rex

I remember one teacher on being asked if students could recite a particular practice in English replying 'Yes', but when it came to the mantras and even certain prayers saying 'No' since they were the words of an enlightened teacher and there was 'magic' in them.

People of good will may like to check out this simple practice that unites the Earth's Fire with Stellar Fire for the the greater good: Keepers of the Planetary Flame You don't have to register if you don't want to.

[deleted]

This may be total bollocks but here goes... A phenomenon is an imputation of mind. The act of imputation itself is also a phenomenon, as is mind imputing its own self-aware existence through recognising its ability for cognition. The act of non-imputation is also a phenomenon though whether this is from dullness and a lack of acuity or through some other state is another matter entirely. It basically comes down to the mind being the universal ordering principle and the philosophy comes in when trying to account for what is beyond mind - assuming that this is seen as an important question.

You're welcome

The Phur-Pa, Tibetan Rituals Daggers [Couldn't get this to embed like You Tube videos]

To escape false imprisonment? If you're a miscreant you can walk through bank vaults at night - don't know if the swag could be taken back through a wall with you. Seriously though, if you could walk through walls it would show a high degree realisation over physical reality. It would perhaps be a by-product or more higher aspirations and trainings as training just for that would be a waste.

to be is to know do be do be do be do rotating spindle

where did they go then? conditions unmanifest for seed to blossom

Maybe in Sutra but Vajrayana has samaya and practice committments.

I do them when walking.

There are stories of some tulkus being given learning tasks that would be impossible for ordinary people, like learning an entire text in an afternoon. Of course since they might have written the text in a previous lifetime or expounded on it in great detail its no problem.

Thanks Hari, your post leaves me much to ponder, clarify and research.

Isn't there something to attain though? The essence of enlightenment? As one refuge verse starts, "From now until I attain the essence of enlightenment ...". There's also an aspiration prayer that ends with the wish for beings of the six realms to "Attain all together the ground of primordial perfection." So there seems to be a subtle but crucial difference in attaining something as opposed to becoming something? Can this 'ground of primordial perfection' ever be satisfactorily described without the describer's tradition claiming sole access to it? Later Edit: replaced 'defined' with 'described' in the last and largely rhetorical question.

In the spirit of finding similarities that transcend differences it is said that if a path has the "Four Seals of Dharma", then that path can also be considered Buddhist irrespective of whether it calls itself Buddhist or even recognised by other Buddhists as such. The four seals are: 1) All compounded things are impermanent 2) All emotions are painful 3) All phenomena are empty i.e without inherent existence 4) The peace of Nirvana Is Brahman " ... primordial and unborn awareness, empty in essence and radiant by nature, whose energy is all-pervading"? If so, then that's another step for finding similarities as this is one description of the nature of mind in Dzogchen. This is an excellent thread. Thanks to Dwai for kicking it off and thanks also to xabir2005, mikaelz, Vajrahridaya for their detailed contributions. I'm certainly the better informed for it but not necessarily any the wiser - no reflection on you guys though. Edited for calrity & typos ...

There is also the possibility that the 'emptiness of other' Shentong view of buddha nature is identical to Brahman. Thanks for these, I'm sure they'll help me further appreciate the inherent wisdom and beauty of your tradition and the parallels with my own. Yes, clearly retribution was delightlfully swift and threefold for you. Cock-sure e-sangha debating style has no place in comparative debates and it is regrettable that our traditions were both subject to sniping arising - in part - from misunderstandings relating to debating style. Edited for typos ...

A very pointed post Gold and one in which my wife would heartly agree. If the discussion is motivated by axe grinding from the outset then I'm inclined to agree with you as well. If all parties are genuinely interested and there's a spirit of mutual respect and sharing then the spirit of your post would be hardened and cynical instead of realistic. However Xabir and Mikaelz think that people are worth it and quote. Quotes and citations don't have to be lengthy, they can be one line summaries - Mr X says bla bla in reference Y- and interested folks can check them fully later. Come to think of it there doesn't have to be a reference really, just a name and a pithy summary. Quotes and citations can even be cut and paste jobs or weblinks so it's not that onerous really to backup opinion and conjecture with supporting information. I see no value in uniformed debate. Good infomation, dodgey information - it's all grist to the mill.

SiliconValley, Ok some young Buddhist upstarts had the temerity to over zealously but sincerely apply Buddhist concepts to refute a claim that two traditions were the same. It was hardly unsolicited and alot of referenced information was offered to support their case. Can you offer any referenced sources to counter their refutation that doesn't descend into subtle sniping and ridicule?

For what its worth I think the Buddhist Shentong view and Advaita Vedanta are similar. For those with the patience and interest then there's this interesting blog that summarises a lot of issues: Dzogchen, Madhyamika, Shentong & Rigpa edited for typos.

Thanks Dwai, very clear - all the best.

After reading this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advaita_Vedanta - I can see where Dwai is coming from (assuming of course that there's no sophistry or ulterior motive involved). From my blunt knowledge of Buddhism and even scanter (read non-existent) knowledge of Advaita Vedanta there appear to be many parallels where differences lie in terminology rather than meaning. Thanks Dwai, I'm now spurred on to seek a more sophisticated understanding of Buddhism that will only be enriched by checking out Advaita Vedanta

Excellent stuff and the middle way between hardline Rangtongpas and Shentongpas. You're in good company as this was/is the approach of some eminent Buddhist teachers too. I wasn't having a go at you or even the Buddhist position but highlighting the difficulty of using language to express something that can never be directly expressed in words. Parodox arises and it could seem that one view of permanence is being refuted, only to be replaced by another permanence that the refuter doesn't see as a permanence but others do, so the debate goes on in iterative circles. Indeed, though I do have faith in my Buddhist masters' methods. Exactly! Some Buddhist logic can seem abtruse and impenetrable without philosophical training and meditative realisation - hence the emphasis on view. Aspects like impermanence and the folly of trying to find lasting happiness through the ephermeral seem to be universally recognised and not particularly unique to Buddhism.

Goodness this is a wordy debate and I can hardly fathom what anyone is saying. Confusion and paradox arise when trying to describe the ineffable, especially when apparently mutually exclusive terms as emptiness and 'ever-present nature' are used to state the Buddhist position. A Buddhist 'ever-present nature' naturally invites the sort of comparison that Dwai seeks. This issue of emptiness and ever-present nature has never been resolved in Tibetan Buddhism and is known as the Shentong/Rangtong debate. The Shentong madhyamika's state that the clear light nature of mind is not empty of its own nature while the Rangtong madhyamikas hold that the clear light nature of mind is empty. This is reflected in intereptations of Buddha's three turnings of the wheel of dharma. The Rangtong postion holds that the second turning of the wheel of dharma - on emptiness - constitutes the definitive statement on reality while the Shengtong position holds that the second turning is provisional and that the third turning of the wheel - on buddha nature - is definitive. You pay your money and you make your choice.

Buddhists don't agree amongst themselves what the Buddhist ultimate reality is. Would a 'yes' answer be used to celebrate, acknowledge and accept the similarities of and differences between tradtions or would it be used to show one particular tradition in a better light than the other?