Simple_Jack

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=14002&start=40: Malcolm: Hence the detailed and pointed instructions in Vajrayāna texts about taking extreme care in choosing one's guru; the kind of guru to avoid, and the pitfalls of picking a bad one.... ....as you know, the guru considered the primary refuge in Vajrayāna because that is the person from whom one receives both the ripening empowerments, and more importantly, the liberating instructions.

::Shrugs:: That's for you to decide.

I'm just commenting from the perspective of the average Westerner.

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=77&t=14785&start=60: jeeprs wrote: So, as I said, what is a better translation for 'Bodhicitta' than 'Compassion'? Malcolm wrote: In the Mahāyāna context, "the intent to awaken". jeeprs wrote: I think it is perfectly sound to translate bodhicitta as 'compassion'. It is often translated that way. Macolm wrote: It is a) unsound and no one translates bodhicitta as compassion (karuna). Why is it unsound? Every person who has bodhicitta has compassion, but not every person who has compassion also has bodhicitta. Malcolm wrote: ... because while the term bodhicitta is only defined in Mahāyāna, there are different grades of bodhicitta, the intent to awaken as an arhat, and so on. It is only the intent to awaken as a buddha for the benefit of all sentient beings that we describe as the true Mahāyāna bodhicitta, but there are in fact different intents to awaken, not all of which spring from compassion. The āryapañcaviṃśatisāhasrikāprajñāpāramitopadeśaśāstrābhisamayālaṃkāravṛtti states, for example: "The bodhisattva mahāsattva who wishes to overwhelm the cittopāda of the pratyekabuddha (who rejoices in patience) trains in the perfection of wisdom". The term "generation of bodhicitta" is a gloss for the term cittopāda, "generation of the intent". Intent for what? Intent for one of the three kinds of awakening, i.e., arhat, pratyekabuddha, or samyaksambuddha. There are many examples like this in the literature of the Abhisamayālaṃkāra which extensively discusses the differences in the creation of the various "intents" to awaken... ...All three, arhats, pratyekabuddhas and buddhas arises from an intent to awaken [bodhicitta]. Much of Mahāyāna polemical discourse around this is to make sure that Bodhisattvas do not fall into the bodhicitta of an arhat or pratyekabuddha. All three attain bodhi, therefore, it is a misconception to say that those who aspire to arhatship and pratyekabuddhahood have no bodhicitta, but it must be recognized that these bodhicittas are considered inferior bodhicittas.

Maybe you should consider sticking with Abrahamic religions instead of reconciling the differences. It's the distrust with Tibetan feudalistic power structures which are reminiscent of the Vatican Church

Find out for yourself.

The you really need to find a teacher in your chosen tradition, whatever that tradition is, then receive and rely on his or her instructions from the beginning, middle and end.

Then, I'm sorry to say, you need to read up on what Vedanta teaches. If you're still unable to discern the differences between buddhadharma and hindudharma you really need to find a teacher.

Starting from Hinayana, this is a way an individual can distinguish correct view: http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=14626&start=80 Lotus_Bitch wrote: Go tell an Advaitan that cit is conditioned by certain factors of mentality (nama) and materiality (rupa), dependent on contact to give rise to the 6 sense media and to practice by being mindful of the arising and passing of each. You will either get a confused look, be laughed at or both. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.002.than.html "And what is name-&-form? Feeling, perception, intention, contact, & attention: This is called name. The four great elements, and the form dependent on the four great elements: This is called form. This name & this form are called name-&-form." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.067.than.html "Very well then, Kotthita my friend, I will give you an analogy; for there are cases where it is through the use of an analogy that intelligent people can understand the meaning of what is being said. It is as if two sheaves of reeds were to stand leaning against one another. In the same way, from name-&-form as a requisite condition comes consciousness, from consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form. From name & form as a requisite condition come the six sense media. From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of suffering & stress. "If one were to pull away one of those sheaves of reeds, the other would fall; if one were to pull away the other, the first one would fall. In the same way, from the cessation of name-&-form comes the cessation of consciousness, from the cessation of consciousness comes the cessation of name-&-form. From the cessation of name-&-form comes the cessation of the six sense media. From the cessation of the six sense media comes the cessation of contact. From the cessation of contact comes the cessation of feeling. From the cessation of feeling comes the cessation of craving. From the cessation of craving comes the cessation of clinging/sustenance. From the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming. From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. From the cessation of birth, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of suffering & stress."

Even in Dzogchen, as indicated by Loppon Malcolm and a senior student of ChNN, views of different tenet systems are distinguished: http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=14626&start=40 Malcolm: Dzogchen is predicated on dependent origination and emptiness, Advaita refutes both dependent origination and emptiness. The difference, as always, is view. If you confine your notion of liberation to controlling afflictions, there there is no difference at all between all the various ethical systems which recommend self-control in conjunction with contemplative quietude. The question here is whether or not the cessation of rebirth is effected by seeing dependent origination or by seeing an ontological totality. Take your pick and run with it. But you cannot pick both because they are mutually exclusive views. One of the key points of the Dzogchen tradition is understanding all these different tīrthika [samsaric] and bauddha [nirvanic] tenet systems. ... asunthatneversets wrote: By 'the mind which seeks to reject views' I meant a mind which deprecates the idea of views altogether and therefore would attempt to abstain from expressing views. For instance; saying that one should refrain from critiquing Vedanta because it entails lapsing into views, is still promoting a view. Much like the idea of abandoning 'acceptance and rejection' itself entails rejection (and acceptance). That was my only point; the mind can't escape views, and so the idea of the mind rejecting involvement with critiquing Advaita (in the name of preventing a lapse into views), is itself a lapse into views. So in the context of views, you're damned if you do (critique) and damned if you don't. Only the nature of mind [sems nyid] is free from views and afflictive proliferation, the mind [sems] IS views and afflictive proliferation. There's no sense in trying to curb afflictive fixation and proliferation with the very instrument (the mind) of fixation and afflictive proliferation. Further, since these issues are resolved by recognizing the nature of mind, the transcendence of views is revealed experientially via that direct insight, and does not come about by rejecting critique or views. I get that there is value in being mindful of not getting lost in the thicket of views, but if we're aware of that, and understand our situation then (in my opinion) it's okay to explore these differences. Doing so can actually aid in refining our path and creating advantageous (relative) discernment. In Dzogchen this discernment is called bsam rig, and there is value in cultivating that discrimination, even on a relative level with separating and defining tenet systems and traditions. Here, Jean-Luc Achard* defines bsam rig: "bsam-rig [knowing discernment] which is the knowledge you generate when you study and get experiences of the teachings (it is a fluctuating phenomenon according to the capacities of the individual; the more you study correctly, the more your knowing discernment is developed)" *A longtime Bonpo Dzogchenpa who has translated many original Tibetan Dzogchen texts into French; one of his main teachers is Loppon Tenzin Namdak.

If someone is unable to achieve liberation in this life, plan "B" would be liberation in the bardo. If they can't manage that, plan "C" would be liberation in a nirmanakaya buddhafield.

Of course! How does an individual proceed to find out for oneself? By practicing within the context of buddhadharma.

No, no, no, this is the framework for the Advaitan or Kashimiri Shaivist view. Gautama Buddha clearly delineates insight into anatta here: http://measurelessmind.ca/anattasanna.html Kalakarama Sutta: "Thus, monks, the Tathāgata does not conceive an [object] seen when seeing what is to be seen. He does not conceive an unseen. He does not conceive a to-be-seen. He does not conceive a seer. He does not conceive an [object] heard when hearing what is to be heard. He does not conceive an unheard. He does not conceive a to-be-heard. He does not conceive a hearer. He does not conceive an [object] sensed when sensing what is to be sensed. He does not conceive an unsensed. He does not conceive a to-be-sensed. He does not conceive a senser. He does not conceive an [object] known when knowing what is to be known. He does not conceive an unknown. He does not conceive a to-be-known. He does not conceive a knower."

Eh, different cultural standards. Polyandry still occurs in and around the Himalayas.

In the cases of Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche, Dudjom Rinpoche and many other Tibetans throughout history: it was all along their development (from a certain age) that they had one or more consorts as their wife.

@ Hundun Has this experience become stabilized? From this "not sure if i would find this description credible if i wasn't immersed in the truth of it even as i type these words", it sounds like it isn't just periodically experienced when meditating or whatever, but is an immersion in your entire being in the midst of activity. Needless to say, the Vedanta teachings, especially from modern Advaita Vedanta teachers such as Nisargadatta Maharaj and Ramana Maharshi, would be really helpful to you at this point in time.

There actually isn't any canonical source from which all other canons were based off of: they were put down to writing at different time periods and locations, but the theme is consistent throughout early Buddhism and Mahayana. The exception to this is the later Tathagatagarbha sutras, but even within that class, the Lankavatara Sutra explicitly states that these were taught for beings who feared the teachings on selflessness.

"The Sutra of Complete Enlightenment" has a chapter which addresses deviations of practice into wrong views of naturalism a la neo-advaita and pop-zen.

Which comes after receiving direct introduction from the aforementioned qualified guru.

Sure, which is predicated off of relying, first and foremost, on the instructions from a qualified guru. This is an indispensable aspect of the Vajrayana path.

That's fine, just don't allow perennialism to color your perception of buddhadharma.

Just for clarification, this is extremely simplified, the bare minimum in summarizing the approach of the Gelugpa yogi based off of how Tsongkhapa formulates conventional and ultimate levels of emptiness. Understanding this in depth, would (preferably) require receiving explanation from a Geshe and having been initiated into highest yoga tantra/completion stage practices (the formulation of Gelug Mahamudra differs in some ways also).

Which confirms my suspicions of perennialist views: http://www.religioperennis.org/documents/Fabbri/Perennialism.pdf "...They claim that the historically separated traditions share not only the same divine origin but are based on the same metaphysical principles, sometimes called philosophia perennis."

I think that this is relevant to discussions on Dzogchen: http://www.vajracakra.com/viewtopic.php?f=57&t=1086&start=600 Malcolm: Most of the misconceptions about Dzogchen that people have comes about from making philosophical commitments to translations. You must understand that at this point the translation of seminal texts are in a very embryonic state. At this point it, those of you who do not know Tibetan should reply more on oral instructions than on texts, in my opinion. I am not saying "do not read translations". I am saying that you must understand that translations are very provisional at best at this stage of the game when it comes to Dzogchen. The ground is firmer in terms of sutra and tantra. But what I mostly wanted to address is the idea that merely because one has cited some translations, that one's point is well-backed up. It isn't. If one's citation is not well translated, one's point will be skewed.

Oh and the reason why I was confrontational towards 9th was because, based off of past encounters on TTB's, my impression was that he's a perennialist: http://www.religioperennis.org/documents/Fabbri/Perennialism.pdf "...They claim that the historically separated traditions share not only the same divine origin but are based on the same metaphysical principles, sometimes called philosophia perennis." Yeah, harsh speech/sarcasm are ingrained habits which I still need to work on. It's also my fault for forgetting that a lot of people on internet forums lose their shit at the drop of a dime...which in instances such as this, was a cause of my confrontational behavior.