a guard at Dachau  and a starving child renders the word devoid of meaning.

Malcolm wrote:
No, it renders compassion impartial, which is the step before "objectless".

The buddhas and ārya-bodhisattvas do not make a distinction between a torturer and a victim, so why should we? It does not mean we do not intercede where we can to protect the victims, or convince the victimizers to restrain their violence, but we certainly do not judge the victimizer to be any other than a suffering sentient being. Extending compassion impartially does not condone those deeds acted out of the three poisons, nor does it condone the karmic ripening of those whose negative karma is ripening upon them. Your extension of compassion to the victims of a flood will have no impact on the ripening of their karma, will prevent no deaths, will not stem the loss of property and suffering. Your extension of compassion to the victims of war will not indict war criminals, nor save them from the fruit of their own actions.

Compassion needs to be wed with equanimity in order for compassion to become impartial. Otherwise, compassion swiftly turns into recrimination and judgement and bias.

When we bring to mind our bodhicitta vows we are not saying, "I vow to do this practice just to save only the sentient beings I like", we are saying "I am practicing the six perfections in order to become a Buddha so that I might rescue all beings from samsara."

In the end, we Mahāyāna Buddhist practitioners seek to develop objectless, unconditional compassion.

So what do we do? We try to stem what suffering we see, and we wish that the suffering we cannot address in others as well as ourselves be pacified. That is all we can do, and nothing more. Compassion is nothing more and nothing less than the wish that sentient beings be free from suffering. All sentient beings are suffering at all times. Some suffering is more obvious than others, which is the suffering we tend to focus on. We need to understand that the nature of samsara is suffering through and through. When we understand this, we can then understand that we should experience compassion for those sentient beings who are involved in heavy actions of warring against unarmed people, as well as the people being warred against and so on. No sentient being is less deserving of our compassion as bodhisattvas than any other.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 23rd, 2014 at 11:15 PM
Title: Re: Question
Content:
Jigme Tsultrim said:
Actually neither. I'm sure we could agree that Buddhism has different approaches. I have opened this discussion to oppose theism and dogmatism in Buddhist practice.

Malcolm wrote:
Define "theism".

Define "dogmatism".


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 23rd, 2014 at 7:46 AM
Title: Re: Creation Stage and the attainment of Bhumis
Content:


Benten said:
16th bhumi is Tathagatha

Malcolm wrote:
11th through 16th bhumi are tathāgata stages.
1-10, bodhisattva stages.

A 13th stage Vajradhara is perfect, it and the stages beyond are called "The stages of abiding in wisdom", while the 11th and 12th stages, while omniscient, do not regard phenomena as the display of wisdom.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 23rd, 2014 at 5:48 AM
Title: Re: Creation Stage and the attainment of Bhumis
Content:
Benten said:
actually they are both
why do you guys have to be so dualistic,

jk

Malcolm wrote:
You might ask yourself the same question, son.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 23rd, 2014 at 1:00 AM
Title: Re: Ole Nydahi and Trungpa rinpoche
Content:
smcj said:
I remember him saying, "You don't want to put your bodhicitta in a box." So I don't think he even has that specific bodhicitta vow that you are talking about.

But that's just my guess, and a very legalistic take on the issue.


theanarchist said:
As I see it, never ever wanting to see someone again also means not wanting to engage in helping this person to attain enlightenement. Because helping someone attain enlightenment would very likely mean seeing him or her again.

Bodhisattva vow always means not picking and choosing to help oneś favourite beings to attain enlightenment and abandoning the "unpleasant" ones.

Malcolm wrote:
It simply means never abandoning the wish to help them achieve awakening. Bodhisattva conduct also means avoiding the familiar company of the childish, the harmful and so on, people you can never help.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 22nd, 2014 at 11:23 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist Hate Crimes
Content:
Jigme Tsultrim said:
I'm not really seeking "agreement". I'm trying to raise some compassion for the victims. I'm trying to get those who consider themselves as Buddhist to realize that if they feel real compassion for those in error, that the really kind thing for all concerned is to point their error out to them. To claim that as a Buddhist one has no involvement in the activities of others, especially Buddhists, is to deny interdependence.
In teaching interedeoendence it is pointed out when someone claims that they did something by themselves that they must consider all the others involved in making the materials that went into whatever. So, turning this around are we not all involved in the actions of others? Even leaving out the special responsibility created by the Teachings, are we not responsible as fellow human beings?

Malcolm wrote:
The Buddha said "Karma is volition and its products".

We are not involved in the actions of others apart from the extent to which we agree to the intentions pursued by others. For example, someone who opposed the Vietnam war is responsible for none of the negative karma generated by that war, while all who supported it earn the negative karma * as many people who supported that war. This is very clearly explained in Abhidharma.

Our mind streams are not interdependent in the same way the roots of trees and mycelium in a forest are. Our mind streams are unique, and the gathering and ripening of karma upon it is individual, not collective. When beings engage in similar acts, they have similar ripenings, but that is as far as it goes.

Being responsible human beings does not bear the consequence that we must be ashamed of human beings when they engage in negative actions because of the three poisons. We do not feel shame when a person with a disease does something wrong. We understand that they are ill and in need of treatment. Likewise, when sentient beings engage in the ten non-virtues, they do so only because of the three poisons in their own minds.

Can we feel sad that sentient beings engage in negative karma? Yes. Is that sadness connected to the fact that we understand all of our unpleasant experiences in samsara are connected with our own negative actions? Yes. Should we feel shame that other sentient beings engage in non-virtuous actions because of the three poisons? No. No, unless at some point, for example, we whole heartedly backed the killing of a bunch of Ronhingyas for the "sin" of being Muslims because of our own afflictions. If we realize that this was wrong on our part, then we should voice that regret, confess it, and move on. But there is very little point in feeling shame at the actions of others in which we played no part.

In order to point out the error of someone, first you must gain their trust and respect. Only then will your admonishments be heeded, respected and effective. Otherwise, admonishing those who do not respect you is like pissing into the wind, it just turns back on you.

As to your point about interdependence. If I am a miner, and I unearth iron to make steel, after it goes to market I have no idea if it will make a car or a gun. So  whether it is made into a car or gun has nothing to do with me. I am just mining the ore, and that is all.

One must understand that the way this is taught is that first we have the presentation of the six causes and four conditions; then there is the presentation of dependent origination, and then, only after that is there the presentation of karma, the first is part of the teaching of the noble's truth of suffering, the latter two belong to the noble's truth of the origination of suffering. Cause and condition is not moral cause and condition, so the karana-hetu, which means that everything is a cause for everything else apart from itself does not apply to moral questions of karma-vipaka. If you overextend the limit of mutual causation, even the Buddha becomes responsible for the crimes of Angulimala.

Therefore, it needs to be understood that the only thing one needs to feel shame about is one's own action that arise out of the three poisons. Feeling shame for actions of others is a misplaced sense of identity which arises from a false grasping to self.

As for our responsibility towards other humans, well, again it is question of limitations. We are very limited, our capacity to help others is miniscule. We do what we can, we act as witnesses when there are those who are committing crimes, but we don't judge, and we don't abandon the fact that everyone involved in such events also has their own karma, positive and negative which led to that karmavipaka they are experiencing, including being murdered. The Buddhist view about the karmavipaka is dispassionate. If you engaged in a lot of killing in this life, your life will be shortened in the next. If you engage in a lot of violence in this life, you can bet that in the next you will be subjected to a lot of violence. Karma, like death, is pitiless.

Further, if we engage in judgement, we will lose compassion for the those who truly deserve it, the perpetrators of those crimes. For example, who is deserving of more compassion in this example: the SS soldiers who murdered millions of Jews, or the murdered Jews? Who is going to experience more suffering as a result? Most people feel no compassion for the SS soldiers and wish them into hell, saving their compassion for those who suffered terribly in the death camps. Who is more deserving of compassion, Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, or the millions they left in the killing fields? Who is more deserving of compassion, Kissinger and Nixon, who murdered hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese or the murdered Vietnamese.

The reality is that they are all equally deserving of compassion. This is the Mahāyāna approach. We do not judge and say this sentient beings deserves more compassion, this one less. All sentient beings are deserving of equal levels of compassions, whether they are Hitler, Mao, Stalin or a Rohingya Muslim or Nāgaland Buddhist, or a Sinhalese Tamil.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 22nd, 2014 at 11:00 PM
Title: Re: Climate Change: We're Doomed
Content:
Sherab said:
Molten salt nuclear reactors are considered to be "safe and proliferation-resistent".

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, the operative word here is "considered"; Three Mile Island was "considered" safe, Fukushima was "considered" safe, Chernobyl was "considered" safe until it turned out that they weren't safe at all.

kirtu said:
TMI was in fact safe. The radiation release was heavily overblown in the press

Malcolm wrote:
Your facts are wrong here:

Gundersen, a leading technical expert on nuclear engineering, says: "When I correctly interpreted the containment pressure spike and the doses measured in the environment after the TMI accident, I proved that TMI's releases were about one hundred times higher than the industry and the NRC claim, in part because the containment leaked. This new data supports the epidemiology of Dr. Steve Wing and proves that there really were injuries from the accident. New reactor designs are also effected, as the NRC is using its low assumed release rates to justify decreases in emergency planning and containment design."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/harvey-wasserman/people-died-at-three-mile_b_179588.html

kirtu said:
Fukashima was stupid design and that could easily be seen.

Malcolm wrote:
Right, which is why there is a reactor of exactly the same design sitting on Long Island Sound, and another just a few miles south of Boston, sitting on the Massachusetts Bay.

kirtu said:
However safe means, if there is a total disaster, the reactor will shut itself down with no or minimal radiation release (obviously we need to engineer this for no release).

Malcolm wrote:
You are a smart guy, and I respect your intelligence, but on this score I think you are being blinded by your enthusiasm for technological fixes. The entire nuclear industry from soup to nuts is lethally toxic and bad for the environment. There is no such thing as a "safe" nuclear power plant.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 22nd, 2014 at 10:46 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist Hate Crimes
Content:
Rickpa said:
As a member of a group,  you should be mindful that humans tend to judge any group of which they are outside, by the worst examples.

Malcolm wrote:
Indeed, this however does not mean that one need feel "shame" for being a Buddhist merely because there are afflicted "Buddhists" out there who do murderous things to innocents.

Likewise, I feel no shame about being an American despite that fact my government has done terrible things. But those things were done without my consent and I oppose them.

Jigme Tsultrim said:
Sorry, but you should in both cases.


Malcolm wrote:
As you can tell, I don't agree. I never feel shame for negative karma that I had no hand in creating. Compassion for the people who engage in such deeds, yes; shame, never.

In any event, it is very presumptuous for you to mandate how anyone ought to feel about anything. The reason I replied was to let others know that it was not necessary to pander to "politically correct" guilt-mongering.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 22nd, 2014 at 6:37 AM
Title: Re: What tibetan buddhist traditions these people belong?
Content:
Punya said:
This is interesting news, since you seem to be quite fond of bagging his successor. Not that I'm saying DJKR is a scholar. He is an activity emanation, is he not? And he seems to be doing quite well on that front.


Malcolm wrote:
We are talking about Dilgo Khyentse, no?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 22nd, 2014 at 5:34 AM
Title: Re: What tibetan buddhist traditions these people belong?
Content:


Punya said:
Are you suggesting he made some decisions based on political considerations? Despite his father's position in Tibetan society, this seems unlikely to me.

Malcolm wrote:
No, I am suggesting that he was devoted to the greatest scholar (in my opinion) that Tibet ever saw.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 22nd, 2014 at 5:13 AM
Title: Re: Living in Bhutan?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The most important factor determining your next birth place is the mental factors you are experiencing when you die.

daverupa said:
Hmm... not quite.

Malcolm wrote:
Quite. For example, Nāgārjurna writes that there is a dharma called an avipranasha which is created by every karma in which on engages . The one created at the time of one's death is the factor above all others which is instrumental in determining one's next birth location.

The example that you give does not necessarily contradict this.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 22nd, 2014 at 3:55 AM
Title: Re: What tibetan buddhist traditions these people belong?
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
I don't know much about Sakya, or anything, for that matter, but what about this:
http://www.adarshaphotography.com/Other/Dam-Ngak-Dzod/26568547_m6QQ5D#!i=2242016424&k=fgBJHnS&lb=1&s=L?

Malcolm wrote:
That's true, he did give the Dam Ngag Dzod recently, I forgot, that contains Lamdre in its minimal form.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 22nd, 2014 at 3:18 AM
Title: Re: Living in Bhutan?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
When push comes to shove, all who die engaged in battle go to hell. Perhaps one's motivation will shorten the duration, but when they say "war is hell", they were not kidding.

Indrajala said:
It isn't so clear cut as that. Past merit and a number of other factors come into play at death.

Malcolm wrote:
It's pretty clear cut when the Buddha explains this to Pasenadi. The most important factor determining your next birth place is the mental factors you are experiencing when you die. Plus all people who voluntarily participate in a battle earn the karma of all the people they are engaged in that activity with.

There really is no positive outcome of war, karmically speaking.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 22nd, 2014 at 3:00 AM
Title: Re: Living in Bhutan?
Content:
Indrajala said:
If push comes to shove though someone has to do the fighting. Monks of course are obligated to remain out of the conflict, but someone has to man the walls.

The fear of karma is warranted, though I don't think it is so simple. It certainly isn't wholesome karma to inflict violence against even the enemies of Buddhism, but on the other hand it isn't entirely unwholesome either as the motivation is self-defense and preservation of the Buddhadharma in the world.

Indra after all is a stream-enterer yet continues leading armies into war against the asuras...

Malcolm wrote:
When push comes to shove, all who die engaged in battle go to hell. Perhaps one's motivation will shorten the duration, but when they say "war is hell", they were not kidding.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 22nd, 2014 at 2:36 AM
Title: Re: Living in Bhutan?
Content:
tellyontellyon said:
How very protestant.

According to the Lotus Sūtra a single offering to an image of the Buddha can initiate the process towards ultimate buddhahood in the distant future.

So, preserving images is actually essential to at least Mahāyāna Buddhism.
Do you preserve them with the blood of your enemies?

Malcolm wrote:
It certainly is not the job of Buddhist monks or lay people to get involved in armed struggles.

But Jeff is correct, any country should maintain a strong army to defend itself, and in particular we have see the repeated and tragic costs to Buddhist countries that do not maintain strong armies to defend themselves. Bhutan of course does not have the power to stave of China or India, but they don't have to. Any threat to Bhutan is a threat against India itself.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 22nd, 2014 at 2:05 AM
Title: Re: Living in Bhutan?
Content:
tellyontellyon said:
M:
I value everything handed down by the teachers, it is important that the teachings are handed on.... but that is not the same as clinging to it out of fear.

Malcolm wrote:
I don't think Bhutan is clinging out of fear to anything.

tellyontellyon said:
That is not the same as manipulating populations to maintain a religious and cultural dominance.

Malcolm wrote:
That is the Maoist game, not the Bhutanese game.

tellyontellyon said:
If the British or whoever it was did that to Bhutan, well that is the past. Two wrongs do not make a right. The Bhutanese people of Nepali descent who were expelled were treated badly. They were just ordinary, poor people who had their lives shattered by the actions of the Bhutanese government.

Malcolm wrote:
They were mostly illegal immigrants.

tellyontellyon said:
As the world changes in technology, communication etc. then of course the cultural forms of Buddhist communities change too. This is unavoidable.

Malcolm wrote:
Many times people think they are preserving "the essence" when they change things, but really they wind up destroying the core.

tellyontellyon said:
By failing to act with compassion the label 'Vajrayana' has been made meaningless. Bhutan doesn't deserve that epithet.
Is that what you think Vajrayana comes down to... deporting ethnic minorities?

Malcolm wrote:
One, by that time, the Bhutanese (Ngalobs) were the minority in their own country, though the with the easterners, most of whom are of Assamese, monpa and so on descent, they formed a Buddhist majority.

I think that the Bhutanese acted as they did to stop illegal immigration into their country as well as rising terrorism. But you will recall they only began the mass deportations as a response to Maoist terrorism.

The situation in Bhutan is nothing like Shri Lanka or Burma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 22nd, 2014 at 1:11 AM
Title: Re: What tibetan buddhist traditions these people belong?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
It is also interesting to note that at the end of Dilgo Khyentse's life, when he was repairing Samye, he kept on having recurrent visions of Sakya Pandita which led to a Guru Yoga terma featuring Sakya Pandita that has an outer, inner and secret aspect to it.

pensum said:
Interesting, for Jamyang Khyentse Chokyi Lodro had given DKR a statue of Sakya Pandita which he had used as his own personal practice support.


Malcolm wrote:
DKR was a smart man, he knew which side of the bread his butter was on.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 22nd, 2014 at 1:00 AM
Title: Re: Living in Bhutan?
Content:


tellyontellyon said:
Buddhism has made contact with Europe and the US and the rest of the world. That interaction is leading to a new Buddhism.

Malcolm wrote:
No it isn't.

tellyontellyon said:
The language, scriptures, costumes, temples... all that is wonderful and we can learn so much from that, but that is not the essence of what Buddhism is about.

Malcolm wrote:
Human cultures are worth preserving. Nepal already has one. Let Bhutan have theirs.

tellyontellyon said:
It is important that in trying to preserve cultural forms we do not lose the essence, what Buddhism is really about.

Malcolm wrote:
Bhutan is the last place in the world where the entire country (apart from the Nepalis legally living in the South) is devoted to Vajrayāna. Even if you don't think this is worth preserving, many of us do.

tellyontellyon said:
If we want Buddhism to survive then it must come from a place of compassion and love.

Malcolm wrote:
Sometimes the benefit of all takes on fearsome forms. I think Bhutan did what it needed to do to eliminate a huge population of people who emigrated to Bhutan without papers. They needed to tighten their borders. As I said, I personally have no problem with this.

tellyontellyon said:
If it comes from fear and an attempt to cling to something from the past then we have lost it already.

Malcolm wrote:
But Buddhism does look to the past, that is why we recite lineage prayers, compose religious histories and so on, so that we know where we come from and we do not forget. The past informs the present. There is no place for a Buddhist "cultural revolution". Buddhadharma has a trajectory, an arch. It will last for so long in this world system and then disappear completely. But in the meantime the traditional forms have substance and meaning. I personally believe they should be preserved.

If you want a "new Buddhism", then go follow Bachelor or some of the other advocates of Buddhist reform. As for me, I am about as conservative as one gets when it comes to preserving what we have left from the ancient Buddhist world. There is so little of it left, it needs to remain intact for the edification of the future. We unfortunately live in a world where even the Buddha's seat of awakening, on a relative level, is not immune to Muslim and Hindu attacks. Indeed, in 635 it was destroyed by Sashanka. Last year Bodhgaya was bombed by the Indian Muhajadeen. Everyone recalls the insane shelling of the Buddhas at Bamiyan by the Taliban.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 22nd, 2014 at 12:40 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Everything is worse. I have friends who have lived there six months out of every year for the past 20 years. According to them, it is in worse shape than ever.


theanarchist said:
But is that because of the Maoists?

Malcolm wrote:
Definitely.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 21st, 2014 at 11:30 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
theanarchist said:
Erm, yeah. If it was so great, then why were there so many dissatisfied people who turned to the maoists?

Malcolm wrote:
They didn't really — the Maoists basically forced young Nepalis to fight with them or die.

theanarchist said:
I recently read an interview with a Nepali artist who stated that everything is pretty much the same, just instead of one bureaucrat you have to bribe 5.

Malcolm wrote:
Everything is worse. I have friends who have lived there six months out of every year for the past 20 years. According to them, it is in worse shape than ever.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 21st, 2014 at 10:55 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:


theanarchist said:
Whereas Hindus never had any inclination for proselytizing and here in Europe they are among the immigrants that cause the least problems.

Malcolm wrote:
You need to read the History of Nepal and India. Or for the matter the Hardship and Decline of Buddhism in India.


theanarchist said:
That's still an intra-Indian affair and a fairly ordinary power struggle of different groups. Those Nepali peasants certainly don't want to take over the government and convert all the buddhists there.

Malcolm wrote:
No, the communists tried to use an imagined Nepali majority to foment an armed rebellion and take over of the Bhutanese government to install a Marxist regime, just like the present day one in Kathmandu.  I, for one, am glad they failed. Nepal was great under the old King, these days it is a total mess, largely through the customary ineptness of Marxist governments.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 21st, 2014 at 10:53 PM
Title: Re: Living in Bhutan?
Content:
tellyontellyon said:
M:
You really have to get away from equating genuine Marxism with the distorted nutjobs that are better described as Stalinists/Maoists. I don't call myself a communist for exactly the same reason. I'm not a supporter of the actions or the so called 'communist' organisations that happened in the USSR, North Korea, China, Nepal, Tibet etc. It is really dishonest of you to keep on suggesting that I do.

Malcolm wrote:
TOTO, I think that your beliefs lead to exactly what happened in the USSR, China, North Korea, Nepal, etc.

tellyontellyon said:
Do you have a problem with the fact that if you are a Mohawk Indian of Christian, etc. beliefs, you have no right to be in the government of the Mohawk Nation? I don't.
A Mohawk is a Mohawk, if the govt. of the Mohawk nation is the voice of the entire Mohawk nation it should encompass the whole community. But we are not even talking about a particular 'people' here. We are talking about a country.

Malcolm wrote:
Actually we are talking about a particular people with a specific history, language and cultural tradition.

tellyontellyon said:
People are people, why should Buddhists worry about things like the ethnic background of people.

Malcolm wrote:
We don't. Anyone can become a Buddhist.

tellyontellyon said:
I thought Buddhists embraced impermanence, rather than trying to preserve some sort of model society.

Malcolm wrote:
Buddhists, when push comes to shove, are much more conservative than you imagine. We tend to like to preserve things like, lineage, culture and so on, and if Bhutan had adopted the policies of Sikkim, there would be no Bhutan today.

tellyontellyon said:
Bhutan is not a museum.

Malcolm wrote:
No, it is a tiny nation trying to preserve its unique culture and way of life. For example, the Navaho nation, at 27,425 sq mi, is twice the size of Bhutan, though it only has about 180,000 members. Bhutan is more densely populated, at 742,737 (2012), but is little more half the size, at 14,824 sq mi. But in 1991, it had a population of 1,375,400. As you can see, there was a mass migration out of Bhutan, and it was not all forced. Many Nepalis left of their own accord. Only 108,000 were forcibly expelled.

Even today there are more speakers of Nepali in Bhutan than those who speak the national language, Dzongkha. The Nepalis are 35% of the total population. Prior to the mass exodus, they were nearly 50% of the total population, and only 15% of those were actually citizens of Bhutan.

tellyontellyon said:
The expelled people are just human beings. Why reduce them to something less than that with some silly racist label of 'illegel immigrant', and use that as a justification of the suffering imposed on them by the racist govt. of Bhutan.

Malcolm wrote:
The conditions of the camps are appalling, I have friends have been to them. But I blame the government of Nepal for that, and not Bhutan. Calling the Lhotsampas "Bhutanese" is like calling illegal immigrants to the US "US citizens". This page for example states https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_Bhutan "The number of legal permanent Nepalese residents in the late 1980s may have been as few as 15 percent of the total Lhotshampa population, however."

In any event, in the past six years many of these unfortunate people have been resettled in Canada and the US, among other places, and will certainly have a better life here than was possible for them in Nepal or Bhutan.

As I said, Bhutan, for all its faults, is the last independent Vajrayāna kingdom in the world today. It may mean nothing to you, but it means something to me.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 21st, 2014 at 9:40 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:


theanarchist said:
Whereas Hindus never had any inclination for proselytizing and here in Europe they are among the immigrants that cause the least problems.

Malcolm wrote:
You need to read the History of Nepal and India. Or for the matter the Hardship and Decline of Buddhism in India.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 21st, 2014 at 8:54 PM
Title: Re: What tibetan buddhist traditions these people belong?
Content:
pensum said:
the Ngor branch no longer practise the so-called ’ancestral teachings’ (yab chö) of the Sakya school, such as the practices of Yangdak Heruka and Vajrakilaya."

Malcolm wrote:
This is not strictly true, actually. However, it is true that the Ngorpas were very conservative, while the Tsharpas were more eclectic in their approach. The Khon family have always maintained strong connections with the Nyingma school.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 21st, 2014 at 8:46 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
, I have no problems with their desire to maintain the Buddhist culture of Bhutan intact without having to accommodate those of other cultures in their midst.


theanarchist said:
Wow, that sounds like Saudi Arabian religious totalitarism of the lowest kind.

Malcolm wrote:
Do you have a problem with the fact that if you are a Mohawk Indian of Christian, etc. beliefs, you have no right to be in the government of the Mohawk Nation? I don't. That't how they set up their constitution, in order to preserve what they can of their culture and original spiritual tradition. Bhutan should be considered in the same light. You can think of it as a Buddhist "reservation".


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 21st, 2014 at 8:00 PM
Title: Re: Living in Bhutan?
Content:
Dan74 said:
I was not aware of the risk to women (somebody mentioned the word 'predatory'). Can someone shed more light on this? We also have a 5-year-old daughter.

Malcolm wrote:
Deserved or undeserved, Bhutanese men have a reputation for being womanizers. I think it has a bit to do with the Drugpa Kunley mythos.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 21st, 2014 at 7:58 PM
Title: Re: China Tells Obama not to meet Dalai Lama
Content:
Indrajala said:
The president actually gains their begrudging respect by defying their request not to meet the Dalai Lama.


Malcolm wrote:
No bunch of commies is going to tell the leader of the free world what to do.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 21st, 2014 at 7:56 PM
Title: Re: China Tells Obama not to meet Dalai Lama
Content:
Adamantine said:
“We urge the United States to take China's concerns seriously and not to facilitate or offer occasion for the Dalai Lama to conduct anti-China secessionist moves,” foreign ministry spokesperson Hua Chunying said in a press release.
“By arranging a meeting between the President and the Dalai Lama, the US side will grossly interfere in the internal affairs of China, seriously violate norms governing international relations and severely impair China-US relations. China expresses firm opposition. We urge the US to take China's concerns seriously, immediately cancel the meeting, and not to provide facilitation and platform for the Dalai Lama to carry out anti-China separatist activities in the US,” Hua said.

- See more at: http://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/china-urges-obama-to-cancel-meeting-with-dalai-lama/article1-1186409.aspx#sthash.3BbxCY0h.dpuf


Malcolm wrote:
Well, you have to commend them on their persistence.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 21st, 2014 at 7:55 PM
Title: Re: Climate Change: We're Doomed
Content:
Sherab said:
Molten salt nuclear reactors are considered to be "safe and proliferation-resistent".

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, the operative word here is "considered"; Three Mile Island was "considered" safe, Fukushima was "considered" safe, Chernobyl was "considered" safe until it turned out that they weren't safe at all.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 21st, 2014 at 7:51 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
HHDL:
He went on to declare the command economy of the former Soviet Union, “failed,” and then critiqued American capitalism: “At the same time, United States, capitalist country, most richest, but gap rich and poor.”
At this point, Russia has the largest wealth gap. And it has turned into a Fox News paradise, at least if you followed John Stewart's analysis on Wed. night.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 21st, 2014 at 7:46 PM
Title: Re: What tibetan buddhist traditions these people belong?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
There are other high lamas in the Sakya school, like Dzongsar Khyentse, but they do not normally give Lamdre and Yogini in large settings.

dzogchungpa said:
DJKR is neither a monk nor from the Khon family, is he?

Malcolm wrote:
He also has never given any major Sakyapa transmissions to my knowledge, and there is no need for him to, considering that the Khon masters are alive and well and kicking.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 21st, 2014 at 7:45 PM
Title: Re: What tibetan buddhist traditions these people belong?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
There are other high lamas in the Sakya school, like Dzongsar Khyentse, but they do not normally give Lamdre and Yogini in large settings.

dzogchungpa said:
DJKR is neither a monk nor from the Khon family, is he?

heart said:
Maybe that is why he seems so Nyingma then.

/magnus


Malcolm wrote:
In terms of tantra, he generally teaches from Nyingma; in terms of sutra, he generally teaches from the Sakya POV; and considering his education, this is not at all surprising.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 21st, 2014 at 7:41 PM
Title: Re: I am no longer a Buddhist.
Content:
Anders said:
but rather the tendency for investment in such labels in the first place.

Malcolm wrote:
...which often results in the spouting of idiocies...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 21st, 2014 at 8:05 AM
Title: Re: Living in Bhutan?
Content:
tellyontellyon said:
He only disapproves of non-marxist colonialism, he is fine with marxist colonialism.
You're just talking crap now.


Malcolm wrote:
Sure you are, you just call it "Liberation". Just as the communists "liberated" Tibet, so too the communists wanted to "liberate" Bhutan. Why? Because Bhutan lies along the border with Chinese-occupied Tibet. If they could have succeeded in installing a communist Government in Bhutan as well as Nepal, this is would have been very powerful for them and China. Unfortunately, the Nepali immigrants got caught up in this "liberation" movement, which is just marxist colonialism, and now we have the present situation. In any event, the US alone between 2008 and 2012 have taken in 65,000+ of these immigrants, so in the end, I think they will all do fine.

You do realize that the Maoist government of Nepal has been gunning down Tibetan refugees as well as handing them back to the Chinese authorities? The Lhotsampas were just pawns being used by the communists, plain and simple.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 21st, 2014 at 8:03 AM
Title: Re: Prophecies in Buddhism?
Content:
AlexanderS said:
Could someone please tell me the source of the famous Padmasambhava quote that several books feature that goes along the line of "When the Iron bird flies and steel ox runs of Wheels and the tibetan people are scattered like ants across the earth, my teachings will come to the land of the red men".?


Malcolm wrote:
Please see this post by Sam Van Schaik.

http://earlytibet.com/2007/09/18/red-faced-men/


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 21st, 2014 at 7:48 AM
Title: Re: Living in Bhutan?
Content:
Zhen Li said:
Just because they don't do it under a national flag (and some do) doesn't mean it's not colonialism, and I thought as a socialist you oppose colonialism TOTO.

Malcolm wrote:
He only disapproves of non-marxist colonialism, he is fine with marxist colonialism.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 21st, 2014 at 7:46 AM
Title: Re: Living in Bhutan?
Content:
tellyontellyon said:
It may not seem pretty or nice, but as Bhutan is the last independent Vajrayāna Kingdom in the world, I have no problems with their desire to maintain the Buddhist culture of Bhutan intact without having to accommodate those of other cultures in their midst.
'Vajrayana Kingdom'?

I reject the desire for religious states.

Malcolm wrote:
You can reject it all you like, but you can't do anything about it.



tellyontellyon said:
I think they are wrong in this day and age. All countries contain people who don't fit the national mould, or more accurately, the myth of a national mould.

Malcolm wrote:
There are plenty of Nepalis still living in southern Bhutan, but they are legally there.

tellyontellyon said:
These arguments are basically the same nationalist/racist arguments that we hear from all over the world.

Malcolm wrote:
Definitely an argument in defense of Bhutanese national sovereignty, not racist at all. In any case, I think it is great the Bhutanese are intent on preserving their traditional way of life. I think it is fine for them to run their country however they like.

In any case, you are apparently unaware of the centuries of Hindu encroachment on Buddhist Kingdoms in the Himalayas. Now we see the same thing with Communists using terrorism in Bhutan to try to achieve their goals, like the bombing in Thimphu in 208.

tellyontellyon said:
Should Buddhists be so defensive about Buddhism that ethnic cleasning becomes acceptable? I think much more is lost by that way of thinking than is imagined might be saved.

Malcolm wrote:
You are entitled to an opinion.

tellyontellyon said:
Just think about what happens to the people that are castigated, uprooted, pushed out of their jobs and homes, children thrown out of their schools,  forced to follow dress codes etc. just to satisfy some silly frightened fascist who thinks his 'culture' is disappearing.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, it is all unfortunate. It is a pity that communists pushed the Bhutanese into taking actions they had tried to avoid for many years.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 21st, 2014 at 5:43 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
Adamantine said:
Posts on Bhutan have been moved to the "Living in Bhutan" thread http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=15626

AlexanderS said:
I don't see why posts discussing a dharma monarchy don't belong in this thread.

Malcolm wrote:
They do, but the issue was not about dharma monarchies so much as the deficiencies of Bhutanese policies, so I asked the mods to move it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 21st, 2014 at 3:45 AM
Title: Re: Prophecies in Buddhism?
Content:
Rakshasa said:
Although i'm aware that indulging in astrology and such professions is forbidden in Pali canon, yet many mahayana buddhists are known to have made prophecies, like padmasambhava. So what is the Mahayana stand? I've heard of buddhist monks even in Thailand and burma acting as oracles. Are there any prophecies by current buddhist masters?

Malcolm wrote:
Most termas have predictions.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 21st, 2014 at 1:49 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
Sönam said:
Socialism has many itemizations ... a modern form is not against the market, but offers a better redistribution of profit. But the point in this case is that the (world) market is against socialism (i.e. a better redistribution). Capital want to continue to rule the world with his own rules. Therefore, for it works, socialism should be implemented in many countries at the same time (enough for it could'nt be isolated/segregated by actors of capital) ... all that very complicated, also because otherwise capitalism will remain the same, greedy, only guided by individual profit and competition.

Malcolm wrote:
Actually the problem is that companies like Walmart exploit Government social benefits in order to keep wages down. Walmart is the largest employer in the US and each of its employees receives an average of $1000 a year in federal assistance. American fast food workers take in a staggering $7 billion a year in federal assistance.

Frankly, John Maynard Keynes ideas about the role of government in the economy provided the US and England with the most stable economies they ever had. Unfortunately, people still keep arguing as if 19th century theories of political economy actually anticipated the global economy. They didnt' and don't, and that is why all of this talk of socialism vs. capitalism is frankly so silly, IMO.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 21st, 2014 at 1:29 AM
Title: Re: I am no longer a Buddhist.
Content:
Will said:
Malcolm: Nevertheless, refuge, bodhicitta and dedication are indispensable in Dzogchen.
How do these three differ in Dzogchen, if they do, from any of the Buddhist versions?

Malcolm wrote:
They don't. I am quite certain that Simon has not abandoned Dharma. He is merely saying that so much idiocy is spouted by Buddhists of various stripes he does not want to own any of that by identifying himself to himself as a "Buddhist".

BTW, Simon is quite capable of speaking for himself, but I think that I have captured a main part of his sentiment and he will correct me if I have erred.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 21st, 2014 at 1:22 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
tellyontellyon said:
Good grief Malcolm:
To consider the expelled Lhotshampa people as mainy 'illegal immigrants' is a new low. Why does an 'enlightened' system even care about ethnic origin anyway?

Can there be not a word of criticism against these enlightened leaders? No faults to be found?

Actually, most of the Lhotsampa had been born in Bhutan, and many went back generations. What happened was the Lhotsampa dared to step out of line by wanting to be treated fairly, and asking for the same rights that other citizens enjoyed. Bhutan is no Shangri-La.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lhotsampa

Anarchists and Marxists are accused of seeking 'impossible' utopias. The supporters of Buddhist Monarchy seem to think they exist already!

Malcolm wrote:
The Lhotsampas (southern border people) however are a recent immigrant population, their history is long and complicated. Many Lhotsampas do not want to adhere to Buddhadharma, nor do they wish to adhere to essentially non-Nepalese cultural norms. The people who in camps are those who could not prove a pre 1958 citizenship. They are all culturally Nepalese, speaking Nepalese dialects, but Nepal won't have them which is all the more ironic because the present current Maoist government fomented and exacerbated the unrest. The best solution would be for Nepal to absorb them, since they are Nepalese people. The situation was not aided by the fact that Lotshampas responded with armed violence to the 1988 census which showed large numbers of them were illegal aliens in Bhutan. In fact, much of the unrest was agitated by the Communist Party of Nepal:

Some villagers willingly joined the protests; others did so under duress. The government branded the party, reportedly established by anti-monarchists and backed by the Nepali Congress Party and the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist-Leninist), as a terrorist organization. The party allegedly led its members – said to be armed with rifles, muzzle-loading guns, knives, and homemade grenades – in raids on villages in southern Bhutan, disrobing people wearing traditional Bhutanese garb; extorting money; and robbing, kidnapping, and killing people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lhotshampa

All of the above is very characteristic of how the Maoists in Nepal behaved while they were fighting the government. They hate Buddhism, and will stop at nothing to try and destroy Buddhism in the Himalayas in the interest of their Chinese masters.

The Bhutanese are trying their best to maintain a Buddhist kingdom surrounded on all sides by tīrthikas and enemies, and so from that point of view I think what they are doing is admirable. They observed what happened to Sikkim and determined that the same fate was not going to happen to them.

It may not seem pretty or nice, but as Bhutan is the last independent Vajrayāna Kingdom in the world, I have no problems with their desire to maintain the Buddhist culture of Bhutan intact without having to accommodate those of other cultures in their midst.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 21st, 2014 at 12:39 AM
Title: Re: I am no longer a Buddhist.
Content:


Will said:
Malcolm has also mentioned something about Dzogchen being so universal that it is beyond Buddhism (and maybe the buddhadharma?)

Malcolm wrote:
Dzogchen teachings does not require one to be a "Buddhist". Nevertheless, refuge, bodhicitta and dedication are indispensable in Dzogchen.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 20th, 2014 at 10:14 PM
Title: Re: What tibetan buddhist traditions these people belong?
Content:
Sherlock said:
Yes and I have attended some public teachings by HHST too but it seemed to me that there were higher teachings that were not taught. I.e. HHST made references to the ear-whispered teachings only given to selected disciples and the Kilaya completion stage was not taught.

Malcolm wrote:
The Kilaya completion stage practices, as far as I know, have not survived beyond a tummo practice.

As for these other rumors, well, there are always some intimate instruction or another that is not generally taught. Yogini has some sections that are taught to only three people, or one person at a time. Lamdre also has some transmissions that are one to one. Then there are other teachings like outer, inner and secret Mahakala practices that are not widely promulgated.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 20th, 2014 at 10:04 PM
Title: Re: What tibetan buddhist traditions these people belong?
Content:
Sherlock said:
So you can't access the higher Sakya teachings as a layperson unless you had already learned them while ordained?


Malcolm wrote:
No, traditionally, you cannot be lay Sakya teacher. The teachings of Lamdre and Yogini however are given widely and to anyone who wants to practice them. These days the Khon family more or less has a monopoly on those teachings outside of Tibet. Traditionally, those who could give Lamdre and so on were more or less restricted to members of the Khon family, the abbots of Ngor and the Abbots of Tshar. Other teachings in the Sakaya lineage, like the sadhanas in the sgrub thabs kun 'dus could be given by others. These days, if you are a Sakyapa, necessarily your guru will be HHST or HHSDR, Jetsun Kusho, Lunding Khens senior and junior, or Chogye Trichen. I count HHST and HHSDR as my main Sakya masters, but I have received teachings from everyone but Chogye Trichen. There are other high lamas in the Sakya school, like Dzongsar Khyentse, but they do not normally give Lamdre and Yogini in large settings.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 20th, 2014 at 9:45 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
tellyontellyon said:
The infant mortality rate is three times higher than even Tibet, and has a life expectancy of only 54.4 years.

Malcolm wrote:
Infant mortality rate dropped 50% in one year in Bhutan, between 2007 and 2008 and is steadily declining.

Life expectancy in Bhutan also increased the same year, between 2007 and 2008. What this means is that the high infant mortality rate (110.9) in 2000 was being factored in. When that dropped by half in 2008, the life expectancy jumped from 52 in 2000 to its present 67.88 years. If they lower their infant morality rate again by half, you will see another jump in life expectancy.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 20th, 2014 at 9:40 PM
Title: Re: I am no longer a Buddhist.
Content:
Adamantine said:
I guess this is an example of what HHDL is considering when he generally advocates for
people to stick with their native religions rather than convert to Buddhism.


Malcolm wrote:
I don't think you really understand what Simon is saying.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 20th, 2014 at 8:41 PM
Title: Re: Climate Change: We're Doomed
Content:
kirtu said:
we can now build massive dams.

Malcolm wrote:
Yuck, not acceptable. These things mess with the local environment, and disturb everything in their vicinity for years.

We need to be removing dams in order to restore fisheries in the atlantic and the pacific, not building more of them


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 20th, 2014 at 8:33 PM
Title: Re: What tibetan buddhist traditions these people belong?
Content:
Kunga said:
so if a monk gave up ordination the only way to continue would be to become Nyingma...


Malcolm wrote:
Yup, that is the deal. You don't really see any lay people leading centers in Europe or the US.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 20th, 2014 at 8:17 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
tellyontellyon said:
I'm not quite sure why Bhutan is being held up as an example to be followed,  it is little more than a vassal state of India.
The infant mortality rate is three times higher than even Tibet, and has a life expectancy of only 54.4 years. Bhutan has more refugees outside its borders than Tibet. The racist policies of the Bhutanese government drove a fifth (134,000) of the population into exile in the early 1990's.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, most of the refugees are guest workers who stayed on, not Bhutanese people. They are ethnically Nepalese. The number of refugees living in camps in Eastern Nepal was estimate at 107,000 according to UNHCRat one time.

As for Tibetans, "Based on a CTA survey from 2009, 127,935 Tibetans were registered in the diaspora", according to this wiki page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibetan_diaspora.

The situation is complex and not straight forward. Most of the people in these camps are illegal immigrants.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhutanese_refugees.

Even the very term "Bhutanese refugee" seems to be a misnomer, kind of like calling those deported from the US for illegal immigration "American Refugees".

Alenxander Casella, a one time Director in UNHCR writes (cited from the above page):
"Normally, the UNHCR, before intervening, would have undertaken a survey of the caseload to determine exactly their nationality and reasons for departure. Had this been undertaken, the inescapable conclusion would have been that the overwhelming majority were actually Nepalese and hence, by the fact that they were in their own country, did not qualifying for refugee status"
And presently, the camps have only at most 77,000 people.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 20th, 2014 at 7:52 PM
Title: Re: I am no longer a Buddhist.
Content:
Simon E. said:
I first took Refuge nearly 40 years ago.
I have now to acknowledge what has been bubbling under for some time...I am no longer a Buddhist, and if I am honest with myself have not been for a while.
But it has been a slow process of letting go. Apart from other considerations I have invested a lot of my life in that direction. It is painful.
I have spent a long period vascillating and rushing back to 'safety '.

My Dzogchen practice will now have to continue without that particular set of references.
Thanks you to all.
If I have offended during this period of uncertainty I am sorry.
I truly wish for you all that you find peace.



Malcolm wrote:
Better to be a true practitioner of Buddhadharma than a follower of "Buddhism".


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 20th, 2014 at 8:44 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
tellyontellyon said:
Many Marxists would disagree. There is much evidence against Stalinism and Maoism, but to say a genuine workers democracy would inevitably degenerate into a bureaucracy, that is a quite different question.

Malcolm wrote:
Of course they will disagree. No one wants to be associated with Stalin and Mao.

But I definitely think the US is safe from being turned into a "workers democracy". In any event, the whole piece you cited keeps waffling on and on about "elimination of the state" and that, my friend, will never happen unless all civilization falls into utter barbarism and anarchy.

This is why I think you Marxists and Anarchists are just dreamers. Your stateless society will never happen.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 20th, 2014 at 8:23 AM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
conebeckham said:
This thread is like a circle.

Malcolm wrote:
You mean it is meaningless, like samsara.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 20th, 2014 at 8:22 AM
Title: Re: What tibetan buddhist traditions these people belong?
Content:
Sherlock said:
What about the Zur and gNubs families?


Malcolm wrote:
Do you know where you can find some Zurs and some gNubs? Are they still practicing their ancestral teachings? I rather doubt it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 20th, 2014 at 8:20 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:


tellyontellyon said:
The Chinese Maoists were a twisted, distorted caricature of Marxism that I'm sure you know by now that I don't support.

Malcolm wrote:
And I think that Stalin and Mao are the very picture of how Marxism is bound to turn out in the end, as you surely know by now. And frankly, we have more evidence on our side than you do on yours, which is why most people in the US think the modern day Marxist socialists are nutjobs.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 20th, 2014 at 8:10 AM
Title: Re: What tibetan buddhist traditions these people belong?
Content:


Sherlock said:
The Guhyagarbha transmission lineages should be at least as old.

Malcolm wrote:
You misunderstand, or I was not clear. The Khon Family (who are the heart and soul of Sakya) have practiced Vajrakilaya without any interruption since the time of Padmasambhava. They are the only religious family in Tibet who can make that claim. It makes them the most Nyingma family in Tibet.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 20th, 2014 at 8:06 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:


tellyontellyon said:
BTW, not only was Mao against Dharma, he was against Marxism too.

Malcolm wrote:
Yeah, right. I don't think so son. I have been to the very birthplace of the Chinese revolution in Shanghai.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 20th, 2014 at 8:06 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
tellyontellyon said:
You think I'm wrong to say it should be discussed and understood and tested against experience?
I don't think so...
I think that is exactly what Buddha wanted us to do, not simply act like a 'faith' religion.
That which is true will eventually shine through.

Malcolm wrote:
What the Buddha said actually was, until you know for yourself, you need to take it on faith from someone who does.

The Kalamas sutta for example is much misunderstood in that it was taught to non-Buddhists.

But the Eastern Gatehouse Sutta explains very clearly that until you have that taste of nirvana, which is of course based on understand dependent origination, the four noble truths and so on, you must accept the Dharma as it is taught from someone who does know. Hence the crucial importance of having a master of genuine realization.

Further, faith, in Dharma, is defined as a mental factor that brings clarity to the mind. Of course we don't want blind faith, but aspiring faith is also weak, since if your role model disappoints you, you might abandon Dharma after all. What we are looking for in Buddhadharma is unshakable faith such that if 1000 buddhas showed up and said "Sorry, it was all a mistake" you would not believe them.

Faith is one of the five faculties and one of the five powers. It is the very foundation of the path to nirvana, which is why it is considered one of the 8 transcendent faculties.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 20th, 2014 at 7:51 AM
Title: Re: What tibetan buddhist traditions these people belong?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Try telling that to some Sakyapas. Actually, Tulku Rabsal Dawa was also considered a Sakyapa Tulku and he maintained a life long practice commitment to all the main Sakya practices.

michaelb said:
Of course, the head lama and founder of Shechen Tennyi Dargyeling in exile, one of the six main Nyingma gompas, and the head lama of the entire Nyingma Tradition is a Sakyapa.

Malcolm wrote:
Yup, that's what some Sakyapas say - especially those who are connected to Derge. There is a kind of saying "If a Sakyapa gives up his monks vows, he will become Nyingma".

It is also correct to point here that Sakya is in fact the oldest Nyingma lineage in Tibet through their continuous practice of KIlaya, among other things.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 20th, 2014 at 7:46 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
tellyontellyon said:
The point isn't whether HHDL is a Marxist or not, although he was certainly still calling himself a Marxist in 2011.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2011/jun/20/dalai-lama-marxist-buddhism

Malcolm wrote:
His putative "Marxism" seems confined to the idea that he wants the best for everyone.

tellyontellyon said:
The point is that it is possible to be a Marxist and be a Buddhist. Whether HHDL still is or not is not the point, the point is that he was for most of his life and therefore being able to hold both Buddhist and Marxist ideas is not ruled out. HHDL seems able to make his own mind about these things without resorting to telling people they are 'un-dharmic' or 'worldly' for thinking this way or that.

Malcolm wrote:
He thinks that Mao was against Dharma.

tellyontellyon said:
I say it is possible to be a Buddhist and a capitalist also...However, I do object to the idea that being a capitalist is somehow the default position for Buddhists.

Malcolm wrote:
Actually, no one said that. What was said was that one will never be rid of markets, capital accumulation, and so on. And as we see, HHDL is not against markets nor capital accumulation.

tellyontellyon said:
To be honest I don't see Buddhism as a 'recieved' religion and it is all-always up for discussion.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, there you are wrong. Thinks like dependent origination, rebirth, emptiness and so are non-negotiable.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 20th, 2014 at 6:19 AM
Title: Re: HHDL on capitalism
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
And who says that I, for example, care what HHDL's political view may be?  His Dharma teachings?  Yes!  His politics?  Well...


Malcolm wrote:
You don't, but TOTO does, since he was using some of HHDL's political views stated in other places prior to 2009, when this book was published.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 20th, 2014 at 5:57 AM
Title: Re: What tibetan buddhist traditions these people belong?
Content:
michaelb said:
But Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche was undoubtedly Nyingma.

Malcolm wrote:
Try telling that to some Sakyapas. Actually, Tulku Rabsal Dawa was also considered a Sakyapa Tulku and he maintained a life long practice commitment to all the main Sakya practices.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 20th, 2014 at 5:30 AM
Title: Re: What tibetan buddhist traditions these people belong?
Content:
Kunga said:
Thanks again, Malcolm. Much appreciated!


Malcolm wrote:
Incidentally you might note that the retinue is two Madhyamakas, Two Yogacarins, Two Vinayadharas and Two Logicians.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 20th, 2014 at 4:59 AM
Title: Re: What tibetan buddhist traditions these people belong?
Content:


Kunga said:
Fascinating, thanks! I had no idea about that. Can the sadhana/s be found in Khentse Rinpoche's published collected works? If so, I will ask for the transmission for this at Sechen gompa.

Malcolm wrote:
bkra shis dpal 'byor. "chos rje sa skya paN+Di ta'i bla ma'i rnal 'byor ye shes bdud rtsi'i nyin byed/." In gsung 'bum/_rab gsal zla ba. TBRC W21809. 17: 585 - 596. delhi: shechen publications, 1994. http://tbrc.org/link?RID=O2DB57601%7CO2DB576012DB61746$W21809

Kunga said:
Thanks so much


Malcolm wrote:
The outer practice is basically a version of the normal Sapan guruyoga. The inner practice is Sapan as  Manjushri surrounded by eight Indian Panditas: Aryadeva, Gunaprabha, Vasubandhu, Asanga, Candrakirti, Dharmakirti, Dignaga and Śakyaprabha with Nāgārjuna as the master of the family. The secret practice is Sapan as Vajrabhairava.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 20th, 2014 at 4:47 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:


AilurusFulgens said:
Thank you for the clarification. Where is it possible to find more information on the Khon royal family? Especially them being descendant of a god of the clear light realm?

Can you also go a bit in detail concerning this?

I have always been fascinated by the stories how the very first Tibetan king did not die, but ascended back to heaven on a heavenly rope (dmu-theg).


Malcolm wrote:
This is an extract from a history of Sakya that I wrote for Lama Migmar Tseten which appears in Treasures of the Sakya Lineage published by Shambhala.

The Khon trace their origin to a class of gods called Wosel Lha, gods of luminous clarity. 
The Annals of the Khon Lineage (gdung rabs), cites the fifteenth century author, Ngorchen Kunchog Lhundrup: The line of emanations of Mañjuśṛī,
The Glorious Sakyapa, begins in the country of the Gods of Luminous Clarity. 
There were three brothers,  Chiring, Yuring, and Yuse.
Yuse, having been made a king of humans, bore four sons. 
His elder brother, Yuring, came to his aid. 
The sons of Yuring and Muza Dembu
were the group of the seven Maza. The six oldest brothers
with their father returned to the land of the gods.
The youngest son, Masang Chije 
and Thogcham Wurmo bore a son, Pawo Tag.
Both he and his Naga wife, Trama, bore a son
called  Lutsa Tagpo Woechan.
Lutsa and the Mon lady Tsomo Gyal
while living together bore a son
at the divide between slate and grass, 
and so he was named Yapang Kyes,
a hero that could not be defeated by others.
In a definitive sense Mañjuśṛī is held to have emanated as three gods of luminous clarity, the gods named Chiring, Yuring and Yuse or Use in order to benefit others. It is of great importance too that these gods are considered emanations of Mañjuśṛī, since all males of the Khon line are considered to be descendents as well as emanations of the Bodhisattva Mañjuśṛī. 
These three brothers descended to the human realm where they were asked to become the ruler of human beings. 
The youngest brother of the gods, Yuse, was elevated to the position of the ruler. He himself bore four sons, known as the four  Se Chi Li brothers. Together they fought with the eighteen major tribes of the Dong , one of the four original clans of Tibet.  The middle brother, Yuring, came to aid them, and after the Dong clan was subjugated, The Dong were made vassals. 
Yuring himself married a daughter of the Mu,  Muza Dembu,  and they bore the seven Masang brothers. Of those seven, the eldest six returned to the country of the Gods with their father. 
The youngest of the Masang brothers, Masang Chije, remained among human beings. He married Thogcham Wurmo, the daughter of the Thoglha Woedchan, they bore a son known as Thogtsad Bangpo Tag. 
Thogtsad married Lucham Drama, the daughter of a Nāgā , to whom a son named Lutsa Tagpo Woechan was born. 
Lutsa and a Mon lady, Tsomo Gyal were married and their single son was born on the treeline, thus he was given that name Yahpang Kyes i.e. “Born at the divide between slate and grass” i.e. on the tree line of a mountain. The significance of this is that according to the Tibetan conception of cosmology, the gods live in the heights of the mountains above the tree line, while human beings live below the treeline. 
The Khon in the Tibetan Imperial Period:
Konchog Lhundrup continues his account: Then having slain the Srinpo named Kyareng Khragmey and
having stolen the wife,  Yahdrum Silima
he married her. 
They had a son named Khonpar Kye.
The son of he [Khonpar Kye] and a Lady of the Tsan, Chambu Dron
was handsome and smart, rare in the human lands, 
named Khonpa Jegung Tag,
he was known as Khonton Palpoche, who went to Nyantse.
Yahpang was engaged in a fight with a Srinpo named Kyareng Khragmed, and having slain this Srinpo, married his wife. Because their boy was born as the outcome of a feud between the gods [lha] and demons [srin po], the boy was named “Born in a Feud”, “Khon par kyes”, and this is given as the origin of the clan name of the Khon. 
Khonpar Kye, the offspring of gods, humans and demons, married a lady of a type of a lesser Tibetan god, the Tsan, called Chambu Dron, and their son was known as Khonton Palpoche, i.e. the Khon Teacher who Increases Wealth. He gained his name because after being appointed one of the inner ministers of King Trisrong Detsan’s court, he increased the King’s wealth. 
Khonton Palpoche married Lang Zang Nechung , the sister of a translator named Lang Khampa, and while there are slightly varying accounts as to whether there were two or four sons, most later scholars follow the tradition that there were two sons,  the elder being the great scholar, the Khon Lotsawa, Lu’i Wangpo, and the younger son, Khon Dorje Rinchen.  Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen notes in his Annals of the Khon Lineage [‘khon gyi gdung rabs]:
“Khon Lu’i Wangpo Srungs was the foremost of the seven tested men. His younger brother Khon Dorje Rinchen became a disciple of Master Padmasambhava and became a tantrika.”


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 20th, 2014 at 4:37 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Personally, I have been a religious monarchist since ...

ground said:
We would fight against each other in a revolutionary civil war ...

Malcolm wrote:
What I mean is that my first guru HHST, is a dharmarāja. As is Chogyal Namkhai Norbu, for that matter.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 20th, 2014 at 4:15 AM
Title: Re: What tibetan buddhist traditions these people belong?
Content:


Kunga said:
Fascinating, thanks! I had no idea about that. Can the sadhana/s be found in Khentse Rinpoche's published collected works? If so, I will ask for the transmission for this at Sechen gompa.

Malcolm wrote:
bkra shis dpal 'byor. "chos rje sa skya paN+Di ta'i bla ma'i rnal 'byor ye shes bdud rtsi'i nyin byed/." In gsung 'bum/_rab gsal zla ba. TBRC W21809. 17: 585 - 596. delhi: shechen publications, 1994. http://tbrc.org/link?RID=O2DB57601%7CO2DB576012DB61746$W21809


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 20th, 2014 at 4:05 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:


AilurusFulgens said:
I don't want to sidetrack the thread, but may I ask what makes the Khon royal family the oldest surviving in the world?

Why Khon and not for instance the Japanese imperial family or some other royal lineage?


Malcolm wrote:
Well, second oldest then. Though arguably, since the Khon family were the direct descendants of a god of the clear light realm who was elevated to kingship by the clans of Tibet, but this is not historical.

The ascension of the Khon to rulership of Tibet occurred in the thirteenth century. Apart from the Japanese royal family, I personally know of no other family with such a long continuous rule in one place.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 20th, 2014 at 3:53 AM
Title: Re: Why theravada reject mahayana sutra
Content:
Kunga said:
Tibetans teach all 3 yanas, and ideally should practice all 3 - i.e., keep the outer conduct of the hinayana, possess the motivation of Mahayana to achieve buddahood to free sentient beings, and hold the view / practice the methods as contained in Vajrayana.

Ajahn Brahm is not a 'disgraced' teacher by any stretch of the imagination. He decided to ordain Bhikkhunis, which caused a stir with the patriarchs of the Thai sangha. I admire him for having had the balls to do it. However, the Sri Lankans have been doing this for years; the Thais don't accept this either - so what? To try and cast aspersions on a very senior monk whom many regard as accomplished in jhana meditation is very negative.

Malcolm wrote:
Gorampa Sonam Senge wouldn't buy it. This is why he argued against giving Gelongma ordinations in Tibet, i.e. the lineage was never brought to Tibet.

Just sayin...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 20th, 2014 at 3:29 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
Zhen Li said:
Sadhu! Sadhu!

HHDL and I went through the same line of reasoning in life.

I also agree with him that Socialists fundamentally are just well intentioned, they just want to make things better for everyone by bringing equality. It just doesn't work, and leads to more suffering. That's unfortunate and makes me feel an immense welling up of compassion in my heart whenever I meet someone who is a socialist - they really think they're doing something good and right for the world, which is admirable, even if they are naive.

May all socialists and communists be well, happy and peaceful.

Malcolm wrote:
Personally, I have been a religious monarchist since I received teachings from HH Sakya Trizin (from the Khon, the oldest surviving royal family in the world), but more or less a supporter of representative democracy my whole life. I had a good friend who was a Trot, and listening to TOTO is just like playing a conversation with him from thirty years ago, identical in both word and fervor.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 20th, 2014 at 3:24 AM
Title: Re: What tibetan buddhist traditions these people belong?
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
His activities as a terton were compassionate, but not the basis of his own personal awakening, ironically, despite his importance in Dzogchen lineages.


theanarchist said:
Erm, according to the Nyingma records his predecessor archieved realisation before there even was even a Sakya school in Tibet....

Malcolm wrote:
It is important to remember that Khyentse Wangpo was a Sakya lama whose primary ritual and literary activity was dedicated to that tradition and while he worked closely with the Kagyu Jamgon Kongtrul and the Nyingma Choggyur Lingpa, neither he nor his colleagues made any effort to merge traditions or initiate a new teaching institution.
http://www.himalayanart.org/search/set.cfm?setid=2250

Likewise, despite the fact that I have devoted as many years to the study of Dzogchen as I have Lamdre and so on, people still tend to think of me as a Sakyapa and my training grounds me in that school. And when push comes to shove, I still think Sakya Pandita was Tibet's greatest scholar.

It is also interesting to note that at the end of Dilgo Khyentse's life, when he was repairing Samye, he kept on having recurrent visions of Sakya Pandita which led to a Guru Yoga terma featuring Sakya Pandita that has an outer, inner and secret aspect to it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 20th, 2014 at 2:34 AM
Title: HHDL on capitalism
Content:
Unknown said:
I am, in principle, in favor of “globalization” and the concept of “global” companies. In the past, communities and countries could live in isolation if they wanted to; that is no longer the case. Today, a stock-market crash on one side of the globe has a direct and immediate effect on the other side. Terrorism born in one country can destabilize a dozen others. And the effects of poverty, disease, and social unrest in a handful of nations impact the rest of the world. It is my opinion that global companies can be agents for positive change in our interconnected world.
Another positive result of globalization is increasing competition. Competition generates a very powerful force to produce what people want at reasonable prices. But it is a means; it is not an end. The end is to generate benefits for all. So why is it so difficult to arrive at fair competition and an equitable distribution of those benefits? Competition generates wealth. But if leaders of businesses are interested only in enriching themselves as fast as possible, with little or no regard for any harmful consequences to others, then competition is being used in the wrong way.
For much of my life, I was attracted to the socialist or communist system because I understood its objective as to provide a decent standard of living and justice for all. I was drawn to it for its equality; in such a system, extreme differences in standards of living between people are not to be tolerated. The stated objectives of socialist systems include abolishing poverty and furthering the brotherhood among people and among countries, which I, of course, found very appealing. But over time, I found out that the countries that practiced the communist system did not reach this objective; they did not even try to. On the contrary, I found that by suppressing free markets and individual freedoms like freedom of speech and freedom to own property, these systems were actually stagnating development and furthering poverty and hardship. Although I still believe that the initial objective was right, I have come to see the flaws in such a system.
It was not initially obvious to me that the abolition of private ownership would lead to ownership by the state, with a party elite in charge who would then institute their own restrictive command-and-control system and rule as an elite, like the aristocracies in the past. Of course, we now know this led to many human rights abuses.
It is through this process of listening and observing that I have come to put my faith in the free-market system. Although it has great potential for abuses as well, the fact that it allows for freedom and diversity of thought and religion has convinced me that it is the one we should be working from. Of course, I still believe we should strive for an adequate standard of living for all rather than the “survival of the fittest” position that the free market often follows. The recent developments in China demonstrate how even small movements toward a free-market system can boost economic development and help lift people out of poverty. But of course, in the case of China there is still much work to be done.
Adam Smith refers to the development of moral sense as imagining oneself in the position of others. That is what we refer to as “exchanging self for others.” Unfortunately, Adam Smith did not stress sufficiently the need of people to train in imagining themselves in the position of others. Even though he had a keen interest in and insight into moral issues, Smith believed that competition and regulation could lead to prosperity for all. But I believe that Right View and Right Conduct are also necessary. Without considering the impact of one’s decisions on others, it is not possible for regulation and competition alone to result in a decent standard of living for all. Adam Smith and other economists have concerned themselves with the generation of wealth, but they do not provide any guidance on the distribution of wealth. Karl Marx, on the other hand, looked at this the other way around. He was only interested in the distribution of wealth, not in how to generate it. In my view, both the proper creation of wealth and the proper distribution of it are very important. In order to reach such goals, one requires the right policies and the application of Right View and Right Conduct.
All human beings, whatever their cultural or historical background, suffer when they are intimidated, imprisoned, or tortured. It is not enough to define human rights as the United Nations has done; they must also be implemented. Rights depend on responsible action. This is why I put so much emphasis on the word “responsible” when I advocate responsible free-market economy.
Even though Adam Smith was concerned with the moral dimensions of the economic system, many of his successors ignored that aspect. I consider an economic system without a moral dimension to be dangerous. That is why I want to add the dimension of “responsibility” to “free market.” I agree with the concept of freedom advocated by Smith and Hayek but feel it does not take us far enough.
Globalization is a positive development as long as leaders of global corporations act responsibly and develop a holistic view of their role in society. And since organizations are also dependent on governments to act in a responsible manner, businesses should work constructively with governments to achieve a responsible free-market economy and reject an economic system without moral values.
Capital is a means, not an end. The end is freedom and prosperity for all. This can best be reached by a free-market system in which all participants act responsibly. In my way of thinking, integrating capitalism and Buddhism happens when Right View and Right Conduct become an integral part of the economic system. I see the word “responsible” in this context as standing for Right View and Right Conduct and therefore hope that the words “responsible free-market economy” will come to replace the words “capitalist system.”

Malcolm wrote:
The Leader's Way: The Art of Making the Right Decisions in Our Careers, Our Companies, and the World at Large. Crown Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

HHDL say many more things, and his position is more nuanced than the citations I have posted might lead one to believe. But it quite clear he has abandoned his "Marxism" in favor of a free market style political economy.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 20th, 2014 at 1:49 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
tellyontellyon said:
Z.L.
I'm not sure about this 'Dharma is eternal law' statement....
Is anything eternal?
And by Dharma, do we mean precepts? The Vinaya?
In what sense are you using the term Dharma? How are you defining it? Can it be defined?
What exactly is it that you say is eternal?


Malcolm wrote:
Dharma is definitely "eternal" in that the principles of karma, dependent origination, emptiness and buddhanature always apply to all sentient beings in every possible universe.

When a Buddha awakens, he always awakens to these four principles.

It does not mean that Shakyamui's dispensation is eternal; on the contrary, it is impermanent and will disappear some three thousand years hence.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 20th, 2014 at 1:29 AM
Title: Re: What tibetan buddhist traditions these people belong?
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
His activities as a terton were compassionate, but not the basis of his own personal awakening, ironically, despite his importance in Dzogchen lineages.


theanarchist said:
Erm, according to the Nyingma records his predecessor archieved realisation before there even was even a Sakya school in Tibet....

Malcolm wrote:
I recounted a list of his incarnations above, as recorded by Kongtrul. I recounted the account of his personal awakening, as recounted by Ju Mipham. You cannot get much more authoritative than that.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 20th, 2014 at 1:26 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
And let's not forget Leo Tolstoy. L.N.Tolstoy.jpg
"His literal interpretation of the ethical teachings of Jesus, centering on the Sermon on the Mount, caused him in later life to become a fervent Christian anarchist and anarcho-pacifist. His ideas on nonviolent resistance, expressed in such works as The Kingdom of God Is Within You, were to have a profound impact on such pivotal twentieth-century figures as Mohandas Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Tolstoy

Malcolm wrote:
This kind of anarchist may not recognize any political authority, but they nevertheless live in a political world. From my point of view, they are basically utopians. They may be admirable, indeed, but they are not important for their political voice, they are important for their philosophical voice, much in the same way that deep ecology/ecosophy is important as an environmental philosophy but not important as a political or social movement (much to the dissatisfaction of other environmental philosophers who come mainly from the left, like Bookchin and so on,)


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 20th, 2014 at 1:18 AM
Title: Re: What tibetan buddhist traditions these people belong?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
If this does not define Kyentse Wangpo as Sakyapa, I don't know what else would.

mutsuk said:
Oh, he is indeed a Sakyapa. His non-sectarian approach was such that he also received numerous Bonpo transmissions and wrote a biography of Guru Rinpoche in the mode of the Bon-gsar tradition (together with his Bonpo tertön name, etc.). He was also a great fan of Dechen Lingpa's Collected Works and urged him to reveal several important termas. He also financed (at a time when it would mean cutting a whole forest to print xylographic works) Dechen Lingpa's collected Termas in 13 volumes which are all Bon-gsar. Khyentse was indeed an amazing individual.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, and if anyone doubts the profundity and blessings of the teachings of the Sakya school, they should take a lesson from this, since Kongtrul considered Khyentse Wangpo to be a person who had achieved total Buddhahood.

His activities as a terton were compassionate, but not the basis of his own personal awakening, ironically, despite his importance in Dzogchen lineages.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 19th, 2014 at 11:41 PM
Title: Re: What tibetan buddhist traditions these people belong?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
To further illustrate my point about Khyentse Wangpo being a Sakyapa. In his short verse biography of Khyenste Wangpo, Mipham writes:

His own awakening was
in all the intimate instructions
and textual systems
of the sublime discourses of the five founders, 
and the father and sons of Ngor,
Gongkar and Tshar.

If this does not define Kyentse Wangpo as Sakyapa, I don't know what else would.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 19th, 2014 at 10:29 PM
Title: Re: What tibetan buddhist traditions these people belong?
Content:
michaelb said:
Jamyang Khyentse was also the mind incarnation of Jigme Lingpa Khyentse Ozer. Dzongsar is, of course, a Sakya gompa.

Malcolm wrote:
And the incarnation of several past Sakya masters, such as Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen, Lodro Gyaltsan, Khyenrab Je of Shwalu, Khyentse Wangchuk, the main disciple of Tsarchen, as well as Jampa Namkhai Chime, the 44th throne holder of Ngor and a younger contemporary of Jigme Lingpa.

Not to mention, Manushrimitra, Trisrong Detsen, Longchenpa, Gendun Drup, the "second Dalai Lama", Thangthong Gyalpo as well as Jigme Lingpa.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 19th, 2014 at 10:13 PM
Title: Re: What tibetan buddhist traditions these people belong?
Content:
fabrc said:
I would like to know what tibetan buddhist traditions Alan Wallace and Matthieu Ricard belong?

Thanks!


theanarchist said:
Mathieu Ricard is a disciple of Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche. So Nyingma.




pensum said:
His main teacher however was Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche who as an incarnation of Jamyang Khyenste Chokyi Lodro is formally Sakya...

Malcolm wrote:
You mean incarnation of Khyentse Wangpo, who, while being nonsectarian, was definitely Sakyapa, a member of the Ngor school, traditionally patronized by the King of Derge. The Derge region of Kham may have been a hotbed of Nyingma activity, but it's spine is Sakya through and through.


theanarchist said:
Haha, Khyentse Wangpo was a terton and all terton are incarnations of the disciples of Guru Rinpoche and the terma are the teachings of Guru Rinpoche. You can't become more Nyingma than that, even if you also additionally hold a sarma tradition..

Malcolm wrote:
Khyentse Wangpo is most definitely a Sakyapa, there is really no doubt about it. His main practice was Hevajra from the Lamdre. The vast majority of his work involved collating all the Sakyapa teachings in to two collections, the rgyud sde kun 'dus and the sgrub thabs kun 'dus. He was a member of the Ngor subschool of Sakya.

If you examine his education, training and practice, you will discover that he grew out of the Sakya school. All his main tutors were Sakyapas such as the Thartse Khenchen, and so on. His monastery is and remains a Sakya monastery. For example he received his name and later his monastic vows from the latter master.

While it is true that he was an very important terton, the emanations of Guru Rinpoche's disciples is not confined to one school, be it Nyingma (which is really just a gsar ma school too), Sakya, Gelug or the many branches of Kagyu. Emanations of Guru Rinpoche and his disciples are considered to have appeared in all of these schools.

In the end, we must conclude that Khyentse Wangpo was a Sakya pa, as any measure of his literary output will definitely show.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 19th, 2014 at 8:12 PM
Title: Re: What tibetan buddhist traditions these people belong?
Content:
pensum said:
His main teacher however was Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche who as an incarnation of Jamyang Khyenste Chokyi Lodro is formally Sakya...

Malcolm wrote:
You mean incarnation of Khyentse Wangpo, who, while being nonsectarian, was definitely Sakyapa, a member of the Ngor school, traditionally patronized by the King of Derge. The Derge region of Kham may have been a hotbed of Nyingma activity, but it's spine is Sakya through and through.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 19th, 2014 at 6:21 AM
Title: Re: Water bowls...?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
In any case, the point is that any offerings apart from a ganapuja should be discarded in a clean place, and not reserved for personal consumption.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 19th, 2014 at 3:58 AM
Title: Re: Śākyamuni's non-Indo-European heritage.
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The Upanishad as well as the Vedas clearly uphold kingship as the ideal.

Zhen Li said:
The ideal for kings is dandaniti. That doesn't mean they view kingship as superior in authority to that of brahmins. Actually in practice most kings didn't really use brahmins in the ideal manner, they'd have them at court for legitimation, not for instruction in Dharma. Buddhism holds that the Brahmin can only exist in society once the king has ordered it, whereas the Brahmanical texts hold that the Brahmin was established as supreme being born from the head of Brahma, a view the Buddhists refute.

Malcolm wrote:
It is clearly states in the early Upanishads that only the ksatriyas knew the meaning of the Vedas, of which Brahmins were ignorant.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 19th, 2014 at 2:56 AM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
I think I've figured it out! Arguing about Dzogchen IS the meaning of life.

Malcolm wrote:
NOW it all makes sense.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 19th, 2014 at 2:26 AM
Title: Re: Water bowls...?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Cretan.

Sherab Dorje said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesbos, actually!

Malcolm wrote:
Howard Sterns would love it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 19th, 2014 at 2:09 AM
Title: Re: Water bowls...?
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
]After they had finished?  Can't see why I shouldn't/wouldn't!

Malcolm wrote:
Barbarian.

Sherab Dorje said:
"Barbarian" is a Greek term:

"The term originates from the Greek word βάρβαρος (barbaros). Hence the Greek idiom "πᾶς μὴ Ἕλλην βάρβαρος" (pas mē Hellēn barbaros) which literally means "whoever is not Greek is a barbarian"."  So it seems that the shoe fits the other foot!

Malcolm wrote:
Cretan.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 19th, 2014 at 2:01 AM
Title: Re: Water bowls...?
Content:
Terma said:
does it really matter what we we do with it when it is time to get rid of it?

Terma

Malcolm wrote:
Would you eat the food off the plate or drink out of the cup of an honored guest? If no, then you have your answer.

Sherab Dorje said:
After they had finished?  Can't see why I shouldn't/wouldn't!

Malcolm wrote:
Barbarian.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 19th, 2014 at 1:32 AM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
conebeckham said:
This, and the extensive Dzogchen discussion, really are tangential to the thread, though, I think.....

Malcolm wrote:
People always want to argue with me about Dzogchen no matter what thread I am in and no matter what I say.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 19th, 2014 at 1:31 AM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
ok, so then he's presenting the exact same view as all the Tantras and commentaries?

Malcolm wrote:
As the son of the Zhang ston Tashi Dorje, the terton who revealed the Vima Nyinthig, I doubt his authority can be questioned.

His book, the eleven topics of Dzogchen, is the basis of Longchenpa's larger work, from which Longchenpa pinches entire passages without attribution. I know this because while I translating the GZ recension of this work, I read it carefully side by side the Tshig Don mDzod.

So, I think it is safe to say that if Nyibum is the main lineage holder of Nyinthig (he is) after his father, his views ought to have considerable weight.

smcj said:
Dudjom R. subscribed to the "Great Madhyamaka"/empty-of-other view. As the nominal "head of the Nyingma Lineage" in the 2nd half of the 20th century his views ought to have considerable weight also.


Malcolm wrote:
As I explained to you before, all schools consider their Madhyamaka "great", so that is just a sectarian jibe. Having said that, yes Dudjom R was indeed a proponent of gzhan stong following Kongtrul. On the other hand, Khenpo Zhanga, one of most influential commentators on these topics and the author of the 13 texts system of education at Dzogchen Monastery and so on, was definitely not a gzhan stong pa, nor for that matter was Mipham.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 19th, 2014 at 1:28 AM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
ok, so then he's presenting the exact same view as all the Tantras and commentaries?

Malcolm wrote:
As the son of the Zhang ston Tashi Dorje, the terton who revealed the Vima Nyinthig, I doubt his authority can be questioned.

His book, the eleven topics of Dzogchen, is the basis of Longchenpa's larger work, from which Longchenpa pinches entire passages without attribution. I know this because while I translating the GZ recension of this work, I read it carefully side by side the Tshig Don mDzod.

So, I think it is safe to say that if Nyibum is the main lineage holder of Nyinthig (he is) after his father, his views ought to have considerable weight.

gad rgyangs said:
so I assume he's upholding the views of all the main Dzoghchen Tantras?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes. Longchenpa's book TDD, uses virtually all of the same citations Nyibum presents, but also many more, as well since the former's is three times as long (mostly citations, not so much longer in terms of actual explanations).

So here, you see in one place, Nyibum states the basis is unfabricated mind, in another place, he states the definitive view about that basis is ka dag.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 19th, 2014 at 1:19 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
It sure took a lot of money for this dude to appear on Ted talk.

Sherab Dorje said:
Funny that, given we live in a capitalist system.

Malcolm wrote:
You will never escape the markets greg, not in your lifetime.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 19th, 2014 at 1:17 AM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
ok, so then he's presenting the exact same view as all the Tantras and commentaries?

Malcolm wrote:
As the son of the Zhang ston Tashi Dorje, the terton who revealed the Vima Nyinthig, I doubt his authority can be questioned.

His book, the eleven topics of Dzogchen, is the basis of Longchenpa's larger work, from which Longchenpa pinches entire passages without attribution. I know this because while I translating the GZ recension of this work, I read it carefully side by side the Tshig Don mDzod.

So, I think it is safe to say that if Nyibum is the main lineage holder of Nyinthig (he is) after his father, his views ought to have considerable weight.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 19th, 2014 at 1:13 AM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
smcj said:
Isn't the definitive view of Karma Kagyu the view of Mahamudra?
Mahamudra is a practice. Shentong is a view.

BTW I know of western Mahamudra practitioners that have never studied Madhyamaka or Shentong. Mahamudra is something you do, not just think or talk about.

Malcolm wrote:
Mahāmudra has a view (ground mahāmudra), it has a path (path mahāmudra) and it has a result (result mahāmudra).


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 19th, 2014 at 1:11 AM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Nyibum who is an authority on this subject, could not be clearer. The basis is just one's unfabricated mind.

gad rgyangs said:
Either Nyibum is saying the same thing as all the thousands of Dzogchen Tantras and commentaries, or he is contradicting them. If he's saying the same thing, then what's the controversy? If he's contradicting them, then trying to uphold the eccentric view of one dude against the entire tradition is a little crazy.

Malcolm wrote:
I doubt you can consider Nyibums view eccentric in the least, as he is one of the most important Nyinthig lineage masters, his book, from which this quote was drawn, was repurposed word for word into a treasure revelation that forms a major text in the Gongpa Zangthal cycle. In the Gongpa Zangthal, this work is presented as the work of Vimalamitra, not Nyibum.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 19th, 2014 at 1:01 AM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
3) the appearances of the basis consist of all phenomena of samsara and nirvana, including "sentient beings" and their "minds":

Malcolm wrote:
"All phenomena" simply means one skandha, one āyatana and one dhātu e.g. rūpaskandha, mano-āyatana and the dharmadhātu.

And as I pointed, even the container universe arises from consciousnesses according to Buddhism through their collective activity. Dzogchen is just another way of describing this insight which is found even in Abhidharma (of which Dzogchen is a self-described part).


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 19th, 2014 at 12:57 AM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
3) the appearances of the basis consist of all phenomena of samsara and nirvana, including "sentient beings" and their "minds":

Malcolm wrote:
The tantra is describing the basis in abstract general terms, not as an instantiated entity which has a function. Therefore, the basis is not transpersonal in manner in which you have previously suggested.

gad rgyangs said:
The "Illuminating Lamp" says:

"From within this indeterminate spontaneous presence
There is a manifestation-process of varied plurality,
And its unceasing play accomplishes everything and anything,
As it shines forth everywhere in any way;
In its indeterminancy, there is a plurality of appearances"

so yes, the basis of the mind of a sentient being is the same basis as the basis of all phenomena of samsara and nirvana: the basis beyond all words and categories.

Malcolm wrote:
Nyibum who is an authority on this subject, could not be clearer. The basis is just one's unfabricated mind. That is the basis for all samsara and nirvana. In Sakya it  is called the all-basis cause continuum, in Kagyu, ground mahāmudra, in Gelug, the mind of clear light and in Jonang, tathāgatagarbha.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 19th, 2014 at 12:51 AM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
smcj said:
the basis" is not simply your own mind (which would be what is usually called a Yogacaran interpretation)

Malcolm wrote:
=
It is called Wisdom (Skt.: jnana) and also the dharmata. It is the essential reality of all things. It is said to be truly existent and not self-empty. As such it offends the sensibilities of people that get hysterical when the specter of brahman shows itself.
As I already pointed out, wisdom is a noetic quality. It cannot be a noetic quality separate from our mind. It cannot be a singular noetic quality pervading all minds.

When the "mind" is completely purified of all taints, it is called "wisdom" (jñāna) When it is with taints it is called consciousness (vijñāna).

If we follow what you are saying, there is no hope at all of finding Buddhahood within our own minds, since buddhahood and wisdom would be extraneous to our continuums. If we are to find buddhahood within our own minds, as hundreds of texts recommend, then we have to discover that buddhahood in the essence of our own minds. That is not transpersonal.

Even gzhan stong does not presuppose a brahman like entity. They are merely stating that the three kāyas are the inherent in the nature of the mind. For example, Dolbupa, arguable the founder of gshan stong terms the tathāgatagarbhe the ālaya, the all-basis. He says too, [Hopkins, 2006, pg. 65] "Similarly the Glorious Hevajra Tantra also says that the natural clear light mind that resides in all sentient beings is buddha..." And on page 106 he says "

...Bhavya's "Lamp for (Nāgājruna's) Wisdom" if the middle way:
It consciousness, 
clear light, nirvana, 
All-emptiness, and body of attrubutes.

[The term] "consciousness" on this occasion is in consideration of the consciousness of the noumenon and pure consciousness because it is used as a synonym for the clearly body of attributes."

On 120 he says:

If the matrix-of-the-one-gone-bliss did not exist in fact, it would incur the irreversible fallacy of contradicting the statement in the Descent to Lankā Sūtra that the mind beyond logic, the essence of the ultimate 12 grounds, natural clear light, buddha-matrix, natural virtue, basis free from all positions, final source of refuge, and exalted buddha wisdom is the matrix-of-one-gone-bliss.

So you can see, the term below "one's unfabricated mind" has exactly the same meaning and for this reason I maintain that the view of the basis proposed in Sakya, Kagyu, Gelug, Nyingma and Jonang are the same, even though they describe it differently, from different angles and with different terminology. The meaning and the subject of discussion however is the same.

As such, because the basis, one’s unfabricated mind, arose as the essence of the sole reality, there is no need to search elsewhere for the place etc., i.e. it is called self-originated wisdom.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 18th, 2014 at 11:50 PM
Title: Re: Water bowls...?
Content:
Terma said:
does it really matter what we we do with it when it is time to get rid of it?

Terma

Malcolm wrote:
Would you eat the food off the plate or drink out of the cup of an honored guest? If no, then you have your answer.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 18th, 2014 at 9:29 PM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
smcj said:
the basis" is not simply your own mind (which would be what is usually called a Yogacaran interpretation)

Malcolm wrote:
The ālaya cause continuum (Sakya), the fundamental mind of luminosity (Gelug), "ground mahāmudra" (Kagyu) or the "basis" (Nyingma) all refer to the same thing, i.e., one's unfabricated mind. There is no contradiction between these positions and a position that holds that the basis is tathāgatagarbha. All of these are merely different ways of discussing tathāgatagarbha.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 18th, 2014 at 9:08 PM
Title: Re: short term monastic ordination in india ?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The best place to do retreat is in Western Europe or North America.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 18th, 2014 at 8:33 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
if (typeof bbmedia == 'undefined') { bbmedia = true; var e = document.createElement('script'); e.async = true; e.src = 'bbmedia.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(e, s); }
https://phpbbex.com/ [video]

Malcolm wrote:
It sure took a lot of money for this dude to appear on Ted talk.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 18th, 2014 at 8:16 PM
Title: Re: Śākyamuni's non-Indo-European heritage.
Content:
Zhen Li said:
than the Vedic/Upanisadic model, which is actually pretty deviant from the norm of human societies. Buddhist rajas are just regular rajas.


Malcolm wrote:
The Upanishad as well as the Vedas clearly uphold kingship as the ideal.

See Dumezil.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 18th, 2014 at 8:06 PM
Title: Re: Water bowls...?
Content:
DiamondSutra said:
What do you think of drinking the water from water bowls?
Way better to put it outside in plants?
We eat the fruit after it's been offered, so why not the water too?
Ok to drink or not?


Malcolm wrote:
It is generally considered that you should discard it in a clean, unpolluted place. Also, you can water your plants with it.

In general, the fruit/food offerings should also be discarded in a the same kind of place.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 18th, 2014 at 7:05 AM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
if, instead of a basis as abgrund for all phenomena, you want to locate it in individual sentient beings' minds, then you a starting with a multiplicity. You are kind of saying that there is nothing that unifies all the sentient beings, each one is an island, self-contained with its own basis forever independent from the bases of all other sentient beings. At best this is substance svabhava, at worst it is simply crypto-materialism with minds as atoms.

Malcolm wrote:
If you say something unifies sentient beings, you're right back at a field theory.


gad rgyangs said:
as I said before you are positing sentient beings, but upon what?

Malcolm wrote:
Convention, what else?

gad rgyangs said:
you said "ka dag or emptiness" but either A) emptiness is a non-affirming negative, in which case you cannot posit consciousnesses on it or B)it is not a non-affirming negative, but it is a quality/nature, along with lhun sgrub and thugs je, describing the basis of all phenomena including, but not limited to, the minds of sentient beings.

Malcolm wrote:
Kadag is the emptiness of consciousness. It may be the emptiness of everything else as well, but given that all the elements which make up the universe and sentient beings arise from collective consciousnesses of sentient beings, there is not much point in talking about their emptiness. It is axiomatic that they are empty because they are established as mind.

The Introduction Tantra states Since all appearances are introduced as mind, gain mastery over the mind.
Since the mind essence was introduced as emptiness, emptiness is sealed by bliss.
Since emptiness was introduced as vidyā, vidyā itself is the non-duality of the dhātu and wisdom.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 18th, 2014 at 3:07 AM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The reason people see the five lights everywhere they look

ConradTree said:
Stop right there.  No need to go further.

This indicates the basis is the 5 lights.

checkmate.

Old Malcolm wins over new Malcolm.


Malcolm wrote:
The basis is not the five lights. The five lights are expressions of wisdom.

Those all just exist in one's mind, as Shabkar point out.

The basis is not something separate from you the person, and it is not some uniform transpersonal field. It is just your own mind and it's essence.


By the way I never thought the basis was a transpersonal field. But have become aware that many people interpret is as such, and therefore, I writing to correct this misapprehension.

In other words, Dzogchen teachings about the basis are actually "disappointingly" Buddhist and not so radical after all.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 18th, 2014 at 2:37 AM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
OK, thanks for the clarification. This is something I've been wondering about for a while. The specific reason I'm asking is because I'm reading "Treasury of Precious Qualities, Book Two", and in the tranlsator's introduction they kind of make a big deal out of how to translate 'thugs rje' in this context. If you use Amazon's look inside feature here :
https://www.amazon.com/Treasury-Precious-Qualities-Book-Two/dp/1611800455
and look for the 'the third term' you can see what I'm referring to, on page xxviii. In that book they translate it as 'cognitive potency'.

pensum said:
I noticed their insistence on this point as well. However thugs rje is clearly the Tibetan translation of karuna as clearly stated by Mipham and many others. However in the context of Dzogchen, "compassion" takes on a subtle meaning, in that it refers to expressibility or the ability to manifest or appear. Tulku Urgyen explained it thus "Rigpa has a certain thugs rje. Thugs rje refers to the venue or the unobstructed medium for experience." Based on such explanations, one can readily see why Erik Pema Kunsang has opted to translate it as "capacity" rather than "compassion."


Malcolm wrote:
Nevertheless, the word primarily refers to how the nirmanakāya functions, hence "compassion".


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 18th, 2014 at 2:32 AM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:


ConradTree said:
Someone who finishes the dzogchen menngagde practices, sees the 5 lights everywhere they look.

Not pristine unfabricated mind.

Malcolm wrote:
They are the same thing.

And no, I was slightly mistaken before.

The reason people see the five lights everywhere they look is that they no longer have traces to reify the five elements as the five elements because their consciousness has become free of all traces of the two obscurations, i.e. with those removed, what remains is wisdom.

Of course, there is nothing substantial that is ever removed, from such a mind.

Then we gave this from the Rig pa rang shar:

Son of a good family, one must recognize the awareness [shes pa] free from grasping as one’s own state.

Or the Rang grol:

A vidyā that performs actions does not exist
in the essence of pure awareness.

Or the Mind Mirror of Samantabhadra has an interlinear note:

The nature of one’s vidyā is light. Since kāyas are the gathered in the sphere of wisdom, the meaning of the view of Samantabhadra is realized. Further, there is vidyā and the wisdom that arises from vidyā. Further, vidyā that is free from extremes and beyond multiplicity does not transcend awareness (shes pa) and knowing (rig), endowed with a core of empty wisdom free from the extremes of things.

The Sun and Moon Tantra states:

At that time, that fortunate one
when the appearances are self-evident, 
the non-abiding awareness is called “natural”.

Anyway, there are too many references in various Dzogchen texts which state quite clearly that the basis is just one's mind. This is consistent with Buddhadharma. Other explanations are not.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 18th, 2014 at 2:25 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
tellyontellyon said:
It sounds sometimes as if I am being accused of putting socialism in place of Buddhism, or accused of saying they are the same thing.

Malcolm wrote:
I don't think you ever said any such thing. But I think you know Marxism better than you know Buddhism. And that is sad.


tellyontellyon said:
it is a question of whether Marxism is better than capitalism.

Malcolm wrote:
I see no evidence that it is.

tellyontellyon said:
Capitalism is a rampantly exploitative and violent system. Capitalists are most certainly not pacifists; it is a system that demands expansion and competition and leads inexorably to violence.

Malcolm wrote:
Every marxist revolution has ended in slaughter and terror. The fact is that market economies function best when there is an absence of political and military conflict. The market therefore, has a vested interest in peace and social stability.

tellyontellyon said:
I think Marx's analysis of capitalism is correct, and the chance of a peaceful transition is far more possible in the modern day. Even in the 19th century Marx saw some possibility of a peaceful transformation in the advanced countries. That possibility is much greater now.

Malcolm wrote:
I don't believe it, I think it is a utopian pipe dream.


tellyontellyon said:
But if you accept Marx's view that capitalism by it's very nature deprives people of their humanity and essentially robs them by forcing them to give up their labour below its true value, then you will accept there are consequences for allowing this system to continue.

Malcolm wrote:
I don't agree with any of these claims.


tellyontellyon said:
I say what we need is a little less sanctimonious preaching to the poor that they need to be more 'moral'; and a little more genuine moral behaviour: actually stepping outside of our golden palaces and actually doing something of benefit.

Malcolm wrote:
Buddhism is non-evangelical. But if someone asks me, despite their best efforts to get ahead, what they need to do, and they want a Buddhist answer, I will give it to them: generate more merit. It may not ripen in this lifetime, but it will certainly ripen in future lives.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 18th, 2014 at 2:24 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
tellyontellyon said:
It sounds sometimes as if I am being accused of putting socialism in place of Buddhism, or accused of saying they are the same thing.
I am not.

Marxists don't claim to be pacifists, though I believe it is possible for a socialist transformation of society to come about peacefully and support such a peaceful transition.

The question isn't whether Marxism is better than Buddhism.... it is a question of whether Marxism is better than capitalism.

Malcolm wrote:
I see no evidence that it is.

tellyontellyon said:
Capitalism is a rampantly exploitative and violent system. Capitalists are most certainly not pacifists; it is a system that demands expansion and competition and leads inexorably to violence.

Malcolm wrote:
Every marxist revolution has ended in slaughter and terror.

tellyontellyon said:
I think Marx's analysis of capitalism is correct, and the chance of a peaceful transition is far more possible in the modern day. Even in the 19th century Marx saw some possibility of a peaceful transformation in the advanced countries. That possibility is much greater now.

Malcolm wrote:
I don't believe it, I think it is a utopian pipe dream.


tellyontellyon said:
But if you accept Marx's view that capitalism by it's very nature deprives people of their humanity and essentially robs them by forcing them to give up their labour below its true value, then you will accept there are consequences for allowing this system to continue.

Malcolm wrote:
I don't agree with any of these claims.


tellyontellyon said:
I say what we need is a little less sanctimonious preaching to the poor that they need to be more 'moral'; and a little more genuine moral behaviour: actually stepping outside of our golden palaces and actually doing something of benefit.

Malcolm wrote:
Buddhism is non-evangelical. But if someone asks me why, despite their best efforts to get ahead, what they need to do, and they want a Buddhist answer, I will give it to them: generate more merit. It may not ripen in this lifetime, but it will certainly ripen in future lives.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 18th, 2014 at 1:41 AM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
ka dag = śuddha
lhun grub =anābhoga/nirābhoga
thugs rje = karuna.

dzogchungpa said:
OK, then why do 'karuna' and 'abheda' have the same meaning here, if that is what you are saying?

Malcolm wrote:
No, thugs rjes is often defined as the inseparability of ka dag and lhun grub.

Ngo bo/svabhāva, i.e. emptiness is the characteristic of ka dag/śuddha
Rang bzhin/prakṛtī, i.e. clarity, is the characteristic of lhun grub/ anābhoga
Thugs rjes/karuna, i.e. compassion, is the characteristic inseparability/abheda of the former pair.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 18th, 2014 at 1:04 AM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
May I ask what Indic term corresponds to compassion in this case?

Malcolm wrote:
Abheda.

dzogchungpa said:
OK, but why would that correspond to 'thugs rje'?

Malcolm wrote:
ka dag = śuddha
lhun grub =anābhoga/nirābhoga
thugs rje = karuna.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 18th, 2014 at 12:12 AM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
[Instead, I think B2 is the more proper understanding, based for example on Nyibum's remark that the basis is one's unfabricated mind. This is an authoritative citation that must be addressed and heeded. For example, the Mind Mirror of Vajrasattva states:

M

ConradTree said:
You have previously argued the basis of Dzogchen is not even the unfabricated mind:

https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=100&t=6459&hilit=basis+Mahamudra#p76393

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, and I was also wrong.
But as pointed out in these same texts, the basis is not merely emptiness. It also has "wisdom" (ye shes), which is a kind of shes pa or sems, a primordial or pristine consciousness, as opposed to a rnam shes, an aspected consciousness that possesses concepts.
Yes this is called Advaita Vedanta.
No, since this ye shes is personal, never transpersonal, and at the time of the basis, is merely describing the mind (shes pa, sems) in a pre-afflictive state.
In Dzogchen texts we see an analogous sequence: wisdom --> blue light --> green light --> red light --> white light -- yellow light; which when reified becomes the standard Buddhist sequence above. The only difference between the two sequences is that the former sequence occurs when the latter sequence is not recognized for being what it is, the display of a given being's own noetic capacity.
If you are defining wisdom as pristine consciousness, then this a slight twist on Advaita Vedanta.
Tibetans translate jñāna as ye shes. That term "ye shes "is frequently translated as "pristine awareness" or "primordial wisdom", etc. I am saying that Dzogchen authors take this term very literally (a literalism criticized by people like Sakya Pandita) because they are taking this mode of shes pa (jñatā, jñānatā, parijñāna, etc.), which they describe as ye shes to mean that the original state (ye nas) of the mind (shes pa) is pre-afflictive, and Dzogchen is the path to recover that primordial state.

I am not saying that this consciousness is a universal plenum, like brahman, from which all beings arise; that is exactly the mistake I think most people fall into when studying Dzogchen, i.e. they wind up falling into an unintentional brahman trap.

Thus what I am saying is the basis is personal, not universal. Each's being has their own basis since they each have their own mind, the characteristics of the basis (essence, nature and compassion) are general, and apply to all minds, just as all candles on a table are separate and unique, but all flames on those candles bear the same qualities, heat and light.

The fault that I suffered from was not seeing the fact that "rnam shes" (vijñāna), "shes rab" (prajñā), "ye shes" (jñāna), "shes pa"(jñatā) are all talking about one thing, different modalities of a single continuum from sentient being hood to Buddhahood, based on language in man ngag sde texts, reinforced very strongly by Longchenpa, which make a very hard distinction between sems (citta) and yeshe (jñāna) without recognizing the distinction is not in substance, but merely in mode i.e. afflicted/non-afflicted.

Let me add, that the way I see it now is that "rnam shes", consciousness, refers to the afflicted mind, "ye shes" refers to the unafflicted mind; and "shes pa" refers the a mind which is neutral, that can go either way depending on whether it is under the influence of vidyā or avidyā.

Really, I am not saying anything that is terribly controversial. I am recognizing that I was mislead by a distinction made by Longchenpa and others who, for didactic reasons, make a hard distinction between mind/consciousness and wisdom when what they are really doing is making a hard distinction between utterly afflicted minds and utterly pure minds, and providing a literary mythology (the universe arises out of the basis) to explain the separation of sentient beings and buddhas.

I have similarly come to the conclusion that the account of the basis arising out of the basis and the separation of samsara and nirvana at some imagined start point unimaginable eons ago is just a literary myth, and it does not need to be taken literally.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 17th, 2014 at 11:00 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
As far as I can see, Capitalism, a term invented by Marx, is here to stay.

Sherab Dorje said:
Nothing is here to stay.  As I said earlier:  the longest running political/social entity (the Byzantine Empire) only lasted a thousand years.


Malcolm wrote:
Yes, and in Marxists terms it also had primitive accumulations of capital, and its primitive accumulations of capital were in turn taken over from Rome, etc., etc.

People and states have always accumulated capital and they always will, markets being markets. Governments have primarily existed for two reasons, to protect citizens and to stabilize markets, and they always will.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 17th, 2014 at 10:53 PM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
B1, the basis as a transpersonal field out of which everything in samsara and nirvana is instantiated through its non-recognition.

gad rgyangs said:
the basis is not a field. its not an any-thing.

Malcolm wrote:
This is a faulty presentation of the basis, one of the six faulty positions about the basis described in the Six Dimensions of Samantabhadra Tantra, as well as others.

gad rgyangs said:
thats why it cannot contain traces, it would have to be some kind of existent locus for that.

Malcolm wrote:
Wisdom is suitable as a basis for traces, or so the Dzogchen texts tell us.


gad rgyangs said:
Even discussing wisdom as a the basis, even a nonsubstantiated basis as in Dzogchen does not make sense if that wisdom is not describing a noetic entity.
then what is that wisdom?

Malcolm wrote:
A mind lacking fabrications.


gad rgyangs said:
the basis is just the way a sentient being's consciousness [ shes pa rather than rnam par shes pa ] or mind [ sems, citta ] is talked about in Dzogchen texts prior to being afflicted for all the reasons I mentioned earlier.
ok, then whats the basis of that consciousness?

Malcolm wrote:
Ka dag or emptiness, the correct description of the basis according the the man ngag sde texts. But as pointed out in these same texts, the basis is not merely emptiness. It also has "wisdom" (ye shes), which is a kind of shes pa or sems, a primordial or pristine consciousness, as opposed to a rnam shes, an aspected consciousness that possesses concepts.

Basically, even though Dzogchen texts describe such a "beginning time", I personally don't believe that there is a start point ever. The description of such a start point is merely a literary device, much as Samantabhadra is a literary device.

The five elements are also included in wisdom, etc., so there is no contradiction between saying that the basis is wisdom, and the basis is empty. The problem comes only if one imagines that basis is somehow a unitary entity, a fabric, which provides the basis for the arising of sentient beings and buddhas on an objective level. But if, as I have come to understand, it is not referring to an objective entity or context, then the basis is easily described as a a set of general features which every noetic entity that we call "buddhas" or "sentient being" shares in common as an idealized "initial" set of conditions. The only difference between buddhas and sentient beings then is the extent to which they recognize this set of general features within their own continuums. Hence in this respect the so called original general basis merely describes an abstract set of qualities, but is not itself an instantiation of those qualities in any way. Those qualities are only instantiated in a sattva, a being. In this way the basis is not one, because it is instantiated individually; it is not many because it is a uniform set of qualities that are being instantiated across all beings.

This way, the general Buddhist dictum which extends all the way down to Vasubandhu's Kośabhaṣ (and clearly the authors of the Dzogchen tantras were familiar with it because they use the Kośa cosmology in such tantras as the Rigpa Rangshar), matter arises from mind/s. I.e. the order of the arising of matter presented in virtually all buddhist texts is:

Consciousness --> space --> air --> fire --> water --> earth.

In Dzogchen texts we see an analogous sequence: wisdom --> blue light --> green light --> red light --> white light -- yellow light; which when reified becomes the standard Buddhist sequence above. The only difference between the two sequences is that the former sequence occurs when the latter sequence is not recognized for being what it is, the display of a given being's own noetic capacity.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 17th, 2014 at 10:01 PM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Defining the basis as a sort of fabric out of which appearances arise does not solve the problem of individuated consciousnesses.

dzogchungpa said:
Honestly, does anything?

Malcolm wrote:
What is the basis in fact? The Dzogchen tantras describe this as "wisdom". This wisdom is said to have three aspects [rnam pa], original purity, its svabhāva; natural perfection, its prakṛiti; and compassion, the inseparability of the first two.

dzogchungpa said:
May I ask what Indic term corresponds to compassion in this case?


Malcolm wrote:
Abheda.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 17th, 2014 at 11:18 AM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
you are forgetting that at the level of the basis there is no distinction between personal and universal. If you want to call the basis a quality shared by everything that arises you have merely coopted the term ususally used for the origin/ground of everything that arises and now you need a new term for that. unless of course you want to reify indivduals as independent monads of some sort, which is basically svabhava.

Malcolm wrote:
Defining the basis as a sort of fabric out of which appearances arise does not solve the problem of individuated consciousnesses.

What is the basis in fact? The Dzogchen tantras describe this as "wisdom". This wisdom is said to have three aspects [rnam pa], original purity, its svabhāva; natural perfection, its prakṛiti; and compassion, the inseparability of the first two.

Even discussing wisdom as a the basis, even a nonsubstantiated basis as in Dzogchen does not make sense if that wisdom is not describing a noetic entity. Simplistic solutions like refusing to define it as one or many simply raise more questions than they answer.

There are two propositions:

B1, the basis as a transpersonal field out of which everything in samsara and nirvana is instantiated through its non-recognition.

B2 the basis is meant only to apply to any given sentient beings. Since this applies to all sentient being, here the basis is like fire, fire as light and heat as a quality, every instantiation of fire has light and heat. Likewise, every sentient beings shares common characteristics because they are sentient, they have consciousness.

Dante, your position is B1, and while I can understand how people are lead to accept B1 as the message of Dzogchen teachings, it is an exaggeration in my estimation.

Instead, I think B2 is the more proper understanding, based for example on Nyibum's remark that the basis is one's unfabricated mind. This is an authoritative citation that must be addressed and heeded. For example, the Mind Mirror of Vajrasattva states:

That is one’s own basis but it was not recognized by oneself. The samsaric three realms are formed through delusion.  Then, after the afflictions become more coarse, different forms of sentient beings emerge, deluded from the basis in that way.”

This just means that each and every sentient being is deluded from their own basis; even though the basis is described in generic terms, it is not the case that all sentient beings ultimate share one basis. The basis is uniform in its nature, if you will, among all instantiations of sentient beings but each and every sentient being's basis is unique to that being. Since the Dzogchen tantras do describe wisdom as being a repository for traces, again we can try to explain this through B1 or B2.

In the B1 scenario, the basis would have to like a bank, where different people placed their traces, kind of like samsara accounts.

A B2 scenario is much simpler, since it is only means that since sentient beings did not recognize their own unfabricated minds, then they begin to develop the traces of action that produce our common karmic visions of the six realms. This is certainly the intent of Shabkar when he writes:

Therefore, since appearances are not fixed, 
whatever appears [appears] because of the power of traces.

And:

Therefore, everything is an appearance of the mind.
Since everything is created by the concepts of the mind,
in reality, all of the appearances of the mind are empty.

More importantly Shabkar states:

Self-originated primordial wisdom appearing as vidyā is also the mind...
There are no appearances at all apart from the mind.

And:

This is the introduction that confirms the basis, 
the natural reality of the mind essence.

Compare these last two with Nyibum:

As such, because the basis, one’s unfabricated mind, arose as the essence of the sole reality, there is no need to search elsewhere for the place etc., i.e. it is called self-originated wisdom.
(Apologies for the last version, which was from an earlier unedited version by mistake)

My present position therefore, is B2, the basis is just the way a sentient being's consciousness [ shes pa rather than rnam par shes pa ] or mind [ sems, citta ] is talked about in Dzogchen texts prior to being afflicted for all the reasons I mentioned earlier.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 17th, 2014 at 10:35 AM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:


smcj said:
In defense of Malcolm I'd like to point out that he is evidently presenting Dzogchen from ChNN's perspective. ChNN carries a lot of weight around here, and a lot of people who post here consider him their teacher. So it is entirely appropriate for Malcolm to clarify the teachings according to ChNN's perspective.

Malcolm wrote:
I am not clarifying anything from ChNN's perspective. I am clarifying it from my own, which is all we have anyway.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 16th, 2014 at 10:32 PM
Title: Re: Do you believe in ghosts?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Bhūtas, in reality, are a product of affliction that manifest as external spirits. They are formless, and according to Tibetan Medicine as well as the chöd tradtiion, are a product of imputation. So they exist, but they exist primarily as imputations.

dzogchungpa said:
So they are not sentient beings?


Malcolm wrote:
They can be sentient beings, but they can only harm you if you have a negative karmic relation with them.

And, even we are just products of imputation, so our status as "sentient beings" is also somewhat questionable.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 16th, 2014 at 10:18 PM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
As I said the basis is just your own mind.
The gzhi, in Dzogchen, has nothing to do with the mind.

cloudburst said:
HI Malcolm

Could you give a brief account of how your view has changed on this matter? It's somewhat striking.

Thank you.


Malcolm wrote:
It is simple: the basis has nothing to do with afflicted mind, the one we ordinarily experience.The two statements may be reconciled in the following way.

The basis is simply a way of talking about the components of the universe — earth, water, fire, air, space and consciousness — from the point of view their luminous intrinsic purity. A way of saying this in Tibetan in Dzogchen terms would be ཆོས་ཐམས་ཅད་རང་བཞིན་གྱིས་ཀ་དག་དང་ལྷུན་གྲབ (all phenomena are pure and naturally perfect by nature); a gsar ma equivalent presentation might run ཆོས་ཐམས་ཅད་རང་བཞིན་གྱིས་དག་པ་དང་འོད་གསལ་བ (all phenomena are pure and luminous by nature).

The Kalacakra tantra makes a very important point about this, as Tagtshang Lotsawa points out in his survey of the Vimalaprabha:

Great bliss and empty forms [śunyatābimba, stong gzugs] are shown to exist in the basis with this wisdom element of the basis [gzhi] because Bhagavan Vajsattva Mahāsukha explains that all three realms exist in oneself in the commentary of the third verse of this [adhyātma] chapter, and it is established through the citation of the root text and commentary of “wisdom merged into emptiness”.

What is this wisdom? He again clarifies:

Bearing the name “wisdom”, this consciousness that exists pervading the bodies of all sentient beings is merged into that emptiness which pervades all sentient beings, including the sentient beings of the bardo and the formless realm. This is taught in the commentary as existing through a relative mode.

In Kalacakra, for example, the wisdom element is considered to be the five elements counted as one. Tatshang again:

As such, from among the ten elements, the first five are enumerated individually, i.e., the elements of space, air, fire, water and earth. Counting the latter five as one, since they are made into one so called “wisdom element”, these six elements form this womb-born body.

The fact that points towards the same meaning as the basis in Dzogchen is provided by him here:

This statement of the root text “Wisdom is merged into emptiness, uniform taste, unchanging, and permanent” is intended for the mind of the apprehending subject that apprehends the object of the empty form established through the power of meditating on the main [devatā]. Here, the meaning of uniform taste, unchanging and permanent are though to be “complete in perfection.” Further, the meaning of permanent is said to be freedom from obscurations. That also intends intrinsically lacking obscuration or without the obscurations of movements. Though there is nothing to identify here in inseparable uniform taste, while produced conditionally, the intention is that the apprehended object and the apprehending subject have a single essence, and that a transforming continuum is not possible.

This is an extremely important point and demonstrates why the body of light is possible through either Dzogchen thögal or the path of the two stages.

Now, someone might object that it is inappropriate to cite the Kalacakra to clarify points in Dzogchen tantras, but then if this is so, then all great masters from Nubchen on down to Dudjom Rinpoche are at fault for using such tantras as the Mañjuśrīnamasamgiti to clarify Dzogchen.

Now, I am just a scholar, sharing with those who are interested my research. For many people it is annoying that I change my opinions, but I only have opinions based on what I know. Since I am not an enlightened person I can only understand what is said in the texts along with my own experience. Therefore, when my learning contradicts my earlier opinions, I change the latter immediately as soon as I have confirmed them mistaken. Such is the only honest path of real scholarship. Since I am not a person who can just accept what is told to me, my path is a bit more brutal and hard than most. But I consider that I am like a goldsmith, and it would be remiss of me not to rigorously test these texts that appear to shine like gold to see if they really are gold, merely gold-plated or fool's gold.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 16th, 2014 at 9:59 PM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
Sherlock said:
You seem to be suggesting that the whole cyclical universe thing is entirely a metaphor for one's mind -- sure it can be that but why not at the same time also a valid description of how the universe actually arises? It sounds to me similar to how some people consider the 6 lokas to be states of being within one's own life -- it is definitely that to some degree, but at the same time in mainstream Buddhism reincarnation into the different lokas is still a given.

Malcolm wrote:
In the highest Yogacara school, the non-aspectarian school, there is in fact no container universe to reincarnate into since the containers universe is merely a projection of seeds in the ālayavijñāna.

Dzogchen does not reject the outer universe in the same. Instead it interprets the pre/non-afflictive states of the five elements as "the five lights". But we can understand that the most subtle form of the five elements exist within consciousness. Wisdom is also just a name for a pre/un-obscured consciousness.

The basis is not a universal phenomena. though it is discussed in a manner resembling that for convenience. Each person has their own basis. This is why each person experiences delusion and liberation separately and at different times.

Because the basis seems to be discussed as it it were some universal "pleroma", to borrow a phrase from the Gnostics, this causes some people to go off the deep end and conclude it is some universal phenomena out of which everything arises rather than be a quality shared by everything that arises.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 16th, 2014 at 7:58 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:


tellyontellyon said:
Though, I am not blind to the possibility that the old regime may threaten the new society. I think they would have as much right to defend themselves as anybody else.

Malcolm wrote:
I see, you think that the "Capitalist" regime has a right to defend itself? That's novel. I thought you were of the mind that all these people were basically felons with no right to their "means of production".


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 16th, 2014 at 7:57 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
tellyontellyon said:
Malcolm:
'Markets' or 'Trade', and 'Capitalism' are not the same thing. Explaining that is extremely complicated, capitalism are particular paterns of trade that have come to the fore in the modern world. For a proper explanation of this you will have to work through 'Capital' by Marx yourself. Though of course you could short circuit all that by declaring that you simply don't accept Marx's theory... up to you.

Malcolm wrote:
As far as I can see, Capitalism, a term invented by Marx, is here to stay. Socialism, apart from the various degrees of "socialism" in the some Western European democracies failed. It is useless to shout at me that true socialism has never been tried. I wouldn't want to try "true Socialism" in a million years, so you can keep it.

tellyontellyon said:
Also, "There have always been..." is not a logical argument....

Malcolm wrote:
It doesn't need to be an argument, its just a matter of fact.

tellyontellyon said:
I haven't said we don't have to look at our minds... but as I said about fixing my car ... we ALSO need a spanner.
We need to work on our anger, jelousy, greed. ignorance and pride... of course that. That goes without saying. That is bleeding obvious....!

Malcolm wrote:
If it were so obvious, then why is no one apart from a few Buddhists doing it?

tellyontellyon said:
But what is ALSO needed is a changed system.

Malcolm wrote:
No, we merely need to change our minds and help others where we can.

People love "systems" because they tell a story. So you have your exploitation story you call Capitalism, and you have your liberation story that you call True Socialism(tm), but they are just abstractions. In truth, no system is perfect because they are only as perfect as the people running them. And quite frankly I see no reason to believe that people will be "better people" under a True Socialist(tm) system, and I suspect that in fact people will be a lot shittier to one another than they are now given the removal of all financial incentives, the only thing left will be social status and hierarchical position.

You can quote the Marxist Dalai Lama all you want, and I can quote the free market loving Dalai Lama right back at you, but what good does that serve?

If we have learned anything, we should have learned that satisfaction of material needs does not lead to greater happiness — this fact is equally true under all political systems. Happiness both mundane and transcendent only comes from inside.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 16th, 2014 at 7:01 AM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The basis, as I have already shown, is just your own clear and empty mind. There is no vidyā apart from your own mind's vidyā.

gad rgyangs said:
the basis is not vidya.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, I know, the neutral awareness that can become vidyā or avidyā comes from the basis. As I said the basis is just your own mind. It is not some unitary ontological basis for everything. If it were, it would be no different than brahman. Say that it isn't sat is no help, since brahman too is considered beyond existence and non-existence. If there is a difference, it is that the basis, one's own mind, is also not established.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 16th, 2014 at 6:43 AM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
sentient beings complaining about appearances, forgetting that both they and the appearances are appearances of the basis, is also an appearance of the basis, so its all good.

Malcolm wrote:
Sounds like brahman to me.

gad rgyangs said:
the basis is not sat.

Malcolm wrote:
The basis, as I have already shown, is just your own clear and empty mind. There is no vidyā apart from your own mind's vidyā.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 16th, 2014 at 6:40 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
tellyontellyon said:
Even if you don't think socialism isn't the answer, we stil need to dump capitalism. It is past it's 'sell by' date and is starting to stink.


Malcolm wrote:
We are not going to dump capitalism ever, because there have always been markets and opportunities for investment and there always will be markets. What needs to happen is that human beings need to grow up and learn how to restrain their appetites, and manage their markets in such a way that they are not destructive to the planet and other creatures in general.

When this happens, we can have our cake and eat it too, we can have both a healthy planet, social justice and peace. Socialism, Neo-liberalism, Anarchism, all these political theories are not going to bring us to the point where we have a healthy planet, social justice and peace, because all of options from the left and the right up till now are predicated on violence. Whether it is violent seizure of new markets (Neo -liberalism), violent seizure of capital (Marxian Socialism) or violent disruption of society (Kropotkin style Anarchism), for as long as humans use violence to have their way in the world for that long there will never be peace, never be social justice and there will never be a healthy planet.

Those who participate and endorse violence, only get violence in future lives.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 16th, 2014 at 6:30 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
tellyontellyon said:
Not Ideals.... but changing what is worse for something better. There is nothing wrong with being pro-active about something if it seems positive. If you want to be inactive, ok.... but the capitalists are are not going to be inactive. They are busy destroying the planet with their insatiable demand for the 2% - 3% compound annual growth that capitalism needs to function.
Zero growth economics is not possible under capitalism...

Malcolm wrote:
No, capitalism is doing no such thing. Human beings are doing it because they do not understand how to control their desire, hatred and ignorance. They do it just as much on Socialist countries like USSR and Communist China.

From a my point of view as  a Buddhist, your insistence on focusing on external "solutions" (which in my sincere opinion will make things worse) is misguided. In any event, the market is waking up the fact that destroying its own resource base is bad for the market itself. You will see a shift in global capitalism in the next 50 years away from extractive investment towards renewable and reuse investment. This will happen.

The problem is not markets, nor capital, nor capitalists, communists, socialist, anarchists, fascists, racists, and so on. The problem that we humans are immature, and we need, as a species to grow up.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 16th, 2014 at 6:22 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
tellyontellyon said:
From what I've seen of Deep Ecology, it seems to involve not actually doing very much... just  let nature take its course.

Malcolm wrote:
You haven't understood deep ecology.



tellyontellyon said:
Well, yes, if we just let things drift we can certainly trust that nature will solve all our problems.... mass depopulaton resulting from starvation and various other environmental disasters .... did I say disaster...?!
Nay, this is homeostatic Gaia rebalancing the biosphere, cleansing it of those pesky humans.... well, apart from Namdrol and his cabbage patch.... lucky him.

Malcolm wrote:
That is not a deep ecological view.

tellyontellyon said:
Population down to ... what was it? 100 million down from 7.1 billion. That's what Naess suggested.

Malcolm wrote:
He suggested this was an ideal number for maintaining human cultural diversity.

tellyontellyon said:
But it sounds just a little brutal to me. I would also question whether this strategy would be 'realistic', 'cause untold suffering' and 'not be stable'.

Malcolm wrote:
It is an idealistic desiderata. It would involve people voluntarily choosing not to have children, over some number of centuries. No one is going to adopt such policies since we as a species do not have the collective maturity to enact such policies, and we understand that in deep ecology.

tellyontellyon said:
7 Billion dead. ...  Is that really a more Buddhist solution that nationalising the big corporations, utilities and banks?

Malcolm wrote:
No one in deep ecology ever suggested a mass killing of humans was desirable. That would be the Deep Green Resistance people.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 16th, 2014 at 6:15 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
tellyontellyon said:
It is they who have the most brutal record of violence imaginable, stopping at nothing to overturn democratic elections if they threaten the rule of capital.

Malcolm wrote:
If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

tellyontellyon said:
a workers' democracy.

Malcolm wrote:
Which as we have seen is just a total concentration camp.

wiki
tellyontellyon said:
Hayek's views on Pinochet's Chile.

Malcolm wrote:
You cited this already.


tellyontellyon said:
A genuine socialist govt. would not be dictatorial, it would extend and deepen democracy enormously.

Malcolm wrote:
I don't believe this for a second, "meet the new boss, same as the old boss."


tellyontellyon said:
This would be more far reaching that the parliamentary democracies of capitalism where we simply get to vote every few years for MPs who do whatever they please once elected. Instead, everybody whould take part in deciding how society and the economy would run. Nationally, regionally and locally at every level, elected representatives would be accountable and subject to instant recall. So is the people who elected them didn't like what their representative did, they could make them stand for election again and, if wished, replace them. Elected representatives would recieve only the average wage, keeping them in touch with ordinary people.

Malcolm wrote:
A recipe for political and economic chaos. Direct democracy does not scale.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 16th, 2014 at 6:08 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
All that proves is that none of the three are suited to lead a society since they're all just armed thugs, devoted more to violence than peace.

Sherab Dorje said:
Yes, well, that's easy to say from the comfort of your New England home.  You might have a slightly different opinion if you were living in inner city Athens, especially if you were a Pakistani immigrant (for example).


Malcolm wrote:
Sorry, Greg, I just can't condone this kind of random street violence. It is a symptom of a government that is weak.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 16th, 2014 at 6:06 AM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
I can see how lower yanas can have this discussion, but for the Dzoghchen POV, the only thing that is meaningless (or at least a waste of time) is complaining about the appearances of the basis.

kirtu said:
"Complaining" about appearances is quite common because people aren't stable in the view.

Even in the view people react to appearances.

But of course most people, even most Dharma people, accept the appearances as actually real.

Kirt

gad rgyangs said:
sentient beings complaining about appearances, forgetting that both they and the appearances are appearances of the basis, is also an appearance of the basis, so its all good.

Malcolm wrote:
Sounds like brahman to me.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 15th, 2014 at 9:54 PM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
kirtu said:
But imho the complete meaninglessness of samsara is very difficult for even Dharma people to accept.

Malcolm wrote:
They are like the liberal Marxists Mao was talking about in Zhen Li's citation.  They give lip service to Buddhadharma, but they still imagine there is worldly happiness and meaning.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 15th, 2014 at 9:52 PM
Title: Re: Do you believe in ghosts?
Content:
Indrajala said:
I'm less interested in minor spirits and so on, and more interested in higher gods and the stories around them. Aside from invoking the names of those gods friendly to the Buddhadharma (like Indra), I don't really do much else.

Malcolm wrote:
Bhūtas, in reality, are a product of affliction that manifest as external spirits. They are formless, and according to Tibetan Medicine as well as the chöd tradtiion, are a product of imputation. So they exist, but they exist primarily as imputations.

Lhasa said:
Malcolm, would you explain the 'product of imputation' a bit more?  Also, bhutas would be a great thread all its own, especially how to deal with them.
I have heard that when someone suffers trauma/abuse, that they leak life-force and this attracts lower spirits who feed off it.  Is this somewhat the same thing as bhutas?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes. The primary cause of bhūtagraha is karma, engaging in non-virtuous deeds in this life or past lives.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 15th, 2014 at 9:17 PM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:


tobes said:
1. Never; the activity of consciousness cannot be separated from its content.
2. Both are rupa; they are part of embodiment, but I don't see the relevance of asserting them to be either internal or external.
:

Malcolm wrote:
No, consciousness is nāma; but I agree with you that nāma is embodied (rūpaka).


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 15th, 2014 at 9:13 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:


Sherab Dorje said:
Here in Greece Anarchists and Communists (especially the Stalinists of the Communist Party of Greece) spend as much time beating each other up as they do beating up the neo-Nazis of Golden Dawn.

Malcolm wrote:
All that proves is that none of the three are suited to lead a society since they're all just armed thugs, devoted more to violence than peace.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 15th, 2014 at 9:09 PM
Title: Re: Do you believe in ghosts?
Content:
Indrajala said:
I'm less interested in minor spirits and so on, and more interested in higher gods and the stories around them. Aside from invoking the names of those gods friendly to the Buddhadharma (like Indra), I don't really do much else.

Malcolm wrote:
Bhūtas, in reality, are a product of affliction that manifest as external spirits. They are formless, and according to Tibetan Medicine as well as the chöd tradtiion, are a product of imputation. So they exist, but they exist primarily as imputations.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 15th, 2014 at 6:49 AM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
rigpa is ontological not epistemic: its not about some state of consciousness before dualism vision, it is about the basis/abgrund of all possible appearances, including our consciousness in whatever state its in or could ever be in.


Malcolm wrote:
Sorry, I just don't agree with you and think you are just falling in the Hindu brahman trap.

gad rgyangs said:
I'm talking about the perception of the relationship between nothing and something. The question of what jargon to use when talking around it is secondary, although not without historical interest.


Malcolm wrote:
Rigpa is just knowing, the noetic quality of a mind. That is all it is.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 15th, 2014 at 6:48 AM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
in the yeshe sangthal you dissolve all appearances into the "vast dimension of emptiness", out of which "instant presence" arises. This is cosmological as well as personal, since the two scales are nondual.

Malcolm wrote:
The way that great transference body arises:
when all appearances have gradually been exhausted,
when one focuses one’s awareness on the appearances strewn about
on the luminous maṇḍala of the five fingers of one’s hand,
the environment and inhabitants of the universe
returning from that appearance are perceived as like moon in the water.
One’s body is just a reflection,
self-apparent as the illusory body of wisdom;
one obtains a vajra-like body.
One sees one’s body as transparent inside and out. 
The impure eyes of others cannot see one’s body as transparent, 
but only the body as it was before...

Shabkar, Key to One Hundred Doors of Samadhi

Outer appearances do not disappear even when great transference body is attained. What disappears are the inner visions, that is what is exhausted, not the outer universe with its planets, stars, galaxies, mountains, oceans, cliffs, houses, people and sentient beings.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 15th, 2014 at 6:38 AM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
Sherlock said:
Isn't the difference between transpersonal and personal also a form of dualism?

Malcolm wrote:
The distinction is crucial. If this distinction is not made, Dzogchen sounds like Vedanta.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 15th, 2014 at 6:36 AM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
rigpa is ontological not epistemic: its not about some state of consciousness before dualism vision, it is about the basis/abgrund of all possible appearances, including our consciousness in whatever state its in or could ever be in.


Malcolm wrote:
Sorry, I just don't agree with you and think you are just falling in the Hindu brahman trap.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 15th, 2014 at 6:04 AM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
It's your own rigpa, not a transpersonal rigpa, being a function of your own mind. That mind is empty.

gad rgyangs said:
when all appearances cease, what are you left with?

Malcolm wrote:
they never cease....


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 15th, 2014 at 5:35 AM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Because these things are regarded as afflictive, whereas Dzogchen is trying to describe the person in his or her originally nonafflictive condition. It really is just that simple. The so called general basis is a universal derived from the particulars of persons. That is why it is often mistaken for a transpersonal entity. But Dzogchen, especially man ngag sde is very grounded in Buddhist Logic, and one should know that by definition universals are considered to be abstractions and non-existents in Buddhism, and Dzogchen is no exception.

gad rgyangs said:
there is no question of the basis being an entity, thats not the point. Rigpa is precisely what it says in the yeshe sangthal: instant presence experienced against/within the "backdrop" (metaphor) of a "vast dimension of emptiness" (metaphor).


Malcolm wrote:
It's your own rigpa, not a transpersonal rigpa, being a function of your own mind. That mind is empty.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 15th, 2014 at 5:20 AM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
I prefer to put my faith in the guy whose father started the whole Nyinthig thing.And what is says is verified in many Dzogchen tantras, both from the bodhcitta texts as well as others.

The basis is not a backdrop. Everything is not separate from the basis. But that everything just means your own skandhas, dhātus and āyatanas. There is no basis outside your mind, just as there is no Buddhahood outside of your mind.

gad rgyangs said:
then why speak of a basis at all? just speak of skandhas, dhātus and āyatanas, and be done with it.

Malcolm wrote:
Because these things are regarded as afflictive, whereas Dzogchen is trying to describe the person in his or her originally nonafflictive condition. It really is just that simple. The so called general basis is a universal derived from the particulars of persons. That is why it is often mistaken for a transpersonal entity. But Dzogchen, especially man ngag sde is very grounded in Buddhist Logic, and one should know that by definition universals are considered to be abstractions and non-existents in Buddhism, and Dzogchen is no exception.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 15th, 2014 at 5:08 AM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
Consciousness is always a phenomenon.

Malcolm wrote:
So is the basis. They are both dharmas.

Or as the Great Garuda has it when refuting Madhyamaka:

Since phenomena and nonphenomena have always been merged and are inseparable,
there is no further need to explain an “ultimate phenomenon”.

An 12th century commentary on this text states (but not this passage):

Amazing bodhicitta (the identity of everything that becomes the basis of pursuing the meaning that cannot be seen nor realized elsewhere than one’s vidyā) is wholly the wisdom of the mind distinct as the nine consciousnesses that lack a nature.

In the end, Dzogchen is really just another Buddhist meditative phenomenology of the mind and person and that is all.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 15th, 2014 at 5:06 AM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
whats an "unfabricated mind" anyway? awareness without the prapanca?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, I believe so. So basically, all that fancy Dzogchen lingo about the basis and so on is really just talking about a mind stream that is proposed to have a primordial start point which is completely free of proliferation.

We can trust Nyibum about this because his father invented/revealed the Nyinthig tradition and he himself was a great scholar who studied widely.

gad rgyangs said:
I dunno Malcolm, the basis is more like the backdrop against which any appearances appear, including any consciousness. Also, what sense would it make to say "rigpa is one's knowledge of the basis" if that basis was one's own continuum? the basis is pure no-thing as abgrund of all phenomena. Consciousness is always a phenomenon.

Malcolm wrote:
I prefer to put my faith in the guy whose father started the whole Nyinthig thing.And what is says is verified in many Dzogchen tantras, both from the bodhcitta texts as well as others.

The basis is not a backdrop. Everything is not separate from the basis. But that everything just means your own skandhas, dhātus and āyatanas. There is no basis outside your mind, just as there is no Buddhahood outside of your mind.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 15th, 2014 at 4:48 AM
Title: Re: Do you believe in ghosts?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
I accept the existence of bhūtas. Most seriously mentally ill people are afflicted with them. It is very easy to see.

dzogchungpa said:
May I ask how you see that someone is afflicted with bhutas? I don't doubt that you can, I would just like to know.

Malcolm wrote:
Through their behavior. If you see some dude at a yoga conference or a bhajan who seems "off", wearing white, obsessed with purity, fond of spouting off words in Sanskrit, etc., you can be sure he is suffering from devabhūtagraha i.e. demonic possession by a deva. There are also ŕīṣibhūtagrahas, gurubhūtagraha, siddhabhutāgraha, pretabhūtagraha, and so on, each with their own unique behavior.

I am doing a one day workshop on bhūtas in Mexico City in March.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 15th, 2014 at 4:41 AM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
This I don't.

Malcolm wrote:
Sure you do. We have shown that the standard accounts of cause and effect, that they are temporally distinct, or that they are identical of different, are incoherent, from a Madhyamaka point of view. But since effects do appear to arise from causes, given that all of the above is true, this leaves only one option, that causes and their effects are neither the same nor are they different, for example, butter and milk, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 15th, 2014 at 4:39 AM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
So basically, all that fancy Dzogchen lingo about the basis and so on is really just talking about a mind stream that is proposed to have a primordial start point which is completely free of proliferation.

dzogchungpa said:
Can you say a little more about what you mean by a primordial start point?


Malcolm wrote:
It doesn't really mean anything. The continuum of a mind has no beginning. What is being proposed in (some) Dzogchen texts is that at some idealized point in the most distant past beyond our imagination there was a time when our mind was in a state of non-fabrication. At that time this non-fabricated mind, aka the basis, was not aware of itself or anything else but contains within it all the qualities of buddhahood. Then somehow, and it is never really explained how, our own mind's cognitive potentiality [rtsal] stirs and rises up ['phags] out of itself giving rise to neutral awareness that either becomes prajñā or ignorance depending on whether it recognizes its own potentiality or not. This kicks off the division between samsara and nirvana. It is completely personal and is not transpersonal at all. But unfortunately, because Dzogchen texts are not very clear about this, the account of the basis tends to be interpreted transpersonally, most likely due to the proliferation of Advaita.

It is my deeply held conviction that this transpersonal account which is favored by many people is a total misunderstanding based on reading these texts in Tibetan for the past 20 years and receiving detailed teachings on them from a variety of very qualified masters .


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 15th, 2014 at 4:30 AM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Each moment in the continuum of a knowing clarity is neither the same as nor different than the previous moment.

dzogchungpa said:
Honestly, this doesn't make any sense to me.


Malcolm wrote:
It is pretty straight forward Madhyamaka. If a cause exists at the same time as the effect, the effect is a non-effect, like a seed and its sprout existing at the same time. On the other hand if causes and effects are temporally separate, i.e. of the cause exists at a different time than the effect, the cause will amount to a non-cause and the effect, a non-effect. If the cause is the same as the effect, the cause will be a non-cause and the effect will be a non-effect. If they are different, then also cause will be a non-cause and the effect will be a non-effect.

Therefore, what Candrakirti proposes, following Nāgārjuna, is that causes and effects are neither the same nor are they different, and that they are not simultaneous nor are they temporally distinct.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 15th, 2014 at 3:19 AM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Sorry but the term ālaya in Dzogchen and term as it is used, for example in Sakya, are completely different.

The term basis in Dzogchen (sthāna) and the term ālaya in Lamdre for example, have precisely the same meaning, i.e. one’s unfabricated mind (rang sems ma bcos pa).

gad rgyangs said:
whats an "unfabricated mind" anyway? awareness without the prapanca?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, I believe so. So basically, all that fancy Dzogchen lingo about the basis and so on is really just talking about a mind stream that is proposed to have a primordial start point which is completely free of proliferation.

We can trust Nyibum about this because his father invented/revealed the Nyinthig tradition and he himself was a great scholar who studied widely.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 15th, 2014 at 2:52 AM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
Nyibum* states:

As such, because the basis, one’s unfabricated mind, arose as the essence of reality as a single nature, there is no need to search elsewhere for the place etc., i.e. it is called self-originated wisdom.

The basis is nothing more nor nothing less this.


*the son of Zhan stong Chobar, the terton of the Vima Nyinthig

gad rgyangs said:
I'm glad you took out the part where you said the basis is nothing but alaya!

as to the quote, the basis does not "arise", it is the basis of arising. I'm also not sure I like equating one's mind, unfabricated or not, with the basis: one's mind is clearly an appearance, not the basis.

Malcolm wrote:
Sorry but the term ālaya in Dzogchen and term as it is used, for example in Sakya, are completely different.

The term basis in Dzogchen (sthāna) and the term ālaya in Lamdre for example, have precisely the same meaning, i.e. one’s unfabricated mind (rang sems ma bcos pa).


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 15th, 2014 at 2:35 AM
Title: Re: Do you believe in ghosts?
Content:
Indrajala said:
Or maybe the question would be better phrased as do you believe in the existence of intelligent non-corporeal beings?

This is a question that maybe divides a lot of Buddhists nowadays. Say you think pretas exist in the wrong company and you'll possibly be mocked for it. On the other hand, there's always been such beings within Buddhist cosmology, and they were not seen as symbolic or metaphorical. They were subjectively real in their own right.

There's actually an interesting book on the subject of monsters by John Michael Greer entitled Monsters: An Investigator's Guide to Magical Beings. He points out that statistically over a quarter or so of people report having had contact with some kind of disembodied intelligence at some point, which constitutes evidence suggestive of the phenomenon. You can read the introduction in the preview on Google Books.


Malcolm wrote:
As  a Doctor of Tibetan Medicine I would have to say yes, I accept the existence of bhūtas. Most seriously mentally ill people are afflicted with them. It is very easy to see.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 15th, 2014 at 2:30 AM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Space is a repository for all things, one does not have to reify space to understand that.

gad rgyangs said:
the basis is not space.

Malcolm wrote:
Nyibum* states:

As such, because the basis, one’s unfabricated mind, arose as the essence of reality of a single nature, there is no need to search elsewhere for the place etc., i.e. it is called self-originated wisdom.

The basis is nothing more nor nothing less this.


*the son of Zhang stong Chobar, the terton of the Vima Nyinthig


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 15th, 2014 at 2:09 AM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The basis does not have a cause, just like space does not have a cause. But it is a repository for the build up of traces nevertheless.

gad rgyangs said:
it could only be a repository if it was reified.
The whole process is clearly personal and individual, not transpersonal.
the basis is said to have/be "rang byung ye shes", and is equated with rigpa in many texts. are these not cognitive terms?

Malcolm wrote:
Space is a repository for all things, one does not have to reify space to understand that.

"Rang byung ye shes" means "wisdom that arises from oneself". This point is very clearly explained in many places.

In any event, we can consider that the Vima Nyinthig commentary attributed to Garab Dorje authoritative:

"From now on, the stirred pit of samsara will no appear as the six kinds of living beings. for twenty thousand eons, sentient beings, having severed the stream of samsara, will not appear with a bodily form. After that, from the arising of the subtle latent defilements of different actions, it will be equivalent with the production of the previous samsara and nirvana"

Thus we find out that all this business about the basis and so on is really just a way to talk about what happens in the so called dark eons, when everything below the third and fourth rūpadhātu are held to disappear, even though the origin of the basis is often couched in terms to place in an unimaginable primeval beginning.

Its a Buddhist way to try to talk about origins without talking about origins. "I can't find where it started so I am going to call it 'self-originated'." But if someone thinks it is pointing to some transcendental uber consciousness, well, if that is what someone thinks, I think someone doesn't really understand Dzogchen at all. If someone things the basis is consciousness, or some cognitive or noetic principle, they have understood nothing.


M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 15th, 2014 at 1:56 AM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
how could the basis be subject to karma and afflictions?


Malcolm wrote:
The basis does not have a cause, just like space does not have a cause. But it is a repository for the build up of traces nevertheless.

The way samsara arose at first is, when the trio of vāyu, vidyā and space arose from the undifferentiated basis, since vidyā was unstable because of  isolation, and engaged in self-delusion, panicked at sound, frightened of the light, and fainted at the light and was covered by ignorance. After it engages in self-delusion, the duality of outer objects and inner mind arises. The mere thought of self arising from other, and other arising from self, disturbed the karmavāyus. Mind is built up by the vāyu, the analytical mind analyzes objects. The self-deluded awareness demarcated sensation and since it did not recognize it own appearances, apparent objects were apprehended as a duality. Since that accumulated traces of karma, a physical body was appropriated and the suffering of delusion is uninterrupted. For example, sentient being formed out of ignorance are like being stuck pitch dark.

The Clear Lamp from the Ka dag rang shar

The whole process is clearly personal and individual, not transpersonal.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 15th, 2014 at 1:39 AM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
There is no such thing as a universal undifferentiated ultimate awareness in Buddhadharma.

mutsuk said:
In other words, following Khenpo Jikphun (transcript from JLA) :
« — You have the Base (gzhi) of the natural state. That state has a knowledge (rig pa) which, owing to the dynamism of the state (which is not static), flashes out of the Base.

Malcolm wrote:
This occurs because of latent traces of karma and affliction left over from the previous eon, according to a commentary attributed to Garab Dorje on the Single Son of All the Buddhas Tantras.

So this neutral awareness that rises out of the basis upon the stirring of vāyu in the basis actually has a cause.

Amazing!
Mere clear vidyā, this mere intermediate realization,
it is not a buddha, is not a sentient beings,
neutral, dependent on both conditions.
For example, it is like a stainless crystal ball,
which can produce fire or water through the condition of the sun or the moon.
Likewise, vidyā, the essence of the mind,
arises as the suffering of samsara or the bliss of nirvana through conditions.

The Three Kāyas Tantra from the Ka dag rang shar


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 14th, 2014 at 11:26 PM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
Astus said:
An awareness without anything to be aware of is like seeing without anything to see.

PadmaVonSamba said:
I am not referring to cognition, rather, the causes of that cognition.
.
.
.


Malcolm wrote:
Cognitions arise based on previous cognitions. That's all.

If you suggest anything other than this, you wind up in Hindu La la land.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 14th, 2014 at 11:24 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
tellyontellyon said:
The name Communist has come to be equated with the Bonapartist degenerated workers state of the USSR et. al.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degenerated_workers%27_state

Also

https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1939/05/bonapartism.htm

So I prefer Socialist or Marxist.

Malcolm wrote:
Dude, you're a communist. As far as those of us who are not communists are concerned, it is all of a stripe.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 14th, 2014 at 9:59 PM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Even the omniscience of a Buddha arises from a cause.

PadmaVonSamba said:
isn't this cause, too, an object of awareness?
Isn't there awareness of this cause?
If awareness of this cause is awareness itself,
then isn't this awareness of awareness?
What causes awareness of awareness, if not awareness?

If awareness is the cause of awareness, isn't it its own cause?
.
.
.

Malcolm wrote:
Omniscience is the content of a mind freed of afflictions. Even the continuum of a Buddha has a relative ground, i.e. a the rosary or string of moments of clarity is beginingless.

Origination from self is axiomatically negated in Buddhadharma,

Each moment in the continuum of a knowing clarity is neither the same as nor different than the previous moment. Hence the cause of a given instant of a knowing clarity cannot be construed to be itself nor can it be construed to be other than itself. This is the only version of causation which, in the final analysis, Buddhadharma can admit to on a relative level. It is the logical consequence of the Buddha's insight, "When this exists, that exists, with the arising of that, this arose."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 14th, 2014 at 9:40 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
tellyontellyon said:
Malcolm, I just don't feel convinced by your point of view. So I will stick with my own precarious holding together of both Marxism and Buddhism.

I said a long time back that I know it was not possible to completely reconcile both philosophies. However, I just can't reconcile being a decent human being with the complete renunciation of either. So there we have it: Paradox.

I'll just do the best I can.


Malcolm wrote:
As I said, the Green Party is the only party which is reconcilable with Buddhist ethics. That or a Buddhist monarchy. Take your pick.

Anyway, I have no interest in convincing you of anything. You will convince yourself over time as the cognitive dissonance between being a Buddhist and a communist (not to mention the dissonance between social justice and communism) eventually becomes too much to bear.

Anyway, as Naess says, of the three great movements, the peace movement, the social justice movement and the deep ecology movement, one can pick only one to be active in, and I have chosen mine: deep ecology.

It seems you have picked social justice. More power to you.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 14th, 2014 at 9:37 PM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
PadmaVonSamba said:
if you are saying that Dharmakaya is a composite,
produced by other causes.

Malcolm wrote:
No, but as a I just said, even uncompounded phenomena — of which Mahāyāna Buddhism recognizes only four: space, the two cessations and emptiness — are not truly existent.

PadmaVonSamba said:
I am talking about even the awareness of these four things.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, I understand. All awarenesses are conditioned. There is no such thing as a universal undifferentiated ultimate awareness in Buddhadharma. Even the omniscience of a Buddha arises from a cause.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 14th, 2014 at 9:25 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
tellyontellyon said:
Simon

I'm interested in Buddhism certainly. But not in a Buddhism that becomes so abstract and schizoid that it doesn't open it's eyes to the suffering of ordinary people in the world.
When my car is broken, I get out a spanner; meditation and mindfulness is certainly in order... but also the spanner.

Viewing human problems as ultimately non-existent is fair enough if you live in a monastery, but there are two truths. We have to consider conventional reality too. We can't just lop it off and pretend to ourselves that we have achieved a non-dual state of awareness simply by closing our eyes. If I was a fully realised Buddha I could perhaps transcend all these worldly mumblings... But... BUT... I am not, and I don't think a person becomes fully realised simply by blocking out the problems of the world. We need compassion as well as wisdom. Action as well as mindfulness.


Malcolm wrote:
You don't need to block out the problems of the world. You simply need to realize, as a Buddhist, that they can only be solved through the practice of Dharma.

And as I have taken great pains to show, If you are a Buddhist, your political affiliation should be consistent with Buddhist values. As far as I can see, the only political party that even comes close to meeting that criteria is the Green Party movement. I have some reservations about the "new left" rhetoric of the US Green Party for example, but nevertheless I cannot associate myself with the Republicans or the Democrats.

In your neck of the woods:
http://greenparty.org.uk/policies.html

All sorts of room in the green party for petty bourgeoisie people like myself, to stalwart communist heros like yourself, and anarchist windups like Greg.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 14th, 2014 at 8:57 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
tellyontellyon said:
So National Socialism is really "Ethnic" Socialism or "Racial" Socialism
It's not socialism at all!

Here is the article, "What is Natonal Socialism", written in 1933:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/germany/1933/330610.htm


Malcolm wrote:
It is just another form of socialism. Not all socialism is Marxist socialism.

The point the archdruid is making was that the social democracies in Western Europe have more or less adopted all the economic policies that were installed during the Weimar Republic and during the Third Reich. Why? As he said, to attempt to stave off worker rebellions.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 14th, 2014 at 6:48 PM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
smcj said:
There is not 100% agreement on that.

Malcolm wrote:
People who think dharmakāya is truly existent are simply wrong, and suffer from an eternalist bias.

In reality the three kāyas are also conventions.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 14th, 2014 at 6:45 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:


Sherab Dorje said:
So it seems to me that our friend the "archdruid" apart from being misinformed (and misinforming) may actually either be a crypto-sympathiser of Nazism or just plain anti-leftist.

Malcolm wrote:
He is merely saying that policies of Nazi Germany were adopted by the called western European Social Democracies in order to forestall the arising of another Nazi Party along racial lines.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 14th, 2014 at 9:19 AM
Title: Re: Ordination debate - vinaya/bodhisattva/upasaka
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Quite frankly, the merit of giving dana to a so called ordained person who does not maintain his or her vows as perfectly as possible is no more than the merit of giving dana to an ordinary person dressed in maroon or yellow.

daverupa said:
The Blessed One has actually specified that there is a distinction with respect to whether the offering is pure or not on the side of the giver & the receiver, rendering four scenarios.

In either case - an ordinary person dressed in maroon or yellow, or a monastic with ill-maintained vows -

MN 142 said:
Here the donor is virtuous with good thoughts, the receiver is not virtuous with evil thoughts. Thus the offering is pure, on the side of the donor and not the receiver.


Malcolm wrote:
Nevertheless the offering is not tendered to a pure object, and therefore, there is not as much merit. From the same sutta:

of an offering made to an animal the results expected are by hundreds. Of an offering made to an ordinary not virtuous person the results expected are by thousands. Of an offering made to an ordinary virtuous person the results expected are by hundred -thousands Of an offering made to a not greedy one, turned away from sensuality the results expected are by hundred thousand millions. Of an offering made to a person fallen to the method of realizing the state of entry into the stream of the Teaching, the results expected are innumerable and unlimited. What would be the results for offering a gift to a stream entrant of the Teaching? Or one fallen to the method of realizing the state of not returning? Or one who would not return? Or one fallen to the method of realizing worthiness? Or a worthy disciple of the Thus Gone One? Or the silent enlightened One? Or the worthy, rightfully enlightened Thus Gone One?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 14th, 2014 at 9:08 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
An excerpt of an interesting post:

The working classes had their choice of several political movements. There were syndicalist parties, which sought to give workers direct ownership of the firms for which they worked; depending on local taste, that might involve anything from stock ownership programs for employees to cooperatives and other worker-owned enterprises.  Syndicalism was also called corporatism; “corporation” and its cognates in most European languages could refer to any organization with a government charter, including craft guilds and cooperatives.  It was in that sense that Mussolini’s regime, which borrowed some syndicalist elements for its eclectic ideology, liked to refer to itself as a corporatist system. (Those radicals who insist that this meant fascism was a tool of big corporations in the modern sense are thus hopelessly misinformed—a point I’ll cover in much more detail next week.)

There were also socialist parties, which generally sought to place firms under government control; this might amount to anything from government regulation, through stock purchases giving the state a controlling interest in big firms, to outright expropriation and bureaucratic management. Standing apart from the socialist parties were communist parties, which (after 1919) spouted whatever Moscow’s party line happened to be that week; and there were a variety of other, smaller movements—distributism, social credit, and many more—all of which had their own followings and their own proposed answers to the political and economic problems of the day.

The tendency of most of these parties to further the interests of a single class became a matter of concern by the end of the 19th century, and one result was the emergence of parties that pursued, or claimed to pursue, policies of benefit to the entire nation. Many of them tacked the adjective “national” onto their moniker to indicate this shift in orientation. Thus national conservative parties argued that trade barriers and economic policies focused on the agricultural sector would benefit everyone; national liberal parties argued that free trade and colonial expansion was the best option for everyone; national syndicalist parties argued that giving workers a stake in the firms for which they worked would benefit everyone, and so on. There were no national communist parties, because Moscow’s party line didn’t allow it, but there were national bolshevist parties—in Europe between the wars, a bolshevist was someone who supported the Russian Revolution but insisted that Lenin and Stalin had betrayed it in order to impose a personal dictatorship—which argued that violent revolution against the existing order really was in everyone’s best interests.

National socialism was another position along the same lines. National socialist parties argued that business firms should be made subject to government regulation and coordination in order to keep them from acting against the interests of society as a whole, and that the working classes ought to receive a range of government benefits paid for by taxes on corporate income and the well-to-do. Those points were central to the program of the National Socialist German Workers Party from the time it got that name—it was founded as the German Workers Party, and got the rest of the moniker at the urging of a little man with a Charlie Chaplin mustache who became the party’s leader not long after its founding—and those were the policies that the same party enacted when it took power in Germany in 1933.

If those policies sound familiar, dear reader, they should. That’s the other reason why next to nobody outside of specialist historical works mentions national socialism by name: the Western nations that defeated national socialism in Germany promptly adopted its core economic policies, the main source of its mass appeal, to forestall any attempt to revive it in the postwar world.   Strictly speaking, in terms of the meaning that the phrase had before the beginning of the Second World War, national socialism is one of the two standard political flavors of political economy nowadays. The other is liberalism, and it’s another irony of history that in the United States, the party that hates the word “liberal” is a picture-perfect example of a liberal party, as that term was understood back in the day.

Now of course when people think of the National Socialist German Workers Party nowadays, they don’t think of government regulation of industry and free vacations for factory workers, even though those were significant factors in German public life after 1933.  They think of such other habits of Hitler’s regime as declaring war on most of the world, slaughtering political opponents en masse, and exterminating whole ethnic groups. Those are realities, and they need to be recalled.  It’s crucial, though, to remember that when Germany’s National Socialists were out there canvassing for votes in the years before 1933, they weren’t marching proudly behind banners saying VOTE FOR HITLER SO FIFTY MILLION WILL DIE!  When those same National Socialists trotted out their antisemitic rhetoric, for that matter, they weren’t saying anything the average German found offensive or even unusual; to borrow a highly useful German word, antisemitism in those days was salonfähig, “the kind of thing you can bring into the living room.” (To be fair, it was just as socially acceptable in England, the United States, and the rest of the western world at that same time.)

https://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2014/02/fascism-and-future-part-one-up-from.html


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 14th, 2014 at 8:54 AM
Title: Re: The 969 Movement in Myanmar (Burma)
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
The three vehicles will thrive and survive if Buddhists act like Buddhists regardless of whether if Islam is annihilated or not.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 14th, 2014 at 8:51 AM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
PadmaVonSamba said:
if you are saying that Dharmakaya is a composite,
produced by other causes.

Malcolm wrote:
No, but as a I just said, even uncompounded phenomena — of which Mahāyāna Buddhism recognizes only four: space, the two cessations and emptiness — are not truly existent.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 14th, 2014 at 8:50 AM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
PadmaVonSamba said:
I suggest it is "truly existent" meaning I used that phrase) for the reasons I have stated,
the way that space is truly existent.
.


Malcolm wrote:
Space is also not "truly existent". Nirvana is not truly existent.

Read the Heart Sutra again, in case you forgot.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 14th, 2014 at 8:28 AM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
PadmaVonSamba said:
Since this basic awareness cannot be found to have a cause other than itself, and since it has no defining characteristics of its own, and since it cannot be denied, or separated into any kind of 'non-awareness' parts, I would suggest that it is truly existent, non-specific, non-self, synonymous with the meaning of Dharmakaya and the essence of realization.


Malcolm wrote:
As I said before, you have a monistic hindu nondual view. Not even dharmakāya is "truly existent".

PadmaVonSamba said:
Refute awareness.
.
.
.


Malcolm wrote:
You already did by claiming it truly existed. There is no such thing as "truly existent". I am not refuting awareness, I am refuting your claim that awareness truly exists. Individual awarenesses exist, just not "truly", they have no original cause because they are all conditioned entities. No conditioned series has an origin. Such is the logic of the Buddha.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 14th, 2014 at 8:06 AM
Title: Re: Perspective
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
"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"
-ChNNR, "The Crystal and the Way of Light" pg 89

and besides, one of the meaning of sthāna is simply "place"

Malcolm wrote:
But it does not mean "ground".

You do realize that whole book was based on an edited transcript of a translation from Italian into English influenced by John Reynolds who was very active in the community then, correct? As you know quite well, these days, when referring the gzhi, ChNN uses the term "base" or "primordial state".

Personally, I don't care. But as far as I am concerned translating gzhi as ground is less accurate. That is my professional opinion.

gad rgyangs said:
fair enough, point taken.


Malcolm wrote:
BTW, are you going to HHST Kalacakra in April? If so, maybe I will see you there.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 14th, 2014 at 8:03 AM
Title: Re: Ordination debate - vinaya/bodhisattva/upasaka
Content:
rory said:
Why on earth do you feel the need to patrol the behavior of monks and nuns?

Malcolm wrote:
Much of the Vinaya was written because of lay people complaining about the behavior of monks and nuns.

Quite frankly, the merit of giving dana to a so called ordained person who does not maintain his or her vows as perfectly as possible is no more than the merit of giving dana to an ordinary person dressed in maroon or yellow.

Ordained people are supposed to function as pure fields of merit for lay people. They do so by maintaining their vows, all of them, as many as they have, whether they be pratimokṣa, bodhisattva samvara, or Vajrayāna samaya. That is their job. When they don't do their job, they are thieves of merit.

Of course, people are free to do as they wish, to maintain their vows or break them at their leisure. But there are consequences, and one such consequence is that I won't support ordained people unless I am quite sure they are doing their job. Not because I need the merit personally, but based on principle.

rory said:
the Jain monastics (sadhus and sadhvis) manage just fine with these few rules.

Malcolm wrote:
We are not Jains, we're Buddhists.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 14th, 2014 at 7:15 AM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
PadmaVonSamba said:
Since this basic awareness cannot be found to have a cause other than itself, and since it has no defining characteristics of its own, and since it cannot be denied, or separated into any kind of 'non-awareness' parts, I would suggest that it is truly existent, non-specific, non-self, synonymous with the meaning of Dharmakaya and the essence of realization.


Malcolm wrote:
As I said before, you have a monistic hindu nondual view. Not even dharmakāya is "truly existent".


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 14th, 2014 at 7:03 AM
Title: Re: Perspective
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
"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"
-ChNNR, "The Crystal and the Way of Light" pg 89

and besides, one of the meaning of sthāna is simply "place"

Malcolm wrote:
But it does not mean "ground".

You do realize that whole book was based on an edited transcript of a translation from Italian into English influenced by John Reynolds who was very active in the community then, correct? As you know quite well, these days, when referring the gzhi, ChNN uses the term "base" or "primordial state".

Personally, I don't care. But as far as I am concerned translating gzhi as ground is less accurate. That is my professional opinion.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 14th, 2014 at 5:58 AM
Title: Re: Perspective
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The term gzhi translates "sthana", which bears no meaning of "ground" at all.

gad rgyangs said:
first of all, its not a translation from Sanskrit, its written in Tibetan.

second of all, the tshig mdzod chen mo gives, as the definition of "gzhi," first:

ས་ཆ་དང་གནས་ཡུལ། (ground)

and second:

རྩ་བ (root or basis)

which is why it is translated as either in various Dzogchen translations.

Malcolm wrote:
I'll take your Alak Kankar and raise you a Khyentse. Khyentse Wangpo clearly defines gzhi as sthana.

gzhi does not mean ས་ཆ་དང་གནས་ཡུལ in a Dzogchen context.

All Tibetan Vajrayāna traditions, apart from Bon, assume an Indian source for their terminology.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 14th, 2014 at 5:20 AM
Title: Re: Perspective
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
I know that, but "ye" can also by extension mean "perfectly", since that which has always been liberated is perfectly liberated, and I felt it makes more sense to leave time out of it, since at that level there is no time.

Malcolm wrote:
In fact the verse is showing a contrast, that is why "bliss, having always been liberated," etc.

gad rgyangs said:
Anyway, its poetry theres always more than one way to translate it.

Malcolm wrote:
It's didactic verse, it is not poetry in any sense whatsoever.

gad rgyangs said:
I also like "vault" for "phyam" since it plays on the image of roof supports. I see no difference between my "expansive evenness of the Ground" and your "vast uniform basis".

Malcolm wrote:
The term gzhi translates "sthana", which bears no meaning of "ground" at all. Phyam here just mean ubiquitous, in my opinion.

gad rgyangs said:
that is clearly not the case. the whole passage lists many phenomena that are "ye grol" and there is clearly no cause and effect implied between them.

Malcolm wrote:
When bliss and suffering are contrasted, there is a link. Anyway, you are free to disagree, but when I read those lines I have a very different take on them that do you.

I guess my point is "So what?" My rejoinder to that is "What is the use of primordial Buddhahood if even your coarse obscurations have not been reduced." Some people seem to think that obscurations are not a problem once you become a Dzogchen practitioner. The more realistic Dzogchen perspective is found in The String of Pearls

As such, the three realms are
the five aggregates, the five sense organs, 
the five limbs, the five functional organs, 
the five objects, the five afflictions,
the five thoughts, the five minds, the five concepts,
the apprehended objects and apprehending subjects established as samsara [… ]
Caught in the aggregates, sense gates and the sense elements, 
the apprehended object and apprehending subject,
samara itself persists for a long while.
One is placed in the dungeon of name and matter
in the castle of the three realms,
tortured with the barbs of ignorance and so on, 
oppressed by the thick darkness of samsara, 
attached to the salty taste of desire, 
bound by the neck with the noose of confusion, 
burned with the hot fire of hatred, 
head covered with pride, 
setting a rendezvous with the mistress of jealousy, 
surrounded by the army of enmity...
tied by the neck with the noose of subject and object, [29b]
stuck in the mud of successive traces
and handcuffed with the ripening of karma.
Having been joined with the ripening of karma, 
one takes bodies good and bad, 
one after another like a water wheel,
born into each individual class.
Having crossed at the ford of self-grasping, 
one sinks into the ocean of suffering
and one is caught by the heart on the hook of the three lowers realms.
One is bound by oneself; the afflictions are the enemy. 
The body of a hell being appears as fire or water.
Pretas are frightened and intimidated.
There is a fog-like appearance for animals.
The aggregates, sense gates and sense elements
of humans appear as the five elements,
and also happiness, suffering and indifference. 
They appear as armor and weapons to asuras 
and desirable qualities for devas. 
Such dualistic appearances,
for example, are like a quickly moving wheel
spinning continuously for a long while. 
As such, diverse appearances
are like seeing a snake from a rope;
that [rope] is not [a snake] but is apprehended as a [snake];
forming as both the outer universe and inhabitants.
If that is investigated, it is a rope.
The universe and inhabitants have always been empty, 
the ultimate endowed with the form of the relative.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 14th, 2014 at 4:46 AM
Title: Re: Perspective
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
བདེ་བ་ཡེ་གྲོལ་ཆོས་ཉིད་ཕྱམ་དུ་གྲོལ།
སྡུག་བསྔལ་ཡེ་གྲོལ་གཞི་མཉམ་ཡངས་པར་གྲོལ།

happiness perfectly liberated, in the vault of dharmata liberated.
suffering perfectly liberated, expansive evenness of the Ground liberated.

Longchenpa - chos dbyings mdzod chapter 12

Malcolm wrote:
No, it is as follows:

Bliss, having always been liberated,* is liberated as ubiquitous dharmatā.
Suffering, having always been liberated, is liberated as the vast uniform basis.
*"Ye grol" is a a contraction of "ye nas grol" and shows a past tense construction, i.e. "having always been"

These are nice sentiments, but in truth they don't express anything different than standard Mahāyāna. The first line shows the result, the second, the cause.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 14th, 2014 at 4:33 AM
Title: Re: Middle Way Politics
Content:
tellyontellyon said:
Cheers. M.  Will look up those people and see what they are up to.

Malcolm wrote:
Vandana Shiva
http://www.navdanya.org

Wendell Barry
http://www.wendellberrybooks.com/author.html

Bill Mckibben
http://www.billmckibben.com

These are probably three of the most well known active advocates of some form or another of deep ecology.

Three decades of writings on deep ecology:
http://trumpeter.athabascau.ca/index.php/trumpet/search/search

I imagine in the end you will be more comfortable with social ecology, since it comes out of the left and is based on class analysis and so on:

http://www.thegreenfuse.org/socialecology.htm

Murray Bookchin hated deep ecology, he writes:

What Is Deep Ecology?

Deep ecology is so much of a black hole of half-digested, ill-formed, and half-baked ideas that one can easily express utterly vicious notions like Foreman's and still sound like a fiery radical who challenges everything that is anti-ecological in the present realm of ideas. The very words deep ecology, in fact, clue is into the fact that we are not dealing with a body of clear ideas but with a bottomless pit in which vague notions and moods of all kinds can be such into the depths of an ideological toxic dump.

He spews more of the same here:
http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bookchin/socecovdeepeco.html


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 14th, 2014 at 4:08 AM
Title: Re: Perspective
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
I just had a flashback to the Bergman movie "Fanny and Alexander", which portrays two households: one which embraces life and love in all its joy and sorrow, and the other, the Bishop's household, that exemplifies self- and other-loathing, coldness, "seriousness", and violence, all under the banner of "piety" and religion.

Adamantine said:
I'm sure that the film makes valid points when aimed at a Christian Bishop. Conflating traditions is the mistake of your proposed image in the OP.

gad rgyangs said:
and having a rosy picture of asian religious institutions is an orientalist fantasy.

Malcolm wrote:
And all of this is irrelevant to the Buddha's contention "sarva dukhaṃ". You don't have to agree, but it is one of the foundation teachings of the Buddhist view. You can fight it, struggle with it, but in the end "sarva dukkhaṃ", there is nothing left out of this, apart from the path.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 14th, 2014 at 3:52 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen rhetoric and the gradual / instant dichotomy
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Well, he is a Gemini after all.

heart said:
and I am libra,hmmm...

dzogchungpa said:
Yeah, you air types are always a bit wacky.

Malcolm wrote:
I have virgo rising, keeps my feet on the ground.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 14th, 2014 at 3:32 AM
Title: Re: Middle Way Politics
Content:
tellyontellyon said:
... great efforts at conservation are argued not only as something good and profitable for human beings, but also as something valuable for what is intended to be conserved...
Without wanting to repeat myself, can you give us some kind of idea of what these 'great efforts' actually comprise of - other than the great effort you put into your particular form of healing?

I'm really not being facetious, I just don't feel I've had a satisfactory answer to my question yet. Can you give me some practical examples of the conservation activities that Deep Ecologists are actively involved in at the moment?


Malcolm wrote:
Deep ecologists can be found in all aspects of the conservation movement. But I frankly doubt that most of the people who call themsevles "deep ecologists" really understand what deep ecology really means.

Basically, Arne Naess identified three great movements of the 20th century: the peace movement, the social justice movement and the deep ecology movement. All three of these can be included under the rubric of "green" politics. But he clarified, you can't do all three. You have to pick one.

For example, while green politics have been largely coopted by the new left in the form of Social Ecology, there are "greens" like myself who are deep ecologists. There is no badge that distinguishes a deep ecologist from any other type of environmentalist. There is no organization to join. However, Vandana Shiva is a deep ecologist, Joanna Macy, Julia Butterfly HIll, Gary Snyder, John Seed, Pierre-Félix Guattari, Fritzjof Capra, Wendell Barry (recently arrested demonstrating against coal mining in Appalachia) are all people who have some connection with the movement. But as it is not a left wing or right wing trip, it is not organized into cadres with political action committees and so on. Deep ecology is an organic movement. It is slow growing, but then, so are trees. It tends to propagate rhizomatically, like fungus.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 14th, 2014 at 3:12 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen rhetoric and the gradual / instant dichotomy
Content:
heart said:
He isn't really making the point that vidya needs a gradual improvement as some seems to think.
/magnus

Malcolm wrote:
I never implied that was the point he was making.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 14th, 2014 at 3:10 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen rhetoric and the gradual / instant dichotomy
Content:
Sherlock said:
So your conclusion now is that basically besides its methods Dzogchen isn't very different from other Vajrayana paths?

Malcolm wrote:
Dzogchen is quite different from other Vajrayāna paths (which are really just summed up by the two stages).

But it is a path and its context must be understood in connection with how paths are expressed in Mahāyāna and General Secret Mantra.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 14th, 2014 at 2:59 AM
Title: Re: Perspective
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
The Japanese have the most sophisticated understanding of this, called https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wabi-sabi.

Malcolm wrote:
Wabi-sabi (侘寂?) represents a comprehensive Japanese world view or aesthetic centered on the acceptance of transience and imperfection. The aesthetic is sometimes described as one of beauty that is "imperfect, impermanent, and incomplete".[1] It is a concept derived from the Buddhist teaching of the three marks of existence (三法印 sanbōin?), specifically impermanence (無常 mujō?), the other two being suffering (苦 ku?) and emptiness or absence of self-nature (空 kū?).

gad rgyangs said:
no one is claiming there is no such thing as suffering, the point is do you reject life altogether because of dualities like happiness/suffering (again: that other thread "make life meaningless") or practice upekṣā and non-attachment to all experience? Sometimes it seems that Buddhism is neurotically obsessed with suffering, attached to suffering. Ironic, no?

I do object though to the attempts to negate happiness by claiming that it is actually suffering. This is a dangerous form of cultivating negativity that can lead to the very kinds of hell realms in the here-and-now that Adamantine was referring to.

Malcolm wrote:
No, I simply understand that no matter how things may appear, no matter whatever samsaric happiness I experience, everything other than path dharmas are suffering. But it doesn't mean I reach for the hair shirt.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 14th, 2014 at 2:56 AM
Title: Re: Middle Way Politics
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
I think you are reading way too much into deep ecology in order to then justify to yourself that it is Buddhist and thus not worldly dharma.

Malcolm wrote:
I don't think that deep ecology is Buddhadharma. However I think it is ethically consistent with Buddhadharma for a number of reasons.

Sherab Dorje said:
The deep, in deep ecology, means ecocentric instead of anthropocentric.

I am not going to deny that ecocentrism is undoubtedly less dualistic than anthropocentricism.  But on the basis of this rhetoric capitalism, being ego and anthropo -centric, cannot fall within the milieu of non-dualism (or more correctly, ecocentrism) and thus cannot be justified as somehow fitting into a deep ecology model.  When was the last time you ran into an ecologically minded CEO of Enron (for example), the World Bank, or the IMF?

Do not confound the two (non-dual and ecocentric).

Malcolm wrote:
You are quite simple mistaken. Frederick Bender clarifies this point in his The Culture of Extinction:

In Buddhism, the technical term for the ontological quality of particulars, incorporating both their phenomenality and their interdependence, is "suchness" (Skt. tathatha). To frame objects in their suchness is, in Mahayana Buddhist terminology, to express the nondualist "two-truth" doctrine. Particulars, if framed dualistically through the prevalent subject/object (egocentric) and subject/predicate (linguistic) dualities, are real only conventionally. Something similar to the Buddhist two-truth doctrine defines ecological thinking. Living beings are phenomenal manifestations of Earth's ecosphere. They are also particulars-in-relation, though not "bare," self-standing particulars. Deep ecology's so-called depth, considered ontologically, functions as a metaphor for nondualism.

Frederic L. Bender. The Culture of Extinction: Toward a Philosophy of Deep Ecology (Kindle Locations 4373-4376). Kindle Edition.

Arne Naess also states:

The belief and acceptance that all whole beings can attain Buddhahood depend upon the rejection of subject-object dualism. That is, one must abandon the sentiment that there is always and always must be an ego involved in experience. An appeal to spontaneity, perhaps especially spontaneous experience in nature, is preferable to a detached view of subject-object relations. 

The nondualism in Buddhism is sometimes expressed verbally by saying that all beings are one, or that each being is one with all other beings. Such a formula must not be taken in the counterintuitive sense that, for example, I cannot be cold and hungry and somebody else warm and satisfied. The formula does not imply rejection of personal pronouns or any psychology of the ego and self. 

It is an interesting problem to formulate clearly the views that have rejection of subject-object dualism as a common characteristic. Whatever way we formulate the nondualism, adherents of deep ecology tend to feel sympathy with views such as the following, expressed by Yasuaki Nara: 

"n Dōgen, through the negation of the egocentric self, whole being, including man, animal, mountains, rivers, grasses, trees etc., is one with him, making both nature and himself encompassed within the world of the Buddha."

Naess, Arne (2009-05-01). The Ecology of Wisdom: Writings by Arne Naess (pp. 198-199). Counterpoint. Kindle Edition.

Sherab Dorje said:
Foremans approach does not deny humans a role in an ecosystem, it just does not make them the centre of the system.  Thus it is an ecocentric platform:  an approach that puts the benefit of the whole (ecosystem) above that of one of the parts (humans).

Malcolm wrote:
Naess' position is a little different. First he questions the usefulness of the term "biocentric", "ecocentric" and so on:

Supporters of the deep ecology movement like to say that they support ecocentrism, not anthropocentrism, and Spinoza certainly offers high-level premises for what has sometimes been labeled biocentric or ecocentric egalitarianism. I think these Latin or Greek terms are useless in serious discussions, but they may be helpful in offering some vague idea of a kind of basic attitude. Spinoza tried something immensely difficult, namely, to articulate with some preciseness certain basic attitudes.

He continues a bit later by saying:

It is characteristic of the deep ecology movement that great efforts at conservation are argued not only as something good and profitable for human beings, but also as something valuable for what is intended to be conserved. It is worthy of conservation, independently of any narrow human interests. This is often called the nonanthropocentric or biocentric or ecocentric view. Nevertheless, in the current social and political milieu, success in conservation efforts depends heavily on arguments that do stress narrowly human interests, especially the requirements of human health. The supporters of the deep ecology movement combine such arguments with those that are independent of narrow human interests.11 It is essential that “experts” and others who influence policies agree about this combination and that the public be made aware that basically there is agreement. Otherwise, the public is deceived.

Naess, Arne (2009-05-01). The Ecology of Wisdom: Writings by Arne Naess (p. 303). Counterpoint. Kindle Edition. 

This why why "hard" ecocentrism cannot be construed even remotely as deep ecology. Anyway, Bookchin claimed that Earth First! had converted to social ecology as it turned leftwing.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 14th, 2014 at 12:58 AM
Title: Re: Perspective
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
The Japanese have the most sophisticated understanding of this, called https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wabi-sabi.

Malcolm wrote:
Wabi-sabi (侘寂?) represents a comprehensive Japanese world view or aesthetic centered on the acceptance of transience and imperfection. The aesthetic is sometimes described as one of beauty that is "imperfect, impermanent, and incomplete".[1] It is a concept derived from the Buddhist teaching of the three marks of existence (三法印 sanbōin?), specifically impermanence (無常 mujō?), the other two being suffering (苦 ku?) and emptiness or absence of self-nature (空 kū?).


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 14th, 2014 at 12:27 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen rhetoric and the gradual / instant dichotomy
Content:
heart said:
Like I said, rigpa doesn't last. That is the meaning of "not ripened" and so on.

Malcolm wrote:
No, that is not the meaning of "unripened", the meaning of unripened, as clearly explained in the VIma Nyingthig, is that vidyā is defined as an awareness that defiled by many cognitions. In this case there is really no difference between what is termed the clarity aspect of the mind and vidyā.

heart said:
Well, when I use the word rigpa it is only a synonym for recognizing the natural state. With the deepest respect I must say that it seems to me that you might misunderstand the meaning of these various vidya's from Vima Nyingtik.

/magnus

Malcolm wrote:
With all due respect, I do not misunderstand the Vima Nyinthig. The Vima Nyinthig passage in question is extremely clear and is repeated in more than one place. So no, it is not possible that I misunderstand the meaning of the passage in question.

For example, in the Zangs Yig Can, Vimala writes:

What is that “vidyā?” 
Vidyā with knowledge obscurations is knowing and lucid.

Here it is clearly stated that Vidyā can possess obscurations of knowledge.

And:

1) Characteristic is called “the vidyā which designates general phenomena and just its own names.” Its action is just-that-itself being a clear non-conceptual awareness, which is polluted by many cognitions. 
2) Appropriating the basis*: when all cognitions are created when abiding in one’s body, and existing within its own clarity; this is called “the unripe vidyā.”
*basis here refers to the body.

There are three more:

the vidyā present in the basis 
the vidyā of insight 
the vidyā of tögal

He concludes:

Are those vidyā’ the same, or are they different? 
There is nothing other than a single essence.

Therefore, vidyā has different modes depending on whether or not you have received instruction or not. The essence of the vidyā does not change. But the context of how it is understood changes depending on whether you are on the path or not. This is why it is termed "contaminated by many cognitions", and so on.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 13th, 2014 at 11:54 PM
Title: Re: Ordination debate - vinaya/bodhisattva/upasaka
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Much harder to monitor the conduct of itinerant monks such as yourself. But this is also why posadha is so important for monastics.

Indrajala said:
You can't harm the clouds and water.


Malcolm wrote:
They can be easily polluted.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 13th, 2014 at 11:53 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen rhetoric and the gradual / instant dichotomy
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
No, that is not the meaning of "unripened", the meaning of unripened, as clearly explained in the VIma Nyingthig, is that vidyā is defined as an awareness that defiled by many cognitions. In this case there is really no difference between what is termed the clarity aspect of the mind and vidyā.

asunthatneversets said:
So these first two of Vimalamitra's five definitions are essentially synonymous?

The vidyā that apprehends characteristics: “the vidyā that imputes phenomena as universals and as mere personal names”, is one’s mere non-conceptual self-knowing awareness defiled by many cognitions. 

The [vidyā that] appropriates the basis [i.e. the human body] creates all cognitions when present in one’s body, and is present as the mere intrinsic clarity [of those cognitions] is called “unripened vidyā”.

Malcolm wrote:
The former is talking about vidyā in its contaminated state, the second is talking about vidyā as the essence of those contaminating cognitions.

In the end, if you really pay close attention and put aside all the rhetoric, Dzogchen doctrines about the nature of the mind are not terribly different than those of Lamdre, Kalacakra and so on.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 13th, 2014 at 11:51 PM
Title: Re: Climate Change: We're Doomed
Content:


kirtu said:
It is unfortunately what we will have to do.

Malcolm wrote:
I am not in agreement. There is no place for nuclear fission power in any ecologically sustainable future.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 13th, 2014 at 10:40 PM
Title: Re: Ordination debate - vinaya/bodhisattva/upasaka
Content:


Indrajala said:
So, which takes precedence: the norms of your community or the archaic rulebook which promises you hell for non-compliance?


Malcolm wrote:
The archaic rulebook. This why Ashokan era type reforms are occasionally needed in the Sangha to expel "Bhikṣus" who are not maintaining their vows.

Indrajala said:
This isn't really practical unless the state is involved, otherwise the sangha lacks the teeth to really do much other than ask people to go away and maybe blacklist them.

Malcolm wrote:
Monasteries can handle this. In Tibet, in the stricter monasteries like Ngor if you committed a defeat, or were a general reprobate, you would be shown the door.

Much harder to monitor the conduct of itinerant monks such as yourself. But this is also why posadha is so important for monastics.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 13th, 2014 at 10:31 PM
Title: Re: Climate Change: We're Doomed
Content:
kirtu said:
safe nuclear design (which does exist).

Malcolm wrote:
No, it doesn't. And the energy needed to extract uranium is hugely expensive, leaves radioactive waste behind, etc.

NO NUKES!


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 13th, 2014 at 10:09 PM
Title: Re: Ordination debate - vinaya/bodhisattva/upasaka
Content:


Indrajala said:
So, which takes precedence: the norms of your community or the archaic rulebook which promises you hell for non-compliance?


Malcolm wrote:
The archaic rulebook. This why Ashokan era type reforms are occasionally needed in the Sangha to expel "Bhikṣus" who are not maintaining their vows.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 13th, 2014 at 10:07 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist Hate Crimes
Content:
Jigme Tsultrim said:
committed just 3 months ago in Thailand by failing to give protection to 1500  refuges of Buddhist violence in Myanmar.

theanarchist said:
I don't see where this qualifies as BUDDHIST violence. As buddhism doesn't permit or justifie  violence those are clearly deeds that have absolutely nothing to do with buddhism but are motivated by racism, xenophobia and completely worldly aggression.

Why should people living in a buddhist country act differently than the inhabitants of christian or muslim countries? They all have the same negative emotions and delusions.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 13th, 2014 at 9:46 PM
Title: Re: Perspective
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
you're joking right? you've never heard the "licking honey off a razor" metaphor? Are you seriously claiming that most Buddhism doesn't portray "samsara" as nothing but suffering?

Malcolm wrote:
It is nothing but suffering, even Dzogchen tantras clearly state this.

gad rgyangs said:
There's even attempts to poison people's happiness by claiming that even when you think you're happy, you're actually suffering but you just dont know it!!!!

Malcolm wrote:
There is no need to attempt to poison such happiness, it is poisoned already. This happiness is termed "the suffering of change."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 13th, 2014 at 9:30 PM
Title: Re: Climate Change: We're Doomed
Content:
Kim O'Hara said:
I'm not sure what you mean by that ... you may have to use a few more words.

Malcolm wrote:
Houses and buildings should be designed, and retrofitted where possible, to generate their own power and provide it to the grid.

Kim O'Hara said:
I agree that's a good way to go. It is also a strategy which PV power is ideally suited to, so I'm more and more puzzled by your negativity about PV.

Malcolm wrote:
I am not so much negative about PV power generation as I am about its manner of implementation. Solar panels on a roof is one thing. Acres and acres of solar panels creates hot spots and dead zones, which add to local ambient temperatures and in many cases, at least in northern climes, require the extinction of grasslands which are just as crucial the Co2/O2 balance as trees and rain forests are.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 13th, 2014 at 9:25 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist Hate Crimes
Content:
Rickpa said:
As a member of a group,  you should be mindful that humans tend to judge any group of which they are outside, by the worst examples.

Malcolm wrote:
Indeed, this however does not mean that one need feel "shame" for being a Buddhist merely because there are afflicted "Buddhists" out there who do murderous things to innocents.

Likewise, I feel no shame about being an American despite that fact my government has done terrible things. But those things were done without my consent and I oppose them.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 13th, 2014 at 9:02 PM
Title: Re: Middle Way Politics
Content:
Kim O'Hara said:
Thank you for your recent posts here, Malcolm (and to Greg and others for prompting them). Deep Ecology is something that has been on the fringe of my thinking for years and I now realise that there is more value in it for me if only I look into it more deeply and I will try to do so. Do you have any getting-up-to-speed recommendations for me?


Kim

Malcolm wrote:
Well, there is Sessions and Devall's "Deep Ecology: LIving as if Nature Mattered.

But a better resource is:

http://trumpeter.athabascau.ca/index.php/trumpet/search/search

Here are the archives that go back to 1983, thirty-one years of journal issues on deep ecology. It is very eclectic, and there are extensive articles on the role of Buddhism in deep ecology, as well as Jainism, Hinduism, Taoism and so on.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 13th, 2014 at 8:40 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist Hate Crimes
Content:
Jigme Tsultrim said:
Take comfort in your clean hands, if you can.

Malcolm wrote:
I don't believe in guilt by association, and neither should you. Why should all Christians be held liable for the acts of a few, or all Muslims? Therefore, all Buddhists should not held liable for the murderous acts of a few misguided nationalists who have mistaken Buddhadharma for an ethnic identity.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 13th, 2014 at 8:34 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen rhetoric and the gradual / instant dichotomy
Content:
heart said:
Like I said, rigpa doesn't last. That is the meaning of "not ripened" and so on.

Malcolm wrote:
No, that is not the meaning of "unripened", the meaning of unripened, as clearly explained in the VIma Nyingthig, is that vidyā is defined as an awareness that defiled by many cognitions. In this case there is really no difference between what is termed the clarity aspect of the mind and vidyā.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 13th, 2014 at 8:33 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
Sönam said:
Just found that about anarchism, it's about what it is ... not what it is said it is.

S.

Malcolm wrote:
Sonam, that is not anarchism, that is called "Being a decent person".


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 13th, 2014 at 8:30 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist Hate Crimes
Content:
Jigme Tsultrim said:
I know I am sickened and deeply ashamed. Are YOU??

Malcolm wrote:
Am I sad that there are sentient beings out there who have afflictions, who act in ways contradictory to Buddhadharma, of course. Am  I ashamed? Why should I be? I did not engage in those actions, I did not and do not condone them.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 13th, 2014 at 8:26 PM
Title: Re: Middle Way Politics
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Some people disagree with Naess. But fundamental to deep ecology is that one develops one's own ecosophy. Each person's ecosophy is personal. To understand this, you have to understand the apron diagram he and Sessions came up. He notes:

One main point in deep ecology is the deep argumentation, that is, argumentation from ultimate (philosophical, religious) premises, but there is room for very different sets of such premises.

Sherab Dorje said:
In which case one cannot judge Earth First! and say that it was not a deep ecology movement.  I believe that the whole issue between people like Naess and Earth First! was the theory vs practice divide.  Talking the talk vs walking the walk.  The members of Earth First! sacrificed their lives putting Deep Ecology into practice  (direct action to protect an ecosystem) whereas Naess produced journals and received university tenures and state sponsored awards.  BOTH had a role to play in the development of Deep Ecology both as a theory and as a practice.

Malcolm wrote:
As pointed out, the architects and theorists of deep ecology do not consider Earth First! to be an expression of deep ecology. As for direct action, Naess was a direct action kind of person. He blocked access to a dam site for twenty years.

There are certain criteria that render one's view as "deep ecological", and lacking those, one cannot describe oneself as a deep ecologist no matter how ecocentric one's views may be. That is, the basis of one's philosophy must lead inevitably to the platform of deep ecology. It can be generated by different value systems such Buddhist, Christian or Philosophical values. The "deep" in deep ecology is a gloss for "nondual". When other systems are described as shallow, it means that they stem from a dualistic perspective of the world that does not take into consideration the intrinsic non-duality which underlies dependent origination. While not formally a Mahāyāna Buddhist himself, he was a nondualist, and Naess draws upon the two truth theory as well as the tathāgatagarbha theory as he understood them, but he is educated enough to understand that there are Christians nondualisms, Islamic nondualisms and so on. He pretty much clearly states that if your ultimate philosophy is not nondualist, then you will have a hard time arriving at a deep ecology platform.


Ideally it works like this:

One's ultimate premise forms the basis. This is termed level one. Upon that one builds one's platform principles, one's view, i.e. level two. Upon that, one establishes one's policies, one's meditation, if you will, level three; and finally, one engages in practical actions, one's conduct, i.e. level four.

The way he frames this for himself is as follows, his ecosophy:

(N = norm; H=hypothesis, exclamation points represent a value norm)
N1: Self-realization!
H1: The higher the Self-realization attained by anyone, the broader and deeper the identification with others.
H2: The higher the level of Self-realization attained by anyone, the more its further increase depends upon the Self-realization of others.
H3: Complete Self-realization of anyone depends on that of all.
N2: Self-realization for all living beings!

He then offers the following for the environment:

H4: Diversity of life increases Self-realization potentials.
N3: Diversity of Life!
H5: Complexity of life increases Self-realization potentials.
N4: Complexity!
H6: Life resources of the Earth are limited.
H7: Symbiosis maximizes Self-realization potentials under conditions of limited resources.
N5: Symbiosis!

My ecosophy would, and does, run something like the following:

N1 Tathagātagarbha!
H1 All sentients beings are innately buddhas.
H2 The highest goal in life to help all sentient beings achieve that buddhahood.
N2 Bodhicitta!
H3 The way help all sentient beings achieve buddhahood is the bodhisattva path
N3 Bodhisattva!

And so on.

The problem with Foreman's platform is that it excludes humans and is overly biocentric, it is therefore shallow as it is not grounded in nondualist philosophy.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 13th, 2014 at 9:18 AM
Title: Re: Climate Change: We're Doomed
Content:
Kim O'Hara said:
I'm not sure what you mean by that ... you may have to use a few more words.

Malcolm wrote:
Houses and buildings should be designed, and retrofitted where possible, to generate their own power and provide it to the grid.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 13th, 2014 at 9:16 AM
Title: Re: karmic law vs. causal nexus
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
Thought this would make for interesting discussion, just got done reading Lojong: Cultivating Compassion Through Training The Mind, by Traleg Kyabgon Rinpoche - great book.

Anyway there is this interesting bit on Karma that kind of stuck with me, so i'll just throw the quote out there and see what people think:

Traleg Kyabgon said:
Luckily for us, the karmic causal nexus is not a mechanical, predetermined operation but is instead quite malleable. We are not condemned to suffer its consequences. Buddhism doesn't entertain the notion of any kind of moral law. The reference to "karmic law" is a Western concept that has been introduced into Buddhist thinking. The relationship between cause and effect far too complex and indeterminate to be a "law". There is some kind of karmic causal nexus, but there is no such thing as a cosmic law, because cause and effect is all about human action.

Johnny Dangerous said:
We get into a lot of talks on here about Karma, quite often people put forth a model of Karma that is somewhat absolute, this seems to indicate something in the opposite direction, what do you guys think about this quote?

Malcolm wrote:
I think he trying to make people (who do not understand the role of afflictions in generating karma and its results) that karma is not an external operator.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 13th, 2014 at 8:51 AM
Title: Re: Middle Way Politics
Content:
tellyontellyon said:
M,
Could you give us some idea of any practical steps that deep ecologists would engage in. It appears to be a perspective... but what do deep ecologists either do or not do?
What practical steps do you engage in?

Malcolm wrote:
I told you already, I learned an ancient medical tradition, which does not rely on industrial medicine and will survive industrial civilization should it fail, and spent more than five years of my life doing so.

I studied this form of medicine as a direct outgrowth of my longstanding commitment to the principles of deep ecology as articulated by its founder, Arne Naess.

My commitment to deep ecology does not suggest that my approach is the only approach, as Naess said "The front is long", meaning that there is room for much diversity of thought in the ecological community. But while social ecology, ecofeminism and so on have useful things to say about social justice issues, etc., their approach is "shallow", meaning ultimately anthropocentric, and not deep. I also think the deep green resistance approach is shallow, and not deep because of their trenchant misanthropy. We can say that any ecological movement based on misanthropy is shallow.

Another point of Naess is that the blue/red political axis is irrelevant to deep ecology itself:

Now a short note on three great contemporary world-wide movements which call for grassroot activism.
The three movements are: the peace movement, the oldest and at present remarkably dormant. But if military expenditures are not rapidly decreasing from about 900 billion dollars a year, I expect it will revive. Then there are many movements I put together under the name 'the social justice movement'. It includes the feminist movement and part of the social ecology movement. As the third movement, one might perhaps also use the more vague term, radical environmentalism because to use the specific terminology of deep ecology will sooner or later elicit boredom and aggression. But the name 'radical environmentalism' smacks of the old metaphor suggesting humanity surrounded by something outside, the so-called environment of humans; it does not start with ecological concepts. And in the US it will take a long time before radicalism loses its connection with the political red-blue axis which now is irrelevant.
http://trumpeter.athabascau.ca/index.php/trumpet/article/view/432/708

Some people disagree with Naess. But fundamental to deep ecology is that one develops one's own ecosophy. Each person's ecosophy is personal. To understand this, you have to understand the apron diagram he and Sessions came up. He notes:

One main point in deep ecology is the deep argumentation, that is, argumentation from ultimate (philosophical, religious) premises, but there is room for very different sets of such premises.

Naess, Arne (2009-05-01). The Ecology of Wisdom: Writings by Arne Naess (p. 108). Counterpoint. Kindle Edition.

And:

The platform principles of the deep ecology movement can be grounded for individual supporters in a religion or an ultimate philosophy. There is a great diversity of religions and philosophies from which people can support these principles. In a loose sense, the deep ecology movement can be said to be derived from these kinds of fundamentals. The situation reminds us that a set of very similar or even identical conclusions may be drawn from divergent premises. The platform can be the same, even though the fundamental premises differ. One must avoid looking for one definite philosophy or religion among all the supporters of the deep ecology movement. Fortunately, there is a rich manifold of fundamental views compatible with the platform of the deep ecology movement. Supporters live in different cultures and have different religions. Furthermore, there is a plethora of consequences derived from the platform because of these and other differences.
Naess, Arne (2009-05-01). The Ecology of Wisdom: Writings by Arne Naess (pp. 114-115). Counterpoint. Kindle Edition.

And:

Personally, I favor the kind of powerful premises represented in Chinese, Indian, Islamic, and Hebrew philosophy, as well as in Western philosophy—namely, those having as a slogan the so-called ultimate unity of all life. They do not hide the fact that big fish eat small ones, but stress the profound interdependence, the functional unity, of such a biospheric magnitude that nonviolence, mutual respect, and feelings of identification are always potentially there, even between the predator and its so-called victim. In many cultures, identification is not limited merely to other living things but also to the mineral world, which helps us conceive of ourselves as genuine surface fragments of our planet, fragments capable of somehow experiencing the existence of all other fragments: a microcosm of the macrocosm.

Naess, Arne (2009-05-01). The Ecology of Wisdom: Writings by Arne Naess (pp. 131-132). Counterpoint. Kindle Edition.


So, I am a Buddhist practitioner with a long standing (27 years) commitment to a deep ecological outlook, and this is what informs my political outlook.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 13th, 2014 at 7:40 AM
Title: Re: Ordination debate - vinaya/bodhisattva/upasaka
Content:
Zhen Li said:
Well, if you are arguing that Mahayana does away with the Vinaya, that's clearly not true.

Malcolm wrote:
Of course it is not true.

The Ārya Akṣayamatinirdeśatika states:

As such, having heard the śīla regulations [saṃvara], just as the Bhagavan said, the training is to be done according the 250 śilas such as the four defeats, the thirteen saṁghāvaśeṣāḥ and so on without the slightest infraction is how the training should be followed.

So we see that some Mahāyāna attitudes towards monastic vows and vinaya were postive for Mahāyana monks in India, at least in the textual tradition.

There is another passage in this same texts that one's conduct, immediate activities and inclination towards virtue must be in accord with the world, one ought not be reproached by the world, that that one must follow Vinaya and not contradict the Vinaya.

I suspect that this is the reason why in Tibet, uneducated lay people were generally not permitted to know the regulations of monastic śīla since it might cause them to lose faith in monks if those monks were perceived to not be following Vinaya correctly. This is also important medically, since a number traditional medicinal formulas called for the urine of an eight year old male child or a bhikṣu of pure vows, which generally means someone who has never had sexual relations in their entire life.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 13th, 2014 at 5:31 AM
Title: Re: Ordination debate - vinaya/bodhisattva/upasaka
Content:


Indrajala said:
There's actually a class of bhikṣu called a svāgata-bhikṣu, which refers to those bhikṣus in the Buddha's sangha who never received any precepts. They just had only to show up and join the sangha to be welcomed into it, like Mahākāśyapa. This means there actually is (or was) a class of bhikṣu without any formal precepts.

Malcolm wrote:
No, by being welcomed by the Buddha, they had precepts automatically.

Indrajala said:
In China and Japan the monks came up with an idea that liquor could be "medicine liquor" and consumed as such without any violation of the precepts.

Malcolm wrote:
Bhikṣus can indeed use alcohol medicinally, there is a class of medicines, medicinal wines, called Arishtams in Ayurveda or སྨན་ཆང་ in Tibetan, medicinal beers, and if a monk, nun or novice is ill, they can use these medicines when prescribed by a doctor. This is well known.

Indrajala said:
There's actually medical evidence suggesting a glass of wine or two a day can be good for your health. This means arguably a monk or nun could enjoy a glass of wine or two with their medicine meal and be at no fault.

Malcolm wrote:
If it was prescribed by their doctor for a specific condition, of course there is no fault.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 13th, 2014 at 4:31 AM
Title: Re: Guru Rinpoche practices within the Sakya tradition
Content:
Kunga said:
Sure, agreed, in Western Dharma centres it is as you say, particularly, I think, because the VY transmission is more frequently given and taught. The GR tsog is complicated and not easy to fit into western schedules, and actually Nyingmapa in origin.

narraboth said:
well, depends on how elaborate you want to do Guru rinpoche tsog... Nyingma tsog ritual is a little bit different from Sarma ritual, but you can always find some brief text to do (I believe Rigpa centre uses brief tsog texts). In sense of 'western schedules', they are all on the same date of Tibetan calendar.

conebeckham said:
Sure, Nyingma tsoks and Sarma Tsoks do have different ritual outlines, details, etc., no doubt.  But in my experience, Nyingma tsoks, especially in the various terma traditions, are quite a bit shorter than Sarma procedures.   The main thing I think is the amount of liturgy.....

Lots of Kagyupas do Konchok Chidu, Peaceful Guru, for instance, and there's a pretty condensed (but profound) tsok in that tradition.

Malcolm wrote:
I forgot to mention that in some cases on the first tenth day a Sapan Guru Yoga might be done, or perhaps a Lamdre Guru offering.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 13th, 2014 at 4:24 AM
Title: Re: Middle Way Politics
Content:
tellyontellyon said:
...belonging to a place

This sounds like a deep conservatism...

Malcolm wrote:
Deep ecology is deeply conservative. But not in the modern sense of the term.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 13th, 2014 at 4:22 AM
Title: Re: Middle Way Politics
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
Except, my dear Malcolm, there is more to Deep Ecology than just Naess.  Earth First was a deep ecologist movement/organisation too you know. I have to admit that I was always more partial to social ecology, deep ecology tips towards the right (cf Ecofascism) too easily.

Malcolm wrote:
One can espouse an ecocentric view without it being consistent with ecosophy, aka deep ecology.

On David Foreman's supposed "deep ecology", George Sessions write:

Lee is adamant that Deep Ecology has been the philosophy of Earth First! although she admits that most EF!ers read very little Deep Ecology philosophy, and that specific mention of Deep Ecology did not appear in the E.F! Journal until mid-1984 (pp.18, 37, 57). It is rather painful to read about some of the positions taken by the Foreman faction in the E.F! Journal: for example, Foreman arguing that even a nuclear war would not be that damaging to the Earth and would hasten the end of industrial society, his remark that "wilderness is the real world" (it's all real! - it's just that the rest has to be restored and reinhabited) and his remarks elsewhere that we should "allow Ethiopians to starve"; Christopher Manes suggesting that one solution to overpopulation would be to dismantle the medical technology designed to save lives, and of AIDS as Nature's solution to overpopulation; and Reed Noss writing of genetic "deep ecology elite" as a "chosen people" out to save the Earth (pp. 64, 68, 83-84, 92-3,101-3). [Paul Shepard and E.O. Wilson have claimed that all humans have the "wilderness gene" but that it is suppressed, especially in modern urban people.] Since many, but not all, of these articles appeared under various pseudonyms, this leads to speculation as to whether Foreman, Manes, and the others were merely exercising their rights as individuals to the free expression of radical and shocking (and perhaps misanthropic) ideas; whether these ideas were meant to express the philosophy of Earth First!; and/or whether they thought they were expounding ideas which were the natural outcome of Deep Ecology philosophy. If the latter, they were radically mistaken in their understanding of Deep Ecology philosophy as espoused by Naess and other Deep Ecology movement theorists.

Lee accurately points out that Edward Abbey's ideas, expressed mainly through his novels (and his association with Earth First!) "had inspired the founding of the movement" (p. 126). Given that "since Earth First!'s inception, Dave Foreman had served as its prophet and leader" (p. 105) together with Foreman's idolizing of Abbey, the predominant philosophy and ideology of Earth First! throughout the 1980's is probably best described, not as Deep Ecology, but rather as an idiosyncratic, somewhat misanthropic Abbey/Foreman version of ecocentrism, coupled with a monkey wrenching/"rednecks for wilderness" image that some people found offensive.

http://trumpeter.athabascau.ca/index.php/trumpet/article/view/232/333

Again, if it is not consistent with Naess or Sessions and Duvall, it is not deep ecology.

Indeed, deep ecology has been critiqued as a conservative and even a right wing movement:

Devall and Sessions do not question the distribution or ownership of land. Their first principle of land management is to "encourage agencies, legislators, property owners and managers" to flow with natural processes. 'Deep Ecology: Living as if Nature Mattered' p.145

Deep ecology is not concerned with who should own land or whether land ownership is legitimate, but only with how it is treated.

At best deep ecology is apolitical, and though it claims to be beyond such distinctions, many feel deep ecology tends towards a right-wing perspective. Social ecologists and ecofeminists agree that not enough analysis is done by deep ecology of the social forces at work in the destruction of the biosphere.

http://www.thegreenfuse.org/deepcrit.htm#oppressive


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 13th, 2014 at 3:36 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen rhetoric and the gradual / instant dichotomy
Content:
Adamantine said:
Or did you mean it as in: samsaric sentient beings can only perceive the nirmanakaya and possibly the sambogakaya qualities of a Buddha, but are unable to perceive their dharmakaya quality?

Malcolm wrote:
It means that ordinary people can only see nirmanakāyas. Practitioners of specific realization on the path can see the sambhogakāya. The level at which they can see the sambhogakāya varies depending on the path. The Sambhogakāya images one sees on the four visions are not the actual sambhogakāya since those images are inert. However, at a certain point in the path of the four visions one can see the actual sambhogakāya. The sight of the dharmakāya only occurs at the end of the four visions, i.e. the exhaustion of dharmatā.

In this respect then, Dzogchen is no more non-gradual than any other Buddhist path.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 12th, 2014 at 10:24 PM
Title: Re: Perspective
Content:
Virgo said:
So basically can anyone perceive the Dharmakaya?

Kevin


Malcolm wrote:
Only Buddhas.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 12th, 2014 at 10:11 PM
Title: Re: Middle Way Politics
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
No. I am saying that the man in question lost the right to use that property. It is an entirely different kind of thing.

Sherab Dorje said:
So you give the gun back after the situation has been "defused"???

Malcolm wrote:
In the US, such a person is then deemed a felon, and as such as barred from owning any sort of firearms for life.


Sherab Dorje said:
This is just not true.  A true statement would be:  "As you can see some of us Deep Ecologists..."

Malcolm wrote:
If you are not following the thought of Arne Naess, you are not a Deep Ecologist.

Sherab Dorje said:
Many Deep Ecologists would go so far as to promote the sterilisation of non-indigenous humans too.

Malcolm wrote:
Those people are not Deep Ecologists, whatever else they may be. I think you are confusing the thought of the so called "Deep Greens" with Deep Ecology. Their thought is not consistent with either deep ecological ethics nor with Buddhist ethics:

But violence is a broad category of action; it can be wielded destructively or wisely. We can decide when property destruction is acceptable, against which physical targets, and with what risks to civilians. We can decide whether direct violence against people is appropriate.

Jensen, Derrick; Mcbay, Aric; Keith, Lierre (2011-01-04). Deep Green Resistance: Strategy to Save the Planet (Kindle Locations 1252-1253). Seven Stories Press. Kindle Edition.

As you can clearly see, the founder of Deep Ecology, Naess, is utterly opposed to this sort of thinking.


Sherab Dorje said:
But really, it is all a juggling game, no matter which side of the non-violent fence you happen to situated.  I have a deep respect for non-violent political struggle but one must realise that in all situations where non-violent struggle was applied, there were parallel liberation movements which involved armed struggle too.

Malcolm wrote:
Those people who are engaged in violence merely condemn themselves to lower births. On this the Buddha was absolutely clear. The Deep Ecology movement has no room for violence. There are those who try to derive arguments for ecotage from Naess's thinking, things like tree spiking, destroying animal traps and so on. But Naess criteria for such acts is generally grounded in one's belonging to place, not urban youths who decide to go save a forest with which they have no kinship.

Sherab Dorje said:
PS Good luck trying to reconcile Deep Ecology with notions of private property.  You're going to need it!

Malcolm wrote:
It's not a problem at all. If one remains grounded in the thought of Naess, deep ecology and a market economy are not incompatible. He writes:

The deep ecology movement has in common with blue [right wing] politics its aversion to bureaucracy, its emphasis on personal enterprise and initiative, and a reluctance to take certain green utopias too seriously. With the old politics of the Western European kind the common ground is more obvious, the fight on the side of the underdog, solidarity with the underprivileged or the powerless, extension of care.

And:

Rich people who work in the world of business, but are supporters of the deep ecology movement, ask in all seriousness whether the green utopian societies must look so dreary. Why portray a society which seemingly needs no big entrepreneurs, only organic farmers,modest artists, and mild naturalists. A capitalist society is in a certain sense a rather wild society. We need some degree of wildness, but not exactly the capitalist sort. The usual utopian green societies seem so sober and tame. We shall need enthusiasts of the extravagant, the luxuriant, the big. But they must not dominate.
http://trumpeter.athabascau.ca/index.php/trumpet/article/view/432/708

So you see, Naess's thinking was not exactly pro-capitialist and not exactly anti-capitalist.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 12th, 2014 at 8:21 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
tellyontellyon said:
They don't work very well compared to ones managed by a CEO.
But they do work, some have been around for many years, even in a very competitive capitalist environment. This style of 'management' clearly has legs.

Here is an example of one of the many workers cooperatives operating in the US:
http://www.alvaradostreetbakery.com/index.php


Other useful website:
http://www.usworker.coop/


Malcolm wrote:
I think Zhen Li's point is that such entities don't scale up.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 12th, 2014 at 8:04 AM
Title: Re: Middle Way Politics
Content:
tellyontellyon said:
No. I am saying that the man in question lost the right to use that property.
But this is decided by secular law.

Malcolm wrote:
And in general Buddhist ethics holds that one must obey the laws of the country one is in.

tellyontellyon said:
Secular law can be changed if that is what the majority want.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, but it is not as easy as you think. And Buddhist ethics generally comes down on the conservative side when it comes to issues of political change. As the Buddha mentions in the Mahāparinibbana sutta:

"What have you heard, Ananda: do the Vajjis assemble and disperse peacefully and attend to their affairs in concord?"
"I have heard, Lord, that they do."
"So long, Ananda, as this is the case, the growth of the Vajjis is to be expected, not their decline.
"What have you heard, Ananda: do the Vajjis neither enact new decrees nor abolish existing ones, but proceed in accordance with their ancient constitutions?"
"I have heard, Lord, that they do."
"So long, Ananda, as this is the case, the growth of the Vajjis is to be expected, not their decline.

There is never a case where the Buddha predicts the success of a society where violent and radical change is imposed.

tellyontellyon said:
What if the capitalists use their ownership of the means of production in such a way as people decide that they should lose the right to use that property?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, if some country wishes to try nationalization of industries and banks through entirely peaceful means, Buddhists living in that country can of course be on either side of that decision, but if the decision is made to nationalize, they have nothing more really to say about it.

But of some citizens of a country decide to enact a violent revolution and seize banks and industries through force, Buddhist ethics would describe that as theft and no Buddhist should participate in that revolution. Not only this, it will not be successful, because those citizens would not be observing not only the seven conditions upon which a successful country is based upon, but not even one.

I never once said that Buddhists could not resist injustice. We can, but we need to do so with the principle of non-violence foremost in our minds and the understanding that as limited common people without the benefit of realization we really do not have the capacity to predict the outcomes of violent upheavals. In other words, when Buddhists enter into a social struggle they may be ready to die for their cause, but they have a higher ethical obligation to strive to preserve the live's of their "enemies" at all costs, even at the cost of their own lives.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 12th, 2014 at 5:31 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
What makes a system that is based on (rewards and encourages) greed and self-centredness Buddhist?

Malcolm wrote:
Nothing.

Sherab Dorje said:
Why is a system that encourages, and is based on, sharing and mutual generosity non-Buddhist?

Malcolm wrote:
Nothing.

Neither systems are Buddhist.

Sherab Dorje said:
I guess it all depends on how narrowly one defines Buddhism.

Malcolm wrote:
I define Buddha Dharma as the practice of the three trainings and the six perfections. I do not define it through political ideologies. People try to use political ideologies in the service of the Dharma, but in such cases usually the Dharma loses and the eight worldly dharmas win.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 12th, 2014 at 5:25 AM
Title: Re: Middle Way Politics
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
You have to know for a _fact_ that he wants to kill people. When people act in [legally defined] criminal ways, it is well established that they lose certain rights, for example, the right to own and use a gun. If a man walks into a crowd with a gun and threatens to shoot, of course you are well within your rights to confront the assailant and relieve him of his weapon (if you are foolish enough to try). You do not have that right unless you know for a fact that he is doing to act in that way.

Sherab Dorje said:
So now you are saying that it is okay to destroy private property.

Malcolm wrote:
No. I am saying that the man in question lost the right to use that property. It is an entirely different kind of thing.

Sherab Dorje said:
Okay, so tell of one instance of mining (for example) that has not been an ecological catastrophe.  And then please explain to me why one should not defend the eco-system from destruction.

Malcolm wrote:
One can defend the ecosystem from catastrophe, but one must do so lawfully and non-violently. I have no problem with corporations such as BP being stripped of their property, legally, when they prove to be negligent in the conduct of their business. But I do not think it is right, or even ecologically sane, to blow up oil pipelines, transmission lines, and so on.

For example, look at all the harm people do like releasing animals from labs. This is just plain stupid as well as dangerous. This does not demonstrate any ecological awareness at all.

To Illustrate how support of monkey wrenching is inconsistent with Deep Ecology, we see that Naess writes:

In many Western countries, environmental struggle involves direct actions and violent confrontation. The norms of nonviolent group conflict as worked out by Gandhi and others exclude violence not only against the opponents, but also against their machinery and other equipment that,  from a direct, causal point of view, destroy life and life conditions on a vast scale. The norms against so-called sabotage involving such equipment are based on deep attitudes that express themselves in cultural phenomena such as inochi and kuyo.

Naess, Arne (2009-05-01). The Ecology of Wisdom: Writings by Arne Naess (p. 204). Counterpoint. Kindle Edition.

As you can see, we Deep Ecologists do not support in any way violence against either people or property. We Buddhists should not either, unless the special conditions of clairvoyance that I mentioned manifest in ourselves, as in the case of the Bodhisattva when he was a sea captain.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 12th, 2014 at 5:02 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
What makes a system that is based on (rewards and encourages) greed and self-centredness Buddhist?

Malcolm wrote:
Nothing.

Sherab Dorje said:
Why is a system that encourages, and is based on, sharing and mutual generosity non-Buddhist?

Malcolm wrote:
Nothing.

Neither systems are Buddhist.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 12th, 2014 at 4:43 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
tellyontellyon said:
It means everybody gets what they need, and contribute what they are able to.

Malcolm wrote:
Decided by who?

tellyontellyon said:
Look at the gap betwwen those people at the very top and the people at the very bottom, it is impossible to grasp. That gap needs to narrow by a considerable amount.
Also, it doesn't mean no 'trade' or no businesses... It means taking the largest businesses, utilities and banks into public ownership.

Malcolm wrote:
Right, we covered this before. I don't agree this is wise.

tellyontellyon said:
You can bet that far more small businesses have been forced to close by the big companies! The very biggest businesses could be run democratically by their own workers and representatives of the wider society.

Malcolm wrote:
I don't believe this will work. Companies are not democracies, and cannot function as such.

tellyontellyon said:
Deep ecology for example, would you impose that?

Malcolm wrote:
No, of course not, it is against the principles Arne Naess outlined.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 12th, 2014 at 4:39 AM
Title: Re: Vajrakilaya and date of the 'phur grel 'bum nag
Content:
Sherlock said:
I think the main area of contention arises from the life of Padma Las 'brel rtsal, which Boord notes as "Dates uncertain".


Malcolm wrote:
Not uncertain at all, Padma Las 'brel rtsal, according to the treasury of lives website has these dates: b.1291 - d.1315.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 12th, 2014 at 4:09 AM
Title: Re: Middle Way Politics
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
So if you have a guy with a gun who wants to kill people and you destroy the gun it is totally against Buddhist ethics?

Malcolm wrote:
You have to know for a _fact_ that he wants to kill people. When people act in [legally defined] criminal ways, it is well established that they lose certain rights, for example, the right to own and use a gun. If a man walks into a crowd with a gun and threatens to shoot, of course you are well within your rights to confront the assailant and relieve him of his weapon (if you are foolish enough to try). You do not have that right unless you know for a fact that he is doing to act in that way.

Sherab Dorje said:
Just because monkey wrenching doesn't fit into your personal world view doesn't mean it cannot be accommodated within the framework of Buddhist ethics.

Malcolm wrote:
Monkey wrenching cannot be accommodated within Buddhist ethics, since Buddhist ethics also requires that people obey the laws of the country they live in. Monkey wrenching is just vigilantism, plain and simple, and itself is a criminal act.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 12th, 2014 at 4:02 AM
Title: Re: Wagner and Buddhism
Content:
Zhen Li said:
But are you never moved emotionally listening to his music?


Malcolm wrote:
Wagner is godawful crap.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 12th, 2014 at 3:51 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
tellyontellyon said:
Bismarck!

An unfortunate icon...

Wiki Bismarck distrusted democracy and ruled through a strong, well-trained bureaucracy with power in the hands of a Junker elite representing the landed aristocracy in the east.

Bismarck, an aristocratic Junker himself, had an extremely aggressive and domineering personality. He possessed not only a long-term national and international vision, but also the short-term ability to juggle many complex developments simultaneously. As the leader of what historians call "revolutionary conservatism"[2] Bismarck became a hero to German nationalists; they built hundreds of monuments glorifying the iconic symbol of powerful conservative leadership.

Malcolm wrote:
I know very well who Bismark is.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 12th, 2014 at 3:35 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
Simon E. said:
Without wanting to sound like a British Rush Limbaugh, I am afraid Malcolm that there is a whole generation of young Brits who feel that life owes them a living.
When they talk about 'sharing' its all one way traffic. From others to them. If they spent the time that they are on line earning a living they might have something to share.

Malcolm wrote:
Otto Bismark famously said:

He who is not a socialist at 19, has no heart. He who is still a socialist at 30, has no brain.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 12th, 2014 at 3:32 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
tellyontellyon said:
What about the people who can't afford a house?

Malcolm wrote:
Well, give them a job so they can afford housing and eventually build one of their own.

tellyontellyon said:
Is it a 'nanny state' to suggest that people look out for each other, where we can share what we have?

Malcolm wrote:
We cannot share what we don't have. Frankly, I regards things like healthcare and education to be like utilities, a basic standard should be provided for everyone because the social cost of not doing so is higher. But it still comes out of someone's taxes. I pay taxes for a school system in which I have no children nor ever will have children because I am too old to have children. So I am sharing. I don't complain. I think people are obliged to pay fair taxes for things like roads, etc. I think it is fair for power companies, regulated monopolies, to charge for electricity.

But I do not think it is the job of the government to enforce some artificial standard across the board to make sure everyone has exactly as much as everyone else. That kind of thinking is ludicrous as far as I am concerned.

tellyontellyon said:
What's so un-Buddhist about sharing?

Malcolm wrote:
Nothing, I am suggesting that you start. If you really want to help people, go to Haiti. They need help. Get a job as a volunteer with the BRC. You said that you already do some kind of social work, great.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 12th, 2014 at 3:05 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
tellyontellyon said:
I'm just talking about a secure job for everybody, one that pays a living wage...

Malcolm wrote:
Then start a business.

tellyontellyon said:
...a home for everybody that is warm and secure.

Malcolm wrote:
Then start a house building business.

tellyontellyon said:
Education, healthcare, free time to relax, meditate, take part in community life.

Malcolm wrote:
You make every too complicated with your insistence that we need this huge Nanny state to take care of everything for us.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 12th, 2014 at 3:03 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
tellyontellyon said:
I'm just talking about a secure job for everybody, one that pays a living wage, a home for everybody that is warm and secure. Education, healthcare, free time to relax, meditate, take part in community life.

Malcolm wrote:
I just figured it out -- you want to live in Norway!


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 12th, 2014 at 2:52 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
tellyontellyon said:
Ha Ha. You sounded a little bit worldly yourself when I suggested the possibility of returning your land to the communal ownership that existed under the native Americans.

Malcolm wrote:
Which ones? You mean the tribes that no longer exist? You really don't seem to understand tribal territories, expansions, conquest and so on as it occurred among Native Americans in the Northeast. Your concept that Native Americans owned land communally is complete nonsense:

I n the past, most if not all North American indigenous peoples had a strong belief in individual property rights and ownership. Frederick Hodge (1910) noted that individual private ownership was “the norm” for North American tribes.

Likewise, Julian Steward (1938, 253) asserted that among Native Americans communal property was limited, and Frances Densmore (1939) concluded that the Makah tribe in the Paciï¬c Northwest had property rights similar to Europeans.’ These early twentieth-century historians and anthropologists had the advantage of actually interviewing tribal members who had lived in pre-reservation Indian society.

By the late 1940s, however, these original and ï¬rsthand sources of information had died, and false myths and historical distortions began to take dominant shape. By the mid–1960s, the tone in many college history books, history-inspired ï¬lms and novels, and even speeches had completely changed (Mika 1995). A typical historical distortion, for example, is found in Baldwin and Kelley’s best-selling 1965 college textbook, The Stream of American History, where they write, “Indians had little comprehension of the value of money, the ownership of land . . . and so land sharks and grog sellers found it easy to mulct them of their property”(208). These myths were further fueled by popular books such as Jacobs’ (1972) Dispossessing the American Indian, which suggested that Native Americans felt that land (and other property) was “a gift from the gods” and as such not subject to private ownership. Gradually more and more people started to honestly believe that the indigenous people of North America had been historically communal, non-property oriented, and romantic followers of an economic system more harmonious with nature.

Today, tribal leaders, politicians, and various interestgroups in both the United States and Canada often repeat these myths as fact when discussing business, economics, and entrepreneurship during tribal conferences and congressional hearings (Selden 2001).

Terry Anderson (1995) attributes the beginning of the myth to settlers seeking farm land in the Great Plains, who interacted only with nomadic tribes that did not view land as an important asset. These settlers mistakenly generalized the lack of interest in land to infer a lack of property rights among all tribes. We argue that this ï¬ction was further propagated in the nineteenth century by a virtual army of East Coast newspaper journalists, dime novelists, and Washington politicians who, in spite of writing about Native Americans, often had little contact with tribal groups. Reported, retold, and unchallenged, these incorrect perceptions ended up as the basis for later laws and institutional codiï¬cation.

- See more at: http://perc.org/articles/american-indian-collectivism#sthash.QzsVsD6T.dpuf


tellyontellyon said:
All land was originally communal: some bully built a fence that's all.

Malcolm wrote:
The fences were not built by bullies, but rather, by people who wanted to protect their crops from thieves.

The rice plants, as mentioned earlier, began to grow in separate plots and people began to divide lands and tend each other's cluster of rice fief. They became preoccupied in tending their own field. Then, as the evil and greed were aroused, there were people who begin stealing others' crops. At first, the others only warned the culprit and the culprit promised that he would never repeat it again. But when it was repeated several times, the people began punishing him with fist, stones, and then sticks. That is the origin of punishment forms. Then, people began to think that they were too busy to heed every crime and abuse that happened in their society. They grieved on the rising of evil amongst their people. But most of their time had already been invested in tending their fief. So, they appointed someone to rectify what is right and what is wrong, give warnings to those who need it, give punishment to those who deserve it, and in return, they will give him a share of their rice. So, they went to the fairest, ablest, most likeable, and most intelligent person and appointed him to do the judging and passing out sentences on the reward of a share of rice. The appointed person thus agreed and the people bestowed upon him the title : 'Maha Sammata' meaning: The People's Choice. Then, they bestowed also the second title: 'Khattiya' meaning the 'Lord of the Rice Field', and finally the third title: 'Raja' which means 'Who gladdens people with Dhamma (or Truth)'. This order was created by the people's wish and need, based on the Dhamma and not from others. The Buddha stated again that Dhamma is indeed the best of all things.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agga%C3%B1%C3%B1a_Sutta

tellyontellyon said:
I thought Engaged Buddhism was about addressing the problems of worldly life?

Malcolm wrote:
[/quote][/quote]

That is what it may mean to some people. What is means to me is working with our present circumstances according to the best Buddhist ethics one can muster.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 12th, 2014 at 2:11 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
Whereas those supporting capitalism are not?

Malcolm wrote:
I never said I wasn't worldly person. I also never stated that I support capitalist ideology.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 12th, 2014 at 12:30 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:


tellyontellyon said:
The purpose of the precepts is to help us overcome suffering, not to lock us into it.

Malcolm wrote:
Indeed.

tellyontellyon said:
They are not god given dogma.

Malcolm wrote:
They are based on the avoidance of the natural ten non-virtues.

Malice
Greed
Wrong view
Harsh speech
Lying
Calumny
Idle speech
Taking life
Taking what is not given
Sexual misconduct

Since the vows do not suppose one's mind can be directly controlled, and since of the four verbal non-virtues, lying is the worst, and because Buddha compassionately understood that people were going to yell, spread calumny and gossip he did not turn those into precepts. He forbad the three non-virtues of the body. These ten non-virtues are what drive rebirth into lower realms; their avoidance results in birth in higher realms.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 12th, 2014 at 12:26 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
tellyontellyon said:
It's not that my view is totally worldly. Perhaps it is that your view is totally unworldly?

You draw such a big distinction between wordly and unworldly. I don't think that the Buddha would draw those lines in quite the same way.

Malcolm wrote:
He drew them even harder.

tellyontellyon said:
I don't think he achieved liberation by divorcing himself from the 'world', it was more that he came to see the nature of that world.

Malcolm wrote:
He came to see the nature of the world was entirely suffering. Even happiness is suffering if that happiness does not come from Dharma practice.

tellyontellyon said:
Understanding the difference or relationship between a 'worldly' and a 'realised' point of view... well that can only come with realisation.

Malcolm wrote:
No, that comes from studying the Dharma.

tellyontellyon said:
In the meantime I think I would like to continue worrying about the 'worldly' lives of the people and all the other beings on this planet.

Malcolm wrote:
The best thing you can do for others is attain realization yourself. That will never happen while you are standing in an angry crowd denouncing some transient worldly condition.

tellyontellyon said:
I can only do what I can within my present capacities.

Malcolm wrote:
Indeed.

tellyontellyon said:
If you don't want to consider me a Buddhist that is fine, (but I'm not quite sure why you feel you have the authority to say such things). Perhaps you are playing politics?

Malcolm wrote:
I didnt say you weren't a Buddhist. Clearly you consider yourself one. But you don't sound like a Buddhist, you sound like a worldly person, entirely caught in hope and fear.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 11th, 2014 at 11:19 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
tellyontellyon said:
Everyone gains. No rational actor engages in an exchange that is disadvantageous.
That's just dogma. If you need a job and the means of production (job's, land, machines, bank's) etc. are in the hands of a tiny minority, and that system inevitably produces endemic unemployment... then the power is all in the hands of that same minority. The super-rich hold all the cards. Therefore, the average wage earner is compelled to sell their labour for a poor deal.

They're compelled to sell their based on their skills based on what is of value to others. If I am a master iron worker in a defunct industry, I am not likely to be paid much for my now useless craft, am I? And those who put up the capital for such a defunct industry will generally fold as well.

If one person is gaining... someone else (or many others) are losing.
This is very simplistic thinking.
I honestly wonder if we are living in the same world?

Malcolm wrote:
We live in the world we choose to see. I live in a world where outcomes are largely determined by karma and merit. You live in a world where outcomes are produced by material relations. You may have aspirations to be a Buddhist, but your view of the world is wholly worldly, bound up as it is in these eight worldly dharmas:

hope for happiness and fear of suffering
hope for fame and fear of insignificance
hope for praise and fear of blame
hope for gain and fear of loss

You may protest that it is not yourself for which you are concerned, but the eight worldly dharmas apply to all instances of these hopes and fears.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 11th, 2014 at 8:55 PM
Title: Re: Climate Change: We're Doomed
Content:
Kim O'Hara said:
Evidence:


...or choose your own favourite after oogling "solar power generation" and clicking the "Images" tag on the results page, which is all I did.


Kim


Malcolm wrote:
That is not scaling. That is ugly as shit. Also, it is an extremely inefficient use of land area.

The main problem with renewables at this point is lack of storage options (battery technology is still not very advanced), variability in power generation, and the fact that natural gas and coal plants must continue to be used to make up for deficiencies. So called smart grids might be a solution, but the problem with all these technological computer-based fixes is that they introduce increasing complexity thus creating more opportunity for calamitous failure, terrorist attack, and so on.

If any thing, centralization of power generation not a desiderata.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 11th, 2014 at 7:47 PM
Title: Re: Middle Way Politics
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
And I never said that I support all instances of property destruction.

Malcolm wrote:
You advocate violence in so far as you think some types of property destruction are permissible based on some arbitrary standard you impose.

But frankly, I cannot see any place in Buddhist ethics where it is permissible.

Sherab Dorje said:
Really?  I don't think you have to look all that hard actually.  I don't think it would be so difficult, from a Buddhist perspective,  to ethically justify destroying a machine in order to save countless lives.  Not difficult at all actually.

Malcolm wrote:
I see, so you are going to get out there and destroy shovels, hoes, rakes, lawn mowers, plows, cars etc? No, there really is no justification for such acts. Such acts are merely symbolic and do nothing to change systems, as the failed efforts of the Luddites clearly demonstrates. Violence, whether against people or property, is not justifiable from a Buddhist ethical standpoint unless you are a realized person in possession of such powers of prescience and clairvoyance that you can be assured of a positive outcome of your acts.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 11th, 2014 at 7:43 PM
Title: Re: Climate Change: We're Doomed
Content:
Kim O'Hara said:
And in those terms, it is much less bad for us to dig up what we need for solar panels than to dig up the coal we would need to generate the same amount of electricity.

Malcolm wrote:
If it scales, sure. So far I see no evidence that it does.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 11th, 2014 at 7:48 AM
Title: Re: Perspective
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
then the sambhogakāya level, and finally, at the end one can see the dharmakāya personally, then one is a Buddha.

Virgo said:
But isn't a state of rigpa more than the nirmanakaya level?


Kevin


Malcolm wrote:
The state of rigpa is all three kāyas combined, but while you still have obscurations, the nirmanakāya level is all you can experience. If you can experience the sambhogakāya aspect, you are a person of high realization, meaning you are beyond the third vision.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 11th, 2014 at 7:09 AM
Title: Re: Perspective
Content:
Virgo said:
But it is not gradual in terms of needing to create merit and purify karma, transform perceptions, in order to realize the "state", is it?

The secret is, that was already done in the past, therefore, one has the perception to understand the truth about the three kayas -- which do not arise, are not based on conditions etcetera.

Kevin


Malcolm wrote:
Here is the critical point that everyone over looks.

All Mahāyāna paths whether sūtra or tantra, have one thing in common: realization of the three kāyas. Each path works first at the nirmanakāya level, i.e. at first that's all you can see; then the sambhogakāya level, and finally, at the end one can see the dharmakāya personally, then one is a Buddha.

This is the same whether you are practicing the six perfections, the two stages, or trekchöd and thogal. The only difference is the amount of time it takes, and the methodology used.

Even in sūtra the obscurations are not regarded as something real which need to be abandoned. The Abhisamayālaṃkāra states: The wisdom of the exhaustion and non-arising
of taints is called “the awakened state”.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 11th, 2014 at 4:52 AM
Title: Re: Perspective
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The path is gradual, not the state, but then that is true of every path in Vajrayana.

dzogchungpa said:
So what's up with all the cig car rhetoric?


Malcolm wrote:
It's rhetorical.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 11th, 2014 at 4:49 AM
Title: Re: Guru Rinpoche practices within the Sakya tradition
Content:
Kunga said:
Doing the self-blessing of Kachoma is often private and extra curricular.

Malcolm wrote:
You would know better than I what is done in Sakya monasteries in India.

I was just talking about the tsog, not the self blessing which is little elaborate and can only be done by those people who have done a full retreat.

Also, I was mentioning from the perspective of what is normally done in western Sakya centers, I wasn't really including monasteries in India.

The idea that the first tenth day is for Heruka practices and the second tenth day is for Dakini practices is based on the flow of the white bodhicittas. But in general the first tenth day ganapuja is for increasing merit and the second is for purifying samaya, strictly speaking.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 11th, 2014 at 4:33 AM
Title: Re: Perspective
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
For all its cig car rhetoric, in the end, Dzogchen is just a gradual path like everything else in Buddhadharma.

heart said:
Either you recognize the natural state directly and never leave it again or you have to do some habituation to it. I wouldn't call it gradual. It don't get more it just gets longer, easier and more natural and you have less problems letting go of mind.

/magnus


Malcolm wrote:
The path is gradual, not the state, but then that is true of every path in Vajrayana.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 11th, 2014 at 2:41 AM
Title: Re: Middle Way Politics
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
And I never said that I support all instances of property destruction.

Malcolm wrote:
You advocate violence in so far as you think some types of property destruction are permissible based on some arbitrary standard you impose.

But frankly, I cannot see any place in Buddhist ethics where it is permissible.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 11th, 2014 at 2:14 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
...given you consider compulsory sterilisation a public health issue.


Malcolm wrote:
What I am saying is that it is a public health issue and it is out of my hands, it's not my decision to make. I never made any statement whatsoever about whether I approve or disapprove of the practice.

It is a complicated -- for example, termites, ants, killer bees, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 10th, 2014 at 11:40 PM
Title: Re: Middle Way Politics
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
... For example, our friend Greg (Sherab Dorje) considers it just dandy to destroy private property.

Sherab Dorje said:
And our friend Malcolm has no problem with a multinational mining company wreaking havoc just because they own a title deed for the land they are destroying?

Malcolm wrote:
I didn't say that I have no problem with it. I do, I just don't believe that the solution is fire bombing their facilities and equipment.

In any event, most mining companies in the US lease the land they are mining. Not sure how it works in other places.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 10th, 2014 at 11:36 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
I do not support acts of violence against people or property. So no, I am not a fan of monkey wrenching. I consider that such acts stem from a shallow view.

Sherab Dorje said:
As an ecologist, do you support the compulsory sterilisation of domesticated animals (I am talking here about pets and especially strays)?

Malcolm wrote:
That is not really the question you are asking. What you are implying is, if sentient beings should be viewed as equal (in general, they should), someone who does not support violence against persons or property should not support compulsory sterilization of pets and strays.

I have no pets, so I never think about the issue. That issue is outside of my control, being a public health issue primarily.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 10th, 2014 at 8:41 PM
Title: Re: Middle Way Politics
Content:
Rickpa said:
This thread strikes me as about being more about systems of governance rather than politics.

Malcolm wrote:
That is where people went with the thread. What I had in mind was more how, given that there are many non-Buddhist political realities out there, Buddhists will conduct themselves in the political sphere. For example, our friend Greg (Sherab Dorje) considers it just dandy to destroy private property.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 10th, 2014 at 8:30 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Of course it is, it is completely ignorant. A physical structure is not a "bank". All such actions do is create more negativity, more hostility, more negative karma all around. It is an utterly ignorant and foolish —not to mention criminal— thing to do.

Sherab Dorje said:
I guess you don't support eco-terrorism either?

Malcolm wrote:
I do not support acts of violence against people or property. So no, I am not a fan of monkey wrenching. I consider that such acts stem from a shallow view.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 10th, 2014 at 7:32 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:


Sherab Dorje said:
I cannot speak on behalf of all Anarchists, but I certainly would not consider burning banks an unprovoked action.

Malcolm wrote:
Of course it is, it is completely ignorant. A physical structure is not a "bank". All such actions do is create more negativity, more hostility, more negative karma all around. It is an utterly ignorant and foolish —not to mention criminal— thing to do.


Sherab Dorje said:
Right, capital and property are two different things, though their meaning is commonly conflated in discussions.
Not necessarily, the first definition says: "Financial assets OR ..."

Malcolm wrote:
A financial asset is an intangible asset that derives value because of a contractual claim. Examples include bank deposits, bonds, and stocks. Financial assets are usually more liquid than tangible assets, such as land or real estate, and are traded on financial markets. ...

You mean "asset", an asset can include property such as land, buildings, bulldozers, etc.. A financial asset is a bond, stock, etc.

You are not a stupid person, so I find it a little unbelievable that you waste your time on such adolescent political theories.

Ok, I am really done with this ridiculous thread.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 10th, 2014 at 7:08 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Capital and property are two entirely different things. One can own thousands of acres of property and yet lack the capital to develop it.

Sherab Dorje said:
According to investopedia.com (a capitalist site): Definition of 'Capital'

1. Financial assets or the financial value of assets, such as cash.
2. The factories, machinery and equipment owned by a business and used in production.

“Capital” can mean many things. Its specific definition depends on the context in which it is used. In general, it refers to financial resources available for use. Companies and societies with more capital are better off than those with less capital.

Malcolm wrote:
Right, capital and property are two different things, though their meaning is commonly conflated in discussions.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 10th, 2014 at 6:59 PM
Title: Re: Climate Change: We're Doomed
Content:
Zhen Li said:
I don't think a figure of 40 years is anything to be up in arms about. After all, just about any power plant would be lucky to get past regulators running that long without major updates and replacements of key parts.


Malcolm wrote:
That's an ideal estimate. Lifespans in reality are overall much shorter.

Then of course we must mention that extraction process for the rare earth materials in solar panels, wind generators, batteries, etc., are pretty devastating to their local environments because China/Inner Mongoloa is about the only place where rare earths are recoverable without significant quantities of radioactive materials, and even then they are strip mined.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 10th, 2014 at 6:55 PM
Title: Re: Perspective
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
Your Santideva quote is saying that mental pacification is the result of going beyond concepts: that is not inherently Buddhist, that is something you find in all religions, and is therefore truly "perennial".

Malcolm wrote:
No, actually you do not find this in "all religions".

Addendum, so my initial observation that your sentiment is perennialist' was correct.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 10th, 2014 at 6:53 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
Though I must admit that burning banks (a common pass-time for Greek anarchists) is hardly violence "without provocation".

Malcolm wrote:
Of course it is.

Sherab Dorje said:
That's your opinion.  I imagine if you ask all the homeless families, whose houses were stolen from them by banks, they may care to disagree.

Malcolm wrote:
I see, so anarchists, who don't believe in property, are burnings banks on behalf of those whose property was taken from them by foreclosures? What a stupid thing to do, so very Weather Underground.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 10th, 2014 at 6:51 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
There are no private property/ownership rights in an Anarchist system, so the term is an oxymoron at best.
Sorry for quoting myself but I should clarify this statement:

Under the political-economic model of capitalism property (capital) is the basis for authority, as it is the means by which a capitalist exploits (asserts authority/dominance over)  somebody that does not own capital.  Now of course, in the real world, capitalists quite clearly exploit the power of the state (and state owned capital) as well, in order to assert their dominance.  But in a utopian capitalist reality the security forces (both executive and administrative) would be privately owned so one would just directly pay for enforcement (instead of having to bribe the state administrators).

Last year, for example, they introduced a series of laws here in Greece where one can now rent actual police officers (not private security personnel) and police equipment (helicopters, boats, etc...) for security purposes.  Okay, it is a semi-measure since the money goes to the state (there is the state owned capital again) and not to the individuals, but still one can see in which direction they are pushing.  Private military organisations like Haliburton and Blackwater also come to mind, as examples, when discussing issues like this.

That is why there is no such thing as anarchist capitalism, because capital (property) IS authority.

Malcolm wrote:
Capital and property are two entirely different things. One can own thousands of acres of property and yet lack the capital to develop it.

Your anarchist system might scale up as far as a hippie commune, but will fail beyond that.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 10th, 2014 at 6:47 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
Though I must admit that burning banks (a common pass-time for Greek anarchists) is hardly violence "without provocation".

Malcolm wrote:
Of course it is.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 10th, 2014 at 9:02 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:



tellyontellyon said:
Don't worry about suffering dudes... it's all in the mind.


Malcolm wrote:
These kinds of things are very sad, but I don't see you posting pictures of all sentient beings who are suffering:



There is nothing you or I can do to prevent the ripening of someone else's karma.

Of course we try to help as much as we can, but we have to understand that we have limited capacity to help others.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 10th, 2014 at 8:11 AM
Title: Re: Bronkhorst's Skepticism about early Buddhism
Content:


daverupa said:
(The equation "scholarship = fundamentalism" should probably get it's own thread; I'm amazed by this suggestion.)

Malcolm wrote:
He was not saying that. He was saying that scholarship and religion have different aims. The former is merely about who lived when, what they did, where they went, and maybe what they said. The latter is about one's personal spiritual path.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 10th, 2014 at 7:44 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:


Zhen Li said:
Suffering is caused by greed, anger and ignorance, in the MIND, not by material conditions.

Malcolm wrote:
Thank you. I am glad there is another Buddhist voice in this conversation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 10th, 2014 at 7:05 AM
Title: Re: Perspective
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
Your Santideva quote is saying that mental pacification is the result of going beyond concepts: that is not inherently Buddhist, that is something you find in all religions, and is therefore truly "perennial".

Malcolm wrote:
No, actually you do not find this in "all religions".


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 10th, 2014 at 7:01 AM
Title: Re: Climate Change: We're Doomed
Content:
Zhen Li said:
Solar power is a great idea. I knew a man whose hydro bill (i.e. electricity here is called hydro) was something like $15.00/month because he installed high efficiency insulation, windows, and doors, and solar panels.

Malcolm wrote:
Of course it is a great idea. But it does not scale. Battery technology has not advanced in years. That said, it is perfectly reasonable for people to install their own panels and so. The only problem is that the panels themselves have a definite lifespan, 40 years at most. There are other problems too. For example, if you have trees in your yard, or life in places where there is possibility of hail and so on.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 10th, 2014 at 6:54 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
I would liken it to asking the opinion of Nazi apologists about the benefits of Communism.

Malcolm wrote:
D and G are "nazi apolgists? Hardly

Sherab Dorje said:
Capitalists don't like Anarchists.  Mainly because Capitalists like to throw around the term "free" thick and fast:  free trade, free markets, etc... whereas their freedom is just slavery to currency.
And then, of course, there is the fact that capitalists love to pay lip service to reducing state intervention to zero, whereas in reality they take every opportunity they can to utilise the state and state structures in order to increase profit and power.

Malcolm wrote:
These people are called "anarcho-capitalists".

Sherab Dorje said:
Capitalists hate Anarchists because Anarchists show up the fact that Capitalism is quite clearly not freedom, and that Authoritarian Socialism is not the only other solution.

Malcolm wrote:
No, people are frightened of anarchists because they do stupid shit like inciting violence without provocation at demonstrations:




http://www.kvi.com/home/featured/Seattle-anarchist-brags-about-violence-he-plans-for-May-Day-205625871.html


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 10th, 2014 at 4:52 AM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
PadmaVonSamba said:
You are saying.
'nothing arises which is empty,
because if it arises, how can it be empty'
???

Malcolm wrote:
Precisely.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 10th, 2014 at 4:05 AM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
emptiness too is a mere convention.

PadmaVonSamba said:
objects which arise conditionally were empty of inherent existence
long before the concept of emptiness was even conceived.
So, while 'emptiness' (sunyata) is, on the one hand, merely our correct understanding of phenomena
the fact that phenomena are in fact empty
is the same whether we 'convene' it or not.
If it were not already so,
asserting emptiness would be false.
.
.
.


Malcolm wrote:
Asserting emptiness is false.

"If there were something subtle not empty, there would be something subtle to be empty; as there is nothing not empty, where is there something to be empty?
-- Nāgārjuna


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 10th, 2014 at 3:57 AM
Title: Re: Does 35 Statues Mean anything?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
There are 35 Buddhas of confession. This is a famous practice anyone can do, as it is based in sutra, called the Sutra of the Three Heaps

http://www.thubtenchodron.org/PrayersAndPractices/35Buddhas.pdf

gaelic said:
Thank you very much! So these are all statues of Buddha? I didn't know there was confession lol. Do people build shrines to these Buddhas? Thank you very much for the link, I will read that through.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 10th, 2014 at 3:51 AM
Title: Re: Guru Rinpoche practices within the Sakya tradition
Content:
conebeckham said:
I have a somewhat related question......sorry I can't help with yours.
But In Kagyu we practice Chakrasamvara on Guru Rinpoche days...wondering if Sakyapas do Hevajra puja and tsok, etc.??


Malcolm wrote:
No, Vajrayogini is done on both tenth days.

Usually HHST gives the Padmasambhava from Apong Tertons treasures.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 10th, 2014 at 3:08 AM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
shel said:
Yes?


Malcolm wrote:
It means that meaning is projection. IN other words, there is no meaning to meaning. It is just a convention, therefore it is the object of a false cognition.

shel said:
How is that inconsistent with meaning is emptiness?


Malcolm wrote:
Not at all, emptiness too is a mere convention.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 10th, 2014 at 3:06 AM
Title: Re: Does 35 Statues Mean anything?
Content:
gaelic said:
Hello and greetings!  I have been planning to make a home shrine (I am learning as I go along), just setting up offering bowls and a butter lamp.  In this regard, I have had a dream a few times now about building a shrine in a small cabin/hut in the forest here and that there are 35 statues. The number just stands out to me, does it mean anything? I don't count them in the dream or even know who the statues are, but in the dream I just know there are 35. Basically the dream is I am walking through the forest where I live and I come to the small cabin, open the door, and there is a shrine of 35 statues, and I pour water in offering bowls. In other variations, I am taking people with me to the hut that I have never seen before. Just was an odd dream, wondered if it had any meaning and who the statues are. I search "35 buddhist statues" but nothing particular comes up. Probably because I have been putting a lot of thought into making a home shrine lol. Thanks again!

Oh and one more thing, can I use in my home shrine a small Thanka rather than a statue?


Malcolm wrote:
There are 35 Buddhas of confession. This is a famous practice anyone can do, as it is based in sutra, called the Sutra of the Three Heaps

http://www.thubtenchodron.org/PrayersAndPractices/35Buddhas.pdf

https://www.amazon.com/Confession-Downfalls-Sutra-Vajrasattva-Practice/dp/8185102856


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 10th, 2014 at 2:55 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
tellyontellyon said:
Well, just taking diamonds as an example... high quality gem quality diamonds are much rarer than ordinary industrial diamonds, so it takes more time and effort (labour) to find them and more skill (labour) to cut and polish them.

Malcolm wrote:
Not really.

tellyontellyon said:
That capitalists make use of monopolies and restriction of production to push prices above natural value is of course understood. Supply and demand also affects price, but in general, production will be raised to meet demand. When demand and supply are equal then price tends towards natural value.

Malcolm wrote:
So you agree with marginal utility then.

tellyontellyon said:
You are not distinguishing between use value and exchange value.

Malcolm wrote:
Both are accounted for in marginal utility. If I have no use for something, for example, crack, for me it is worthless. I will never spend my money on it. If I want to buy something with whatever crack is at my disposal, however it comes into my hands, it becomes as valuable as whatever the other guy will pay me for it. A bag of smack these days is $6 in NYC. In New England on the other hand, it is $30.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 10th, 2014 at 2:49 AM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
shel said:
Yes?


Malcolm wrote:
It means that meaning is projection. IN other words, there is no meaning to meaning. It is just a convention, therefore it is the object of a false cognition.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 10th, 2014 at 2:42 AM
Title: Re: The Idea of Madhyamaka and Yogacara as Equally Correct
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
This still refers to the imagined nature viz: reification persons and things is the imagined nature, the absence of subject and object which produces the imagined is the dependent nature, the absence of existence and non-existence of the imagined nature in the dependent nature is the perfected nature. All of these three terms hinge on the imagined nature.

rob h said:
Can see what you mean, but still think it highlights the fact that Asanga tried to take the middle path. Will carry on researching/meditating anyway, and hopefully understand better as time passes.


Malcolm wrote:
Yes, the Yogacarins think they are the real Mādhyamikas.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 10th, 2014 at 2:19 AM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
conebeckham said:
the root of ignorance is the feeling that samsaric phenomena have, among other things, meaning.

shel said:
Form is emptiness, doctrine tells us, therefore meaning is emptiness. How bout them apples?


Malcolm wrote:
No, it actually says that "Matter is empty". Then it says, "Emptiness is material." Then it says "Matter is not other than emptiness," and then, "Emptiness is not other than the material;" and concludes with "And so too for the other four aggregates."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 10th, 2014 at 2:08 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
This is anarchy, which is violent by nature, despite what anarchist romantic theorists would like to believe.

Sherab Dorje said:
Yes, well, if Deleuze and Guattari (post modernists and post structuralists) say it's like that then it must be.  Sigh...

You do realise that the whole "post-" thing was all just capitalist apologetics, hardly an objective vantage point to judge Anarchism from.

Malcolm wrote:
This is akin to saying that Buddhist dialectics is not a fair place to judge the doctrine of self from. In other words, your objection is bollocks, to which I will pay no mind.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 10th, 2014 at 2:04 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:


tellyontellyon said:
You could say the same about gravity. Unfortunately, I am unable to walk on water, walk through walls or fly unaided like superman... so I will just have to reject this superficial 'theory' of economics.


Wiki: Karl Marx died before marginalism became the interpretation of economic value accepted by mainstream economics. His theory was based on the labor theory of value, which distinguishes between exchange value and use value. In his Capital he rejected the explanation of long-term market values by supply and demand:
Nothing is easier than to realize the inconsistencies of demand and supply, and the resulting deviation of market-prices from market-values. The real difficulty consists in determining what is meant by the equation of supply and demand.[...]If supply equals demand, they cease to act, and for this very reason commodities are sold at their market-values. Whenever two forces operate equally in opposite directions, they balance one another, exert no outside influence, and any phenomena taking place in these circumstances must be explained by causes other than the effect of these two forces. If supply and demand balance one another, they cease to explain anything, do not affect market-values, and therefore leave us so much more in the dark about the reasons why the market-value is expressed in just this sum of money and no other.[58]
In his early response to marginalism, Nikolai Bukharin argued that "the subjective evaluation from which price is to be derived really starts from this price",[59] concluding:
Whenever the Böhm-Bawerk theory, it appears, resorts to individual motives as a basis for the derivation of social phenomena, he is actually smuggling in the social content in a more or less disguised form in advance, so that the entire construction becomes a vicious circle, a continuous logical fallacy, a fallacy that can serve only specious ends, and demonstrating in reality nothing more than the complete barrenness of modern bourgeois theory.[60]
Similarly a later Marxist critic, Ernest Mandel, argued that marginalism was "divorced from reality", ignored the role of production, and that:
It is, moreover, unable to explain how, from the clash of millions of different individual "needs" there emerge not only uniform prices, but prices which remain stable over long periods, even under perfect conditions of free competition. Rather than an explanation of constants, and of the basic evolution of economic life, the "marginal" technique provides at best an explanation of ephemeral, short-term variations.[61]
Maurice Dobb argued that prices derived through marginalism depend on the distribution of income. The ability of consumers to express their preferences is dependent on their spending power. As the theory asserts that prices arise in the act of exchange, Dobb argues that it cannot explain how the distribution of income affects prices and consequently cannot explain prices.[62]

Dobb also criticized the motives behind marginal utility theory. Jevons wrote, for example, "so far as is consistent with the inequality of wealth in every community, all commodities are distributed by exchange so as to produce the maximum social benefit." (See Fundamental theorems of welfare economics.) Dobb contended that this statement indicated that marginalism is intended to insulate market economics from criticism by making prices the natural result of the given income distribution.[62


Malcolm wrote:
I do not believe however that you can be rid of markets, and I think the labor theory of value is inadequate for explaining many things in the economy. Labor does not give things value. What gives a thing a value is whether it is desired or not, i.e. demand. For example, diamonds -- their value bears no relationship to the capital or the labor used to extract them. Their value is determined by demand and artificial restrictions on their sales which serve to increase that demand. The value of a diamond jewel, nothing more than a piece of hardened carbon, and no more nor less expensive in terms of capital and labor to extract than an industrial diamond, is not determined by those capital and labor investments at all. Neither is the price of oil. Neither is the price of food. Prices in general are not set because labor bears an intrinsic value, because labor, like any thing else in the market, has no intrinsic value of its own. What is the value of a piece of art? If people like your paintings more, you will get more. If they like it less, you will get less. And if you are a terrible artist, your paintings will be worthless and therefore, your labor in creating them is worthless.

Price instability is a function of supply and demand. It really is that simple. Regulations are enforced in order modulate rapid fluctuations in price which are primarily caused by speculators.

BTW, remind yourself that you have decided that someone's labor is worthless the next time you do not buy something because you decide "it isn't worth it."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 10th, 2014 at 2:00 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
Sönam said:
Malcom,

What you try to figure out regarding Anarchism (I don't speak about communism) could also be said regarding capitalism. Capitalism, as you state it, is an utopia ... and will remains as such because in "real life" capitalism automatically leads to  his "disadvantages" http://listverse.com/2012/01/16/top-10-disadvantages-to-capitalism/ and certainly: waste, starvation, anti-social, danger and so on.

S.


Malcolm wrote:
Sonam:

I am not defending capitalism as an ideology. I am not a Capitalist with a capital C. But I do not have much patience for utopian fantasies that come from the left, or for that matter utopian fantasies that come from the right (for example, the fantasy that free markets will fix everything, etc.). The capitalist economy we have now is far from a utopia, and because of the free market policies of neoliberals, is heading into a dystopia.

I do embrace our teacher's teachings that we should be pursuing personal evolution, not external revolution. That means we need to follow a middle way. Anarchism, Communism and Libertarianism, etc., just are not it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 10th, 2014 at 12:53 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
It should not be concluded that war is a state of nature, but rather that it is the mode of a social state that wards off and prevents the State.

-- Nomadology

This is anarchy, which is violent by nature, despite what anarchist romantic theorists would like to believe.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 10th, 2014 at 12:51 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
tellyontellyon said:
marginal utility.
It amounts to saying that something is simply worth what someone is willing to pay. It isn't an economic theory at all, rather it amounts to the belief that there are no economic theories, and that value is entirely subjective.

Malcolm wrote:
Which is entirely consistent with Buddhist philosophy. That is to say all value is subjective, and merely conventional. There is no such thing as essences, whether in economics or anything else.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 10th, 2014 at 12:42 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The concentration camps were a distraction that contributed in large measure to Hitler's losing the war.

Sherab Dorje said:
A distraction???  The concentration camps were designed to quell all internal resistance to Nazi policy and anybody that stood in the way of the implementation of Nazi policies (Trade Unionists, Communists, Democrats, Humanist Christians, etc...) and to realise Hitler's dream of the erradication of anybody he didn't consider German enough (Jews, Gypsies, etc...)   The Nazi regime would not have lasted as long as it did if it wasn't for the concentration camps .

Malcolm wrote:
The Nazi Regime would have lasted much longer, and possibly have won the war on the continent if they had been content to merely expell people rather than spend enormous resources herding people about in cattle cars (on rail lines that Bismark designed to carry troops) in order to kill them.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 10th, 2014 at 12:39 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
From somebody that has not figured out the difference between Anarchism and chaos.
This is what anarchism will lead to, predation by nomadic bands. You should read Nomadology: http://zinelibrary.info/files/nomadology_read.pdf

The State is not an agent of war. Wars are bad for states. States generally seek to avoid war, unless they are taken over by their own nomads (as was the case of Iraq).


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 10th, 2014 at 12:30 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
Which is pretty sad when one stops to think about the history of Anarchism:
The democratic struggle in Spain during the 1930's (where the CNT was part of the governing democratic alliance),

Malcolm wrote:
A war where they were crushed.


Sherab Dorje said:
the International Workers of the World,

Malcolm wrote:
Lots of street battles.

Sherab Dorje said:
the liberation of the Ukraine from Imperial Russian and German forces AND the Bolsheviks in the 1920's,

Malcolm wrote:
Nonsense, never happened. Ukraine was dominated by the Communist Party during the 20's, on orders from Moscow.

Sherab Dorje said:
the ongoing self-governance and resistance of the Zapatistas, etc...

Malcolm wrote:
The Zapatistas are ethnic nationalists, not anarchists.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 9th, 2014 at 11:39 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
Sönam said:
and I have many the like ...

S.

Malcolm wrote:
But labor _is_ a commodity, on this Marx agrees with Adam Smith. Labor is the "Wealth of Nations", but even the labor theory of value is obsolete.

These days many economists use quantified marginal utility.

In economics, the marginal utility of a good or service is the gain from an increase or loss from a decrease in the consumption of that good or service. Economists sometimes speak of a law of diminishing marginal utility, meaning that the first unit of consumption of a good or service yields more utility than the second and subsequent units, with a continuing reduction for greater amounts[clarification needed]. The marginal decision rule states that a good or service should be consumed at a quantity at which the marginal utility is equal to the marginal cost.[1]
The concept of marginal utility played a crucial role in the marginal revolution of the late 19th century, and led to the replacement of the labor theory of value by neoclassical value theory in which the relative prices of goods and services are simultaneously determined by marginal rates of substitution in consumption and marginal rates of transformation in production, which are equal in economic equilibrium.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal_utility

This applies equally to labor as much as anything else. So for example, a cotton picker's labor has a marginal utility higher when there are no cotton machines to pick cotton. When cotton machines to pick cotton are introduced, that person's labor as a cotton picker becomes 0 value and they are forced to find other work. However, if a government decides, for whatever reason, that value of cotton pickers is innate, they can elect to bar cotton pickers, and thus the marginal utility of a cotton picker remains high for as long as cotton is wanted.

The labor theory of value however would declare that a person's labor is equal to what they can produce, and in Marxist terms, they ought to be rewarded one hundred percent for that. Of course that is not how it works in practice, because skilled workers can produce much more value than unskilled workers, for example, in the translation of Tibetan texts. The only way it could work in Marxist terms is to abolish markets and declare all labor is equal in value as well as all commodities produced by that labor, which is of course total nonsense. A chair made in half an hour is in no way comparable to a chair made by a fine craftsmen in 80 hours.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 9th, 2014 at 11:23 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
Rickpa said:
The idea behind free markets is totally voluntary. People exchange something desired for something desired to their mutual benefit. The failure that keeps visiting US markets is the failure to have free markets.

Malcolm wrote:
Sorry, Rick, the role of government is to regulate markets so they remain stable. What you are advocating is market anarchism. This is demonstrably bad for both the markets themselves as well as the economy.

Rickpa said:
Indeed, we are in peril.

Malcolm wrote:
Not really, I don't see Obama stormtroopers crossing my threshold anytime soon, unless you count the meek lady who came by my house yesterday to let us know about healthcare options.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 9th, 2014 at 11:20 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
kirtu said:
Nazi Germany did not try to exterminate communism or the Jewish people due to resource shortages (although Nazi propaganda hyped the necessity for living space).

Malcolm wrote:
Hitler went to war primarily to fuel the German war machine. The concentration camps were a distraction that contributed in large measure to Hitler's losing the war. But in the end, the most important objective in Hitler's campaigns were oil fields in Russia. Since he never seized them, he lost the war.

kirtu said:
WW1 was also not fought primarily due to resource competition.

Malcolm wrote:
Sure it was, it was not even possible without Bismark's train system.

kirtu said:
Neither was the Korean War.

Malcolm wrote:
Sure it was, that is why North Korea invaded South Korea.

kirtu said:
Neither were the Vietnam Wars.

Malcolm wrote:
Sure they were, the Vietnam wars were fought to oust the French, and then the Americans. The French were there for resources, the Americans (us) blundered into it because of fears that Communist control of South Vietnam would strangle shipping lanes in Indochina.

kirtu said:
Neither was the Nicaraguan wars.

Malcolm wrote:
We did not fight a war in Nicaragua.

kirtu said:
Neither were the Angolan wars.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, it was, it was sparked in response to forced cotton cultivation.

kirtu said:
The American Revolutionary War was also not fought over resource competition, even buying the taxes thing.

Malcolm wrote:
[/quote][/quote]

Of course it was. It was fought mainly because New England resented British interference in the domestic economy.

Even where wars seem to fought for power, ultimately power brings only one thing: control over resources.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 9th, 2014 at 10:41 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
...future widespread Anarchist society.

Malcolm wrote:
It will never happen.

Sherab Dorje said:
Never say never.


Malcolm wrote:
Anarchist society:


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 9th, 2014 at 10:40 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:



tellyontellyon said:
I think that our current political/economic model is based on theft. I think it is a form of exploitation or extortion that we have got so used to that most of us don't even stop to think about it. I believe capitalism is inherently violent: it not only pushes us into war after war, but it's whole value system and praxis is dehumanising and alienating.

Malcolm wrote:
No, resource shortages push us into wars. This will happen under _any_ political or economic system, apart from one run by awakened people (my preferred utopian vision). Therefore, the only obvious solution is to support as many people as possible in becoming awakened. Short of that, it is imperative to encourage worldly people to refrain from the ten non-virtues and to cultivate the four brahma-viharas (love, compassion, joy and equanimity).

tellyontellyon said:
How easy is it to care for all sentient beings when we have to compete with each other for our survival?

Malcolm wrote:
No one said the bodhisattva path was easy, but the first priority of a bodhisattva is preserve themselves so they can be service to others.

tellyontellyon said:
It is important for us to recognise that we all play our part in this political and economic system, none of us are innocent. We are guilty of allowing this system to continue. Some of us might have even found a comfortable little niche within it... but we have to understand that somebody else is paying for that niche.

Malcolm wrote:
Sorry, I am not guilty and I do not feel guilty. I have not stolen anything from anyone. I _want_ this present system to continue, 1. because markets are a fact of human existence regardless of the currency which is being used 2. because no proposed alternatives are workable or scale internationally.

And TOTO, evolution is all about niches, and we humans are no different, we inhabit the niches we find ourselves whether through karma or struggle to overcome our karma. You keep forgetting that a person who has no karma to be wealthy will never be wealthy even if you given them all the money in the world, they will have obstacles, or it will be robbed from them, or they will behave in such a way with it that they are sure to go to lower realms.

I am all for small scale experiments. If some want to have a anarchist commune, I am in favor of it. If some want to try and run their country or state according to Marxist principles, well, I think they are crazy but let them try. In the case of the former, they will have to deal with the fact that some people naturally are leaders and that a hierarchy will of necessity evolve, and former will have to face the fact that they will inevitably face supply and demand in the market.

While your desire for universal economic parity is admirable, it is romantic and impractical.

tellyontellyon said:
If someone want's to be a monk and live in a cave, I respect that. But for lay people who work and live in wider society we must recognise that we are playing a role in that society whether we think we are or not.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, but we don't have the right to force our vision of that society down anyone's throat.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 9th, 2014 at 7:38 PM
Title: Re: The Idea of Madhyamaka and Yogacara as Equally Correct
Content:
rob h said:
Just going back to this from earlier as I missed it :

Malcolm wrote:
Something cannot exist as both conditioned and unconditioned, it must be one or the other. Moreover, the former can never become the latter, nor can the latter become the former.

rob h said:
I think it can be, in the way that it's the basis for both. So while many people go through this world in delusion, others can use this exact same world to realize awakening. Or in the way that one side of the world can be in darkness, but the other side has sunlight. The world (and in turn the dependent.) can be both things at the same time, according to what situation it's looked at from.

Malcolm wrote:
All of this refers to the imagined nature. The imagined neither exists nor does not exist in truth since it never existed, being the projection of traces from the ālayavijñāna.

rob h said:
The version by Khenpo Shenga and Ju Mipham says that it's all three (bold is to point out the verse, just like the book does.) :
What is the reality of the characteristics? Once they are understood, the exaggerated and depreciative views regarding phenomena and persons do not occur. This is what characterizes the reality of the imaginary nature. Nor do the exaggerated and depreciative views of apprehended and apprehender occur, which is what characterizes the reality of the dependent nature. And in the same way, once it is understood, the exaggerated and depreciative views related to existence and non-existence do not occur. This is what characterizes the reality of the thoroughly established nature. Being unmistaken about this fundamental reality is referred to as the “reality of the characteristics.”

Malcolm wrote:
This still refers to the imagined nature viz: reification persons and things is the imagined nature, the absence of subject and object which produces the imagined is the dependent nature, the absence of existence and non-existence of the imagined nature in the dependent nature is the perfected nature. All of these three terms hinge on the imagined nature.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 9th, 2014 at 7:34 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
...future widespread Anarchist society.

Malcolm wrote:
It will never happen.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 9th, 2014 at 9:10 AM
Title: Re: Perspective
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
But the view of Dzogchen, Mahāmudra and Mahāmadhyamaka are not partial at all since they are based on direct perception of reality.

gad rgyangs said:
Doesn't direct perception of reality, by definition, transcend all concepts and views? Therefore, all conceptual and verbal constructs will be, at best, partial metaphors pointing to that direct perception. At worst, they are entangling briars from which the gullible never escape.

Malcolm wrote:
But the Buddhist view is not actually a verbal construct, and for that matter neither is Buddhist awakening.

For example, one needs only to understand the dependent nature of afflictions to become a stream entrant and so on, becoming free of the fetters. This does not require elaborate philosophy. It merely requires confidence in the teaching of dependent origination and the four truths of nobles.

Likewise, for the realization of emptiness on the path of seeing, one simple has to reflect on the absence of extremes (for a very long time, albeit), as Shantideva states, "when neither an entity or a non-entity remain before the mind, at the time, the mind is pacified", and this too is an experiential view.

In the case of Vajrayāna, the view, such as it is, is based on the experience of the example wisdom at the time of direct introduction or the third and fourth empowerments. Unfettered equipoise in the mind essence, or "ordinary awareness" is the view of Vajrayāna.

So this is why your illustration is irrelevant to Buddhadharma, and why Buddhadharma does not merit inclusion amongst "the blind men".


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 9th, 2014 at 7:36 AM
Title: Re: Perspective
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
A partial view is a partial view.

gad rgyangs said:
exactly, and that's all any view is going to be.


Malcolm wrote:
But the view of Dzogchen, Mahāmudra and Mahāmadhyamaka are not partial at all since they are based on direct perception of reality.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 9th, 2014 at 7:17 AM
Title: Re: The Idea of Madhyamaka and Yogacara as Equally Correct
Content:
rob h said:
Have found this from the Madhyantavibhanga, I know he says elsewhere in the text that something exists, but would guess that this is more of his actual view :
Once they are understood,
The exaggerated and depreciative views
Regarding phenomena and persons,
Apprehended and apprehender,
And existence and non-existence do not occur -
This is what characterizes reality.

Malcolm wrote:
All of this refers to the imagined nature. The imagined neither exists nor does not exist in truth since it never existed, being the projection of traces from the ālayavijñāna.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 9th, 2014 at 6:53 AM
Title: Re: The Idea of Madhyamaka and Yogacara as Equally Correct
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
No, in this case what Asanga is saying is emptiness means empty of the imagined, and that is about it. The dependent is not empty of the perfected, since it is the perfected when the imagined is recognized to be non-existent.

rob h said:
Yeah I think I remember quoting him saying something similar in another thread further down in this forum. Will carry on reading some of his works though and see if he states otherwise elsewhere.


Malcolm wrote:
Yes, one must read these things for oneself. Only then can one truly decide.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 9th, 2014 at 6:48 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
tellyontellyon said:
Malcolm, really.

I think society has changed a great deal. Yes there are many of the same old problems, but many many things have been improved through social action.

I caught a bus the other day in Swansea: two men got on and were snuggling and kissing. No problem. Even forty years ago they would have risked getting beaten up and jailed.
I believe in the USA black and white people can now sit in the same section of the bus and eat in the same restaurants. This sort of thing used to be the exception rather than the rule.

Malcolm wrote:
And before slavery was widespread in the US it was the rule to. And your gay friends still risk getting beaten up. Bias against gay people is not finished by a long shot. And of course racism and xenophobia is rampant in Europe right now. And let's not even mention Russia.

Some things have changed, other things have gotten worse, other things have gotten better. Things are better in our neck of the woods because we are the richest nations on the globe. Handing everyone $56,000 a year is not only impossible, but it won't solve anything.

tellyontellyon said:
People with mental health problems are not chained to the cell wall and sprayed with high pressure hoses in order to help them to become more morally sane.

Malcolm wrote:
No, they are dosed with toxic compounds which are much more effective.

tellyontellyon said:
It is no longer acceptable to hit or rape your wife.

Malcolm wrote:
For now, but when things get bad, and it will, all these things will again resurface.

tellyontellyon said:
Social action and protest is what won many of these improvements.

Malcolm wrote:
Agreed. But they are not permanent.

tellyontellyon said:
If it wasn't for organised social action we would still have 10 year old childrem working down the mines and nobody would know what a 'weekend' was.

Malcolm wrote:
We still do, just not in England or the US.

Incidentally, I am not saying that one should do nothing, or remain passive. One must help sentient beings. But as has been pointed out a gazillion times it must be done within the confines of Buddhist ethics.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 9th, 2014 at 6:40 AM
Title: Re: Perspective
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Your diagram shows them as all equivalent. That is why I said it was perennialist.

gad rgyangs said:
mais non, equivalent in partiality, not in content.

Malcolm wrote:
A partial view is a partial view.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 9th, 2014 at 6:23 AM
Title: Re: The Idea of Madhyamaka and Yogacara as Equally Correct
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
I think he means in a nondual sense though, not as in individuality or anything conventional.
If exists nondually, it exists, which is why the Madhyamakas claim that Yogacarins are nondual realists.

rob h said:
In a nondual sense though no polarity can be attributed, can it? I still think the problem comes down to taking what he's saying too literally. I can see how some Madhyamikas look at it in that way though. Also how maybe Asanga himself could've worded things better? Or maybe he was simply referring to what's left ultimately when everything false is discarded, and it actually does exist in some way, but with an equal nature of emptiness, so it had a balance. Would like to think that's the case anyway.

Malcolm wrote:
No, in this case what Asanga is saying is emptiness means empty of the imagined, and that is about it. The dependent is not empty of the perfected, since it is the perfected when the imagined is recognized to be non-existent.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 9th, 2014 at 6:21 AM
Title: Re: Perspective
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
No Dante, it really isn't like that. And Dzogchen is just an alternate scheme for explaining how one sees, progressively, the three kāyas, in reality no different than the five paths and ten stages. For all its cig car rhetoric, in the end, Dzogchen is just a gradual path like everything else in Buddhadharma.

gad rgyangs said:
Who said anything about Dzogchen? Perspectivism doesn't claim that all dṛṣtī are equal, just that they are all partial perspectives, even the best ones, like Dzogchen. It's not that there isn't reality, its just that as soon as you conceptualize about it and open your mouth about it, you've got a limited perspective.


Malcolm wrote:
Your diagram shows them as all equivalent. That is why I said it was perennialist.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 9th, 2014 at 5:38 AM
Title: Re: Perspective
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
Yes, it is good to be honest about one's views, even if it amounts to eel wriggling.

That said, I go by the dictum utter by Āryadeva, realization proceeds from view. And of course the basis of the Buddhist path is samyakdṛṣtī as you know.

gad rgyangs said:
dṛṣtī is a dirty word since Nagarjuna, and everybody thinks their dṛṣtī is samyak, based on which part of the elephant they felt up.

Malcolm wrote:
No Dante, it really isn't like that. And Dzogchen is just an alternate scheme for explaining how one sees, progressively, the three kāyas, in reality no different than the five paths and ten stages. For all its cig car rhetoric, in the end, Dzogchen is just a gradual path like everything else in Buddhadharma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 9th, 2014 at 5:36 AM
Title: Re: The Idea of Madhyamaka and Yogacara as Equally Correct
Content:


rob h said:
Are you going from the "exist in every aspect" part? Because the translation I have words it differently :
If the dependent and the absolute did not exist at all, defilement and purification would not take place.

Malcolm wrote:
It amounts to the same thing, I was translating it direct from Tibetan.




rob h said:
He does seem to contradict himself in parts, but it's maybe because he's explaining from conventional and non-conventional aspects. There's plenty of places in just the Mahayanasamgraha where he could also be said to be stating the opposite. For instance, when speaking of the fourfold pure dharma, this is the first of the four listed :
(a) The essential purity (prakṛtivyavadāna), i.e., the true nature (tathatā), emptiness (śūnyatā), the utmost point of reality (bhūtakoti), the signless (animitta), the absolute (paramārtha), the fundamental element (dharmadhātu).

Malcolm wrote:
Asanga clarifies elsewhere that he considers emptiness to be an affirming negation, like the emptiness of the Cullasuññata sutta, which cites in its Sanskrit version.


rob h said:
I think he means in a nondual sense though, not as in individuality or anything conventional.

Malcolm wrote:
If exists nondually, it exists, which is why the Madhyamakas claim that Yogacarins are nondual realists.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 9th, 2014 at 5:09 AM
Title: Re: Perspective
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Eel wriggling, in other words, like Sanjaya Bellaputtha.

gad rgyangs said:
one person's eel wriggling is another person's intellectual honesty.


Malcolm wrote:
Yes, it is good to be honest about one's views, even if it amounts to eel wriggling.

That said, I go by the dictum uttered by Āryadeva, realization proceeds from view. And of course the basis of the Buddhist path is samyakdṛṣtī as you know.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 9th, 2014 at 4:58 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
tellyontellyon said:
If we wait until we have eliminated all afflictions before we do anything then the planet will have gone up in flames.

Malcolm wrote:
Its going to get there anyway. This is one of the reasons why Buddhists tend to be pessimistic about social revolutions in general. When you have worldly people leading society, no matter who they are, things just get screwed up.

As the song goes:

Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 9th, 2014 at 4:28 AM
Title: Re: The Idea of Madhyamaka and Yogacara as Equally Correct
Content:
rob h said:
It seems contradictory but maybe that's because the alayavijnana and the dependent are neither pure nor impure, conditioned nor unconditioned, nondual.


Malcolm wrote:
It's contradictory because he says it exists. That makes Yogacara realist. Something cannot exist as both conditioned and unconditioned, it must be one or the other. Moreover, the former can never become the latter, nor can the latter become the former.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 9th, 2014 at 4:24 AM
Title: Re: The Idea of Madhyamaka and Yogacara as Equally Correct
Content:
smcj said:
Oh c'mon. Of course it is a matter of partiality. Unless you are saying that there is a broad consensus on the matter, which as we all know is never the case in Tibetan Dharma, then you are presenting your personal preference with an argument attached. What the possible rebuttals to your argument are I have no idea, but suffice it here to say that there are plenty of qualified khenpos that subscribe to the idea of the 3 natures that are familiar with your objection. The Tibetan system of treating the perfected nature as empty of the dependent and the imagined indeed is based on some very late Indian scholars, but it is not justified in the works of Maitreyanatha, Asanga or Vasubandhu.
As you say it is a later development. There does seem to be a slippery slope effect here regarding the Buddha Nature teachings that is playing out over time. One of the things I admire about the Gelugpas is their insistence on trying to hold the line. I have a mental image of them as being like the little Dutch boy with his finger in the dike, only the entire dike has already collapsed except for the section a couple feet to the right and left of him.

Where this slippery slope ends up is in the Shentong and Chinese non-dual camps. Making too much of an issue out of it at this point is just crying over spilt milk, imo. I think an ecumenical "we will just have to agree to disagree" approach is in order.

Malcolm wrote:
Even Karl Brunholz admits that the three natures as presented by the Tibetan gzhan stong pas does not reflect their use by the original Yogacara masters. The former use what he describes as the type two schema of the three natures, while he fully admits that the latter use a type one schema. The problem arises because the Tibetan gzhan stong pas clearly claim that they are representing the thought of the original Yogacara masters, Maitreyanatha, Asanga and Vasubandhu when in fact they clearly are not, and thus Tsongkhapa, Gorampa, and so on, a whole host of Kagyu, Sakya, Nyingma and Gelug scholars can take them to task for misapplication of this doctrine.

The three natures doctrine is entirely irrelevant to the tathāgatagarbha teachings. It is wholly absent in the ten so called "tathāgatagarbha" sutras as well as the Uttaratantra. The three natures doctrine was grafted onto the tathāgatagarbha doctrine in Tibet because the tathāgatagarbha sūtras are considered "third turning" and the subject of the three natures is covered extensively in the Saṃdhinirmocana sutra, a sūtra of the Yogacara class, which provides us with the locus classicus of the three turnings, but it is so vague as to what is meant by this as to be rather useless, though much stock is placed in it by the gzhan stong pas.

Longchenpa is a perfectly good example of an author who considers the tathāgatagarbha sūtras to be definitive without mixing in the Yogacara three own natures. He also considers Prasangika to be the definitive sutra view.

My problem with the gzhan stong pas is that they do not heed the valid objections of their opponents, and as far as I can tell adhere to their tenet system out of sheer stubbornness rather than reason.

My objection to gzhan stong therefore is primarily an objection to their sloppiness of scholarship.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 9th, 2014 at 2:49 AM
Title: Re: Is Buddhist cosmology essentially Vedic?
Content:
theanarchist said:
If I remember Myriad Worlds by Jamgon Kongtrul right, in Buddhism has several different cosmological doctrins.

Malcolm wrote:
Three in fact: the Kośa, the Avatamska and the Kalacakra cosmologies. The much vaunted Dzogchen cosmology is actually nothing of the sort, and is just a restated version of the Kośa cosmology complete with a world tree.

It also seems that the authors of the Kalacakra Tantra knew full well that the Meru cosmology was merely symbolic because their calculations for the movements of the sun, moon, stars and planets ignore it, even though it is used to set up a hierarchy of the three lokas.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 9th, 2014 at 2:34 AM
Title: Re: The Idea of Madhyamaka and Yogacara as Equally Correct
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Then you still wind up with a contradiction because you are claiming that something defined as conditioned is not conditioned.

rob h said:
Isn't that problem there with anything classed as nondual, primordial, one-taste, etc, though? It could be that it's conditioned when the imaginary nature is present, or when it's still attached to, (and also mainly to point out and teach others.) but when it's let go of, it's neither conditioned nor unconditioned, because we're then leaving the realm of logic, and it's then beyond defining. So the whole concept is then let go of once it's served its purpose.

Malcolm wrote:
No, the dependent nature is defined as conditioned. The Mahāyānasaṃgraha states:
Why? If it is asked what is the dependent, since it arises from the seeds of one's traces, given that is the case, it is the conditioned dependent.

Here, one can clearly see the other dependent is the ālayavijñāna.
Then he goes on:
If it is held that whatever appears does not exist in that way, for what reason will the dependent nature not become the total non-existence of everything? If it is asked, if that [dependent nature] does not exist, how will the non-existent perfected nature not become the non-existence of everything? Affliction and purification are perceptible. Therefore, everything is not non-existent. A verse for that:
If the dependent and the perfected
do not exist in every aspect,
affliction and purification
can never exist at all.

So you see, there is an assertion here by Asanga that the ālayavijñāna which is the basis of purification must be an existent in order that the perfected nature can exist; but since one is conditioned and the other is unconditioned, this Yogacara view suffers from a crucial internal contradiction.

The gzhan stong pas seek to escape this contradiction by mapping the three natures over the two truths. But this mapping is not justified in the  Indian texts and in reality harms both systems. So you wind up with a system that is kind of like a tole, a sterile hybrid between a yak and cow, being neither.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 9th, 2014 at 2:00 AM
Title: Re: The Idea of Madhyamaka and Yogacara as Equally Correct
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The problem with the three natures is that they contain an internal contradiction: viz since the perfected nature is merely the absence of the imagined in the dependent, one must explain how the dependent, which is conditioned, becomes the perfected, which is unconditioned.

rob h said:
Yeah can see how that can be a problem, but maybe it's also an act of pointing to the idea that they're always both present? As in nirvana is also samsara. But by removing the imagined you remove the contradiction, and they're of what you could say, one taste, or nondual. So instead of trying to go from one to the other, instead you can just work on letting the attachment to the imagined go and then the nondual aspect can then arise, appear, return, and so on, in a natural way.

So you could maybe sum it up by saying that the dependent only appears to be conditioned when the imagined is present. Once that's gone, then it's nondual.

Malcolm wrote:
Then you still wind up with a contradiction because you are claiming that something defined as conditioned is not conditioned.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 9th, 2014 at 1:23 AM
Title: Re: The Idea of Madhyamaka and Yogacara as Equally Correct
Content:
smcj said:
I didn't realize it was the three natures that was so much of an issue, and will remember to keep that in mind when researching.
It's an issue for Malcolm personally. It's his bugaboo.

rob h said:
Am just wondering Malcolm : why don't you like the concept of the three natures?

Malcolm wrote:
It is not a matter of partiality. The problem with the three natures is that they contain an internal contradiction: viz since the perfected nature is merely the absence of the imagined in the dependent, one must explain how the dependent, which is conditioned, becomes the perfected, which is unconditioned.

The Tibetan system of treating the perfected nature as empty of the dependent and the imagined indeed is based on some very late Indian scholars, but it is not justified in the works of Maitreyanatha, Asanga or Vasubandhu.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 9th, 2014 at 12:25 AM
Title: Re: Perspective
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
No, perennialism states that all religions are partial revelations if a universal truth, or reality.

gad rgyangs said:
there is a fundamental difference between saying that all religions are expressing the same truth, and saying that all human conceptual systems (religious as well as secular science and philosophy) are inherently limited, metaphorical attempts to describe something that is beyond categories and definitions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perennial_philosophy is always couched in language like "all religions are one" and emphasizes similarities among religions and so-called mystical experiences. What I am suggesting with my doodle is more like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspectivism or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anekantavada

Malcolm wrote:
Eel wriggling, in other words, like Sanjaya Bellaputtha.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 9th, 2014 at 12:07 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
Zhen Li said:
In a sense that's true. Anarchism is not unlike Libertarianism in that their goal is a state from which everything will gradually build up again.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, supposedly better, but without eradication of the the afflictions, well, it will be the same old shit all over again.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 9th, 2014 at 12:06 AM
Title: Re: Scotland becomes 17th country to approve same-sex marria
Content:
Zhen Li said:
(I always find it hard to wrap my head around red = right wing, blue = left wing, in the US)


Malcolm wrote:
It's a media convention collectively arrived at by the US media in the 2000 Gore/Bush contest.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 8th, 2014 at 11:42 PM
Title: Re: Scotland becomes 17th country to approve same-sex marria
Content:
Simon E. said:
Those who most typify the current anti-American sentiment which is widespread in the UK would agree with you..
I suspect that in part they see all that was worst about colonialism being replicated by current American foreign policy.


Malcolm wrote:
All the while oblivious to the fact their standard of living depends upon it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 8th, 2014 at 10:39 PM
Title: Re: Scotland becomes 17th country to approve same-sex marria
Content:
Simon E. said:
But that's rather the point Malcolm. When an educated crowd of younger Brits break into spontaneous applause  at any negative view of the USA at just about any stand-up venue , from a local Pub to the Edinburgh Festival, they are not inhibited by considerations of heinous behaviour by other nations.
As I said, its visceral. Its not a mindset that results from logic.
And the fact that Brits DO react like that can readily be attested to by anyone who has attended such venues.
If the comic wants a quick laugh then the royal family or the U.S. will get one every time.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, it is not like the British Empire was this super benevolent entity.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 8th, 2014 at 9:28 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:





Sönam said:
Sönam


Malcolm wrote:
Yes, let's ensure world chaos...screw it...tear it all down and lets go back the pre-agricultural period and 3,000,000 million humans....oh wait...that is called "anarcho-primitivism....and then the cycle will start all over again.

If there is a utopian fantasy out there to subscribe to, I prefer the Shambhala mythos ala a Buddhist world regency.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 8th, 2014 at 9:25 PM
Title: Re: Scotland becomes 17th country to approve same-sex marria
Content:
Simon E. said:
As a reasonably educated Brit I would say that Moldbug has little or no understanding of the phenomenon in question at all.
His rationalisation adds upto little more than a slightly whiney and puzzled ' you guys don't really hate us .'
The reality is both more complex and more visceral.


Malcolm wrote:
He does have a good point, however. In general, the crimes of other nations, Britain, Italy, Germany, France, Japan, Australia, Canada, Mexico, Iraq, Iran, Egypt, you name it, etc. certainly place people from these countries on very shaky ground when it comes to venting spleen against the Great Satan...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 8th, 2014 at 8:01 AM
Title: Re: Perspective
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Certainly not as smart as you and all the perennialists out there. But being a Buddha, he does not have to be smart, merely totally awakened.

gad rgyangs said:
oops. you walked right into that one! Perennialism says that all religions are expressing the same universal truth. My graphix clearly shows that the various religions (as well as science) are all different, partial perspectives on the nature of reality.

Malcolm wrote:
No, perennialism states that all religions are partial revelations if a universal truth, or reality.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 8th, 2014 at 6:07 AM
Title: Re: Perspective
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
I rather doubt he intended to included his own Dharma in the above description.

gad rgyangs said:
oh, then he not as smart as I thought....


Malcolm wrote:
Certainly not as smart as you and all the perennialists out there. But being a Buddha, he does not have to be smart, merely totally awakened.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 8th, 2014 at 6:06 AM
Title: Re: Perspective
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
You do realize this analogy was first introduced by the Buddha?

dzogchungpa said:
Is that actually known for a fact?


Malcolm wrote:
Yes.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 8th, 2014 at 6:02 AM
Title: Re: Perspective
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
elephant perspectives 6.jpg


Malcolm wrote:
You do realize this analogy was first introduced by the Buddha?

gad rgyangs said:
he so smart! How come nobody listen to him?


Malcolm wrote:
I rather doubt he intended to included his own Dharma in the above description.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 8th, 2014 at 5:55 AM
Title: Re: Perspective
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
elephant perspectives 6.jpg


Malcolm wrote:
You do realize this analogy was first introduced by the Buddha?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 8th, 2014 at 4:25 AM
Title: Re: ChNNR Longevity Mon Lam
Content:
pemachophel said:
It's not Rinpoche's style to promote His shabten because He is a good Lama.


Malcolm wrote:
ChNN uses a generic one because it covers all one's gurus.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 8th, 2014 at 4:21 AM
Title: Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Thanks for the "clarification", "Malcolm".

Malcolm wrote:
I thought you understood that Kyle was my emanation...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 8th, 2014 at 4:05 AM
Title: Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
The is a direct reference to the Tathagatagarbha which is the Dharmakaya, and in Tathagatagarbha lititure the Dharmakaya is Not-Empty.

Malcolm wrote:
What the dharmakāya is not empty of is omniscience.

Son of Buddha said:
spoken like a true Shentongpa All of its qualities are simply qualities of omniscience, and that is all.
aye it is not empty of its qualities..........spoken like a true Shentongpa. The dharmakāya is unconditioned, it has neither form or shape, so those are the only qualities it could be said to possess. It has two aspects, the emptiness aspect and the luminous aspect. Understood in this way, one understands the real meaning of purity, bliss, self, and permanence.
are you trying to quote Ven Dolpopa?
It is pure because it is empty, it is bliss because it is free from suffering, it is "self" because omniscience transcends both self and non-self and it is permanent because it not subject to decay.
M
It is pure because it is empty(of all adventious defilements and conditions)
it is bliss because it is free from suffering
it is "self" because omniscience transcends both self and non-self(of the forders).....(just as Dolpopa's True Self is defined)
it is permanent because it not subject to decay.


Malcolm wrote:
It is not gzhan stong. Gzhan stong requires the convoluted misapplication of the three natures to the two truths. In other words, gzhan stong is at worst, a deformed Madhyamaka; at best it is a transitional view between false aspectarian Yogacara and Madhyamaka.

Nothing stated above is inconsistent with the definitive sutras of the second turning of the wheel. The Āryāṣṭasāhasrika-prajñāpāramitā:
Kauśika, given that is so, the Tathāgata is not named tathāgata because he attained his own physical body [ātmabhāvaśarīra], but it is because he attained omniscient wisdom that the Tathāgata is called the tathāgata.

Kauśika, whatever the omniscience of the tathāgata arhat samyakbuddha is, this comes from prajñāpāramitā. 

The attainment of the Tathāgatas own physical body arises from prajñāpāramitā and skill in means, and is the support for omniscient wisdom. Relying on such a support [as the prajñāpāramitā] will generate omniscient wisdom, and will also generate the body of a buddha, and will also generate the dharmakāya, and will also generate the sangha.
Thus if one wants to realize the dharmakāya and omniscience, one must rely on prajñāpāramitā.

Also here is a clear usage of "atman" which does not refer to the self, but rather is being used as a reflexive noun.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 8th, 2014 at 12:39 AM
Title: Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page
Content:


Son of Buddha said:
The is a direct reference to the Tathagatagarbha which is the Dharmakaya, and in Tathagatagarbha lititure the Dharmakaya is Not-Empty.

Malcolm wrote:
What the dharmakāya is not empty of is omniscience. All of its qualities are simply qualities of omniscience, and that is all. The dharmakāya is unconditioned, it has neither form or shape, so those are the only qualities it could be said to possess. It has two aspects, the emptiness aspect and the luminous aspect. Understood in this way, one understands the real meaning of purity, bliss, self, and permanence.

It is pure because it is empty, it is bliss because it is free from suffering, it is "self" because omniscience transcends both self and non-self and it is permanent because it not subject to decay.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 8th, 2014 at 12:35 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
The freedom to starve is hardly utopian, it is merely pragmatic, and it happens to many people all over the world in our present global capitalist economy. Frankly, the systematic eradication of subsistence farming has been one of the great challenges developing nations face, and one of the great mistakes they have made. It is also a mistake made in the US. The centralization of agriculture is very dangerous.

Sherlock said:
The eradication of nomadic pastoralism is an even greater mistake, one which is causing global desertification. If you seen Savory's presentation on using animal husbandry to fight desertification, his map of desertifying areas basically corresponds to where nomads have been forced in great numbers to leave their traditional way of life. Rather than a complicated top-down approach to organizing herds and so on, it's better to just let them carry on their traditional lifestyle.


Malcolm wrote:
Yes, I totally agree. properly managed cattle herds can actually restore soil and grassland much faster than "nature" can. There was a reason the sod in the Midwest was 8 feet deep — bison.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 8th, 2014 at 12:16 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Personally I am holding out for this:


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 7th, 2014 at 11:52 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
Sönam said:
If anarchy is understood as a non-system in harmony with "what is" (Libertarianism in a non political sense), it does not refere to any already experimented utopia (including capitalism). It is right that his efficiency would be much improved if human beings were aware of the three afflictions, nevertheless it's a "natural way of interfering", the nearest to the dharma. The main adage of libertarianism being: "My freedom stop where other's freedom start" ... would we really need something else to, all together, interfere?
As for capitalism, I may observe that you approach it with a pinch of utopia when you considere that: "... at least it is not authoritarian or totalitarian. Yes, you may be free to starve under this economic system, but at least you are free."
But we are not going to engage ourselves in a controversial discussion ... so I notice your present point of view.

Sönam


Malcolm wrote:
The freedom to starve is hardly utopian, it is merely pragmatic, and it happens to many people all over the world in our present global capitalist economy. Frankly, the systematic eradication of subsistence farming has been one of the great challenges developing nations face, and one of the great mistakes they have made. It is also a mistake made in the US. The centralization of agriculture is very dangerous.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 7th, 2014 at 11:47 PM
Title: Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
"Lord, the Tathagatagarbha is void(empty) of all the defilement-stores, which are discrete and knowing as not liberated.
"Lord, the Tathagatagarbha is not void(empty) of the Buddha dharmas which are nondiscrete, inconceivable, more numerous than the sands of the Ganges, and knowing as liberated.

Malcolm wrote:
This is merely a reference to dharmakāya. Of course, since dharmakāya is emptiness, as Nāgārjuna says, "for those whom emptiness possible, everything is possible..." When one directly knows emptiness, having become a Buddha, one knows everything, those are the buddha qualities being referred to.

The reason why only buddhas can see tathāgatagarbha is the same reason only buddhas can see the dharmakāya.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 7th, 2014 at 11:43 PM
Title: Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
The sutra even quotes old anatman(not self) teachings and explains them in the context of True Self.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, indeed, which is why is treated as a provisional text.

The Āryākṣayamatinirdeśa-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra sets out the criteria for a sūtra of definitive meaning:
Any sūtrānta which explains in a variety of different terms a self, a sentient being, a living being, a personality, a person, an individual, one born from a human, a human, an agent, an experiencer — teaching an owner in what is ownerless — those sutras are called "of provisional meaning". Any sūtrānta which teaches emptiness, the signless, the wishless, the unconditioned, the non-arisen, the unproduced, the insubstantial, the non-existence of self, the non-existence of sentient beings, the non-existence of living beings, the non-existence of individuals, the non-existence of an owner up to the doors of liberation, those are called "definitive meaning". This is taught in the sūtrāntas of of definitive meaning but is not taught in the sūtrāntas of the provisional meaning.
This is why the tathāgatagarbha doctrine can be either provisional or definitive depending on one's understanding and method of explication.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 7th, 2014 at 9:52 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:


Rickpa said:
If people are kind and ethical, anarchy would naturally work as well. In fact, nothing would be better. Are we kind and ethical at this time?

Sönam said:
Good point Rick-pa. Anarchy is certainly a non-organization in harmony with "what is" ... that we are not ready yet, as a civilization, does not mean we should not prepare for it now.

Sönam


Malcolm wrote:
Dear Sonam:

From a Buddhist point of view, all of these utopian visions require one thing in common, i.e., that all people are free from the three afflictions, or at least able to keep them in check. We presently live in the era of the five degenerations where afflictions are rampant. What are the five?

The degeneration of lifespan
The degeneration of the seasons (climate)
The degeneration of afflictions
The degeneration of view (i.e. increased reliance on materialism, like Marxism, anarcho-capitalism, etc.)
The degeneration of decline (declining health, intelligence, and so on)

For this reason I place no hope in any utopian schemes. The present economic system remains the one most accessible of improvement and tuning. Socialism, as envisioned by the 19th and early 20th century firebrands, has proven to be an utter failure. While capitalism is spiritually bereft as well, at least it is not authoritarian or totalitarian. Yes, you may be free to starve under this economic system, but at least you are free.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 7th, 2014 at 10:03 AM
Title: Re: Scotland becomes 17th country to approve same-sex marria
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Indian culture is very hygenic and civilized, actually. They suffer from overpopulation in the north. The squalid nature of India has many causes, mostly colonial.

Indrajala said:
Didn't you say...
And Indian cities, by and large, are dirty, dangerous and squalid, and always have been. It is their culture. Not ours. We can visit and enjoy it or hate it, but it is not our business to tell them what to do or how to run their country.
This is contradictory.


Malcolm wrote:
Not really. Until quite recently Indian culture was largely rural, not urbanized. The problems with overcrowding in the cities in India is a result of people leaving the land. And this has largely happened in the past 40 years. Nevertheless, Indian cities have been squalid, dense and overpopulated for centuries leading to the kinds of urban problems you perceive now.

On the other hand, Indian culture has a well established customs of hygene, that many follow very rigorously. But I have to confess, most of my experience in India is in the south. I have spent very little time in the North.

Of course, Chinese cities are just as filthy and just as dangerous. I have been to many of them, and find them to be no improvement over Indian cities. In Chinese cities you see many people dead drunk in the middle of the day, staggering around like idiots, the drinking there is appalling, not to mention the fact that everyone smokes like fiends. The country side is absolutely polluted with industrial waste, and it goes on and on.

Japanese cities, it is true, are generally quite clean, but for example, when I visited Kyoto in 1986, I was appalled at the amount of garbage there was in the woods, despite the fact that the areas where people live are neat and tidy. Also, universally, the toilets were often noisome pits rivaling some toilets I have seen in both China and India.


