Simple_Jack

Sometimes people just need to be corrected when they're wrong on the internet.

Full list of criteria concerned with speech: http://www.fakebuddhaquotes.com/if-you-propose-to-speak-always-ask-yourself-is-it-true-is-it-necessary-is-it-kind/

It is truthful, it's only necessary to point this out because TI doesn't have a guru, and it is not unkind; the above posts do not qualify as "wrong speech".

The above applies to Bon Dzogchen in verbatim.

The body of light (not the physical signs at death) is just the wisdoms, kayas, omniscience of a samyaksambuddha; read "The Practice of Dzogchen". There's a difference between Dzogchen and the Dzogchenpa. If someone were to dispense with refuge, bodhicitta, and dedication of merit: they are no longer practicing Dzogchen.

Also, if a person does not go for refuge, cultivates bodhicitta, and dedicates one's merit, that person is not practicing Dzogchen.

Dzogchen is buddhadharma, as well as Bon, the reason being the result of their paths is buddhahood.

To truly understand the above, in the context of buddhadharma, would require studying Vasubhandu's abhidharmakoshabhasyam (available in PDF format on the net), in order to contextualize the refutations of realism (Buddhist definition) in Madhyamaka. All Buddhist and non-Buddhist tenet systems, below Madhyamaka, are realist (Buddhist definition). See this link here for a summary: http://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Two_extremes

Guys, it's much simpler than that, GIH is a realist (Buddhist definition) because he advocates the primacy of "subjectivity" or "Mind". A realist (Buddhist definition) is: "Someone who thinks there are real substances, atoms, time, minds, etc." -- Loppon Namdrol. Eternalism and nihilism, being two sides of the same coin (i.e. positing an existent entity), are subsumed under realism.

GIH, obviously, I don't have a problem with labeling peoples philosophical inclinations. Buddhadharma, has an even simpler way of partitioning the variety of views into "one-liners": eternalist, nihilist, and realist (Buddhist definition). If you have a problem with that take it up with the Buddha. As far as I can see, everyone who engages in discussion within the Buddhist sub-forum already has a sense of free rein in stating whatever they want without care; what distinguishes my posts the majority of the time, is that I prefer to present information from reliable sources (e.g. Loppon Namdrol), concerning Buddhist tenet systems and praxis. This cuts down on unnecessary proliferation.

The primacy of the Pali canon, as well as its representative status as "authentic Buddhism", is overblown when considering the Chinese agamas consists of translations from the older Ghandaran texts; Buddha's message is consistent between canons despite the geographical/chronological divide between them. See this thread for more info: http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=41&t=4767 IMO, labeling a person's philosophical position, is useful in indicating where someone's view starts to diverge from the buddhadharma. Because, no one responding in the Buddhist sub-forum are familiar enough with Buddhist tenet systems to share an informed presentation, opinion or critique, of its tenets. Plus, he's a reliable source for buddhadharma, having received his title of Loppon (Skt. Acharya) from his years spent with the Sakyapa's. He can also proficiently read/translate Sanskrit and Tibetan texts. Everyone benefits by reading his posts. He merely felt it wasn't appropriate to include a quote of Ramana's in the translation of the Mejung Tantra. Although, I can see how this can be construed as an insult or an attack on Ramana's teachings from certain parties. It doesn't come close to any remarks regarding Buddhism stated by you, ralis, gatito, GrandmasterP, TI, etc., on TTB's. If you care to, you can read this thread started by TI, with a link to Loppon-la's aforementioned comments: http://thetaobums.com/topic/31912-ramana-quote-does-not-belong-in-cn-norbus-latest-book/

This has already been discussed in this thread: http://thetaobums.com/topic/34157-what-can-be-done-to-stop-buddhist-discussion-turning-to-flame/ Posting Buddhism is bad, mmmkay.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.033.than.html Just as when seeds are not broken, not rotten, not damaged by wind & heat, capable of sprouting, well-buried, planted in well-prepared soil, and the rain-god would offer good streams of rain. Those seeds would thus come to growth, increase, & abundance. In the same way, any action performed with greed ... performed with aversion ... performed with delusion — born of delusion, caused by delusion, originating from delusion: wherever one's selfhood turns up, there that action will ripen. Where that action ripens, there one will experience its fruit, either in this very life that has arisen or further along in the sequence. ... ...No conditioned series has an origin. Such is the logic of the Buddha. Consciousness is an aggregate, and conventionally speaking, is momentary. There is no such a thing as a permanent consciousness. Ergo, there is a stream of moments of mind appropriated by the delusion of self-identity, but there is no consciousness, no entity at all that transmigrates per se. The continuum of rebirth is maintained solely by a delusion that appropriates the five aggregates, matter, sensation, perception, formations, and consciousness as a self. The Buddha established that the five aggregates were not a self, that none of the five aggregates individually are a self, and importantly, that there is no self apart from the five aggregates. Thus, all phenomena, including nirvana, are not self. There is no entity "dependent arising", there are only phenomena that arise in dependence. Space, the two cessations and emptiness do not arise at all, so they are by definition phenomena that do not arise in dependence. Of course, this does not mean that they are not relative, for both conditioned and unconditioned phenomena are relative. Since both conditioned and unconditioned phenomena are relative, their relationship is strictly a matter of definition. As for dependently origination phenomena being unconditioned, the Prajñāpāramita states "Whatever arises in dependence, that in truth does not arise". The argument can be made that even so called dependently originated phenomena are unconditioned in reality, since their production cannot be ascertained at all when subjected to ultimate analysis. Again in this respect there is no contradiction between a conventionally conditioned entity having a conventionally unconditioned nature since in reality both are merely conventions. While the former bears the latter as its nature, in reality neither the former nor the latter can stand up to ultimate analysis. In other words there are no phenomena at all that can stand up to ultimate analysis. Āryāṣṭasāhasrikāprajñāpāramitāpañjikāsārottamā: All phenomena do not arise, that is the non-existence of the inherent existence of all phenomena, therefore, that absence of arising is like the horns of a rabbit. ~ Loppon Namdrol

http://thetaobums.com/topic/33574-substance-dualism-in-buddhadharma/?p=533221 ... 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.... Omniscience is the content of a mind freed of afflictions. Even the continuum of a Buddha has a relative ground, i.e. the rosary or string of moments of clarity is beginningless. 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."... Cognitions arise based on previous cognitions. That's all. If you suggest anything other than this, you wind up in Hindu La la land.... ~ Loppon Namdrol

http://thetaobums.com/topic/33466-innate-purity-of-phenomena/?p=518225 Indeed, from the perspective of Madhyamaka a thing and its nature are identical. This is not so for those in lower schools. To elaborate, conditions are merely an appearance. The notion of conditioned and unconditioned arises out of the substantialist roots of the substantialist tenet systems. By showing that the essence of phenomena is unconditioned, you are essentially showing that phenomena are in truth unconditioned. This is why the Prajñāpāramita makes statements like: Any teaching by the Bhagavan that matter lacks inherent existence, does not arise, does not cease, is peace from the beginning and is parinirvana by nature, all such teachings are not the indirect meaning, nor the intentional meaning, but must be understood literally. (Ārya-pañcaśatikā-prajñāpāramitā) ~ Loppon Namdrol

In fact, nirvana is considered an extreme in Mahayana, which is why the bodhi of arhats and pratyekabuddhas is considered a non-afflictive ignorance: http://thetaobums.com/topic/33466-innate-purity-of-phenomena/?p=519163 "Nirvāṇa is an illusion. Even if there is anything greater than Nirvāṇa, that too will be only an illusion." ~ Aṣṭasāhasrikāprajñapāramitā Sutra http://thetaobums.com/topic/33466-innate-purity-of-phenomena/?p=531522 "In the country of Benares at Rsipatana in the Deer Park, the World-honored One first turned the wheel of doctrine, [teaching] the four holy truths for those setting out in the word-hearers' vehicle. This turning of the wheel was marvelous and wonderful, such as nobody, whether gods or men, had been able to turn in the world before. Nevertheless there were superior teachings, for [this first turning] had to be interpreted and occasioned controversy. Then the World-honored One with an underlying intent turned the wheel for the second time for the sake of those setting out in the great vehicle, [teaching] that all things have no-essence, no arising, and no passing away, are originally quiescent, and are essentially in cessation. This turning of the wheel was marvelous and wonderful indeed. Nevertheless there were teachings superior to this, for it also had to be interpreted and occasioned controversy. The World-honored One then with an explicit meaning for the third time turned the wheel of doctrine for those setting out in all the vehicles, [teaching] that all things have no-essence, no arising, and no passing away, are originally quiescent, and are essentially in cessation. This turning was the most marvelous and wonderful that had ever occurred in the world. It had no superior nor did it contain any implicit meaning nor occasion any controversy." (Samdhinirmocana Sutra, ch 5, p 49; tr. Keenan, BDK edition) [<--- foundational sutra of Yogacara] "Good son, the term 'unconditioned' is also a word provisionally invented by the First Teacher. Now, if the First Teacher provisionally invented this word, then it is a verbal expression apprehended by imagination. And, if it is a verbal expression apprehended by imagination, then, in the final analysis, such an imagined description does not validate a real thing. Therefore, the unconditioned does not exist." (Samdhinirmocana Sutra, ch 2, p 12)

Nibbana is just the cessation of ignorance, aggression, craving: this is the salient point of Hinayana. Anatta/anatman being translated as "no-self" or "not-self" is a translation issue. A more important point of focus is the relation of this concept with the other two of Buddha's teachings on the 3 seals i.e. anicca and dukkha. As a follower of Mahayana: I don't consider the shravakayana canon as definitive.

IMHO, discussions of Buddhist tenet systems on internet forums should rely on reliable or authoritative sources; Buddhist sutras, commentaries, etc. fit that description. This cuts down on unnecessary proliferation...which is why I favor quoting Loppon Namdrol. Please see these posts: http://thetaobums.com/topic/33273-prajna-is-3-fold/?p=512655 http://thetaobums.com/topic/33273-prajna-is-3-fold/?p=563751 It's mostly a case of translation issues ("not-self" vis a vis "no-self"). IMO, the discourse to Vacchagotta can hardly be classified as a definitive sutta, but definitely provisional, due to his confusion which prompted that discourse.

The "Ratnakutasutra" [http://books.google.com/books?id=n7HabuPxdLMC&source=gbs_navlinks_s] which consists of the "Triskandhadharmasutra" ("Sutra of the Three Heaps") that informs an integral practice of all Mahayana traditions: confession of ethical downfalls to abate karmic obstructions in one's mindstream -- http://www.mstcdharma.org/Microsoft%20Word%20-%20confession%20to%20thirty%20five%20Buddhas.pdf. Chinese Buddhism adds 53 buddhas from another sutra -- http://middleland.org/services/88-buddhas-repentance-ceremony/. http://kongmu.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/eighty-eight-buddhas-repentance.pdf -- From this webpage describing the aim of the 88 buddhas repentance practice: http://kongmu.wordpress.com/2011/10/09/88-buddhas/ Interesting suttas providing context to practices of giving offerings to hungry ghosts/ancestors: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an10/an10.177.than.html http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/pv/pv.1.05.than.html http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.31.0.ksw0.html - Buddha's advice to Sigalaka on layperson's code of discipline.

The Buddha was accused of propounding this position: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nyanaponika/wheel048.html 37. "So teaching, so proclaiming, O monks, I have been baselessly, vainly, falsely and wrongly accused by some ascetics and brahmans: 'A nihilist[38] is the ascetic Gotama; He teaches the annihilation, the destruction, the non-being of an existing individual.'[39] "As I am not as I do not teach, so have I been baselessly, vainly, falsely and wrongly accused by some ascetics and brahmans thus: 'A nihilist is the ascetic Gotama; He teaches the annihilation, the destruction, the non-being of an existing individual.' "What I teach now as before, O monks, is suffering and the cessation of suffering

He's referring to the 12 nidanas; dependent origination = anicca --> dukkha --> anatta = 12 nidanas.

Let's see what Greg Goode has to say nowadays: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2014/08/greg-goode-on-advaitamadhyamika.html Dr. Greg Goode wrote in Emptything: It looks your Bahiya Sutta experience helped you see awareness in a different way, more .... empty. You had a background in a view that saw awareness as more inherent or essential or substantive? I had an experience like this too. I was reading a sloka in Nagarjuna's treatise about the "prior entity," and I had been meditating on "emptiness is form" intensely for a year. These two threads came together in a big flash. In a flash, I grokked the emptiness of awareness as per Madhyamika. This realization is quite different from the Advaitic oneness-style realization. It carries one out to the "ten-thousand things" in a wonderful, light and free and kaleidoscopic, playful insubstantial clarity and immediacy. No veils, no holding back. No substance or essence anywhere, but love and directness and intimacy everywhere... ........ Stian, cool, get into that strangeness! There is a certain innocent, not-knowing quality to strangeness that counteracts the rush to certainty, the need to arrive, to land. I still don't get your "no compromise" point. Can you rephrase it, but without the words "between" or "compromise"? Anything can be denied. And is. There is one prominent Advaita teacher that I like who likes to say "You can't deny that you are the awareness that is hearing these words right now." This kind of gapless continuity, so prized in Advaita, is readily denied in other approaches to experience: you. can't. deny. that. you. are. the. awareness. hearing. these. words. right. now. I remember feeling during one retreat, just how many ways that this could be denied. From a different model of time and experience, there are gaps and fissures all over the place, even in that sentence (hence. the. dots). Each moment is divided within itself, carrying traces of past and future (retention and protention). The first "you"-moment and the second "you"-moment are not necessarily experienced by the same entity. Each "I" is different. Entitification itself is felt as autoimmune, as divided within itself, and any "gaplessness" is nothing more than a paste-job. Not saying one of these is right and the other wrong. Just pointing out how something so undeniable can readily be denied! ...... Emptiness group: Awareness and Emptiness. Many people, myself at times as well, have thought that Advaitic, atman-style awareness and emptiness are the same thing. When I began to study Nagarjuna, I was reading through a lens colored by the Advaita teachings. You know how they go, Awareness is the Self and very nature of me. The psychophysical components are certainly not me. I remain the same through the coming and going and changing of the components. At that time, I had had trouble understanding 50% of the key line in the Heart Sutra, "Form is emptiness and emptiness is form." I got the "form is emptiness" part. But I couldn't grok the "emptiness is form" part. Thinking that Advaitic Awareness=emptiness, I was used to thinking that Awareness IS, whether universes arise or not. How can Awareness equal its contents? And if it did, why even call it global Awareness? The contents could speak for themselves," I was thinking. Also, many Advaitic-style teachings proceed by refuting the phenomena (thoughts, feelings and sensations) but retaining THAT to which they arise. That was the type of teaching I was used to, and it colored my approach to Madhyamika. So it was very easy to read the Buddhist notion of "emptiness" in this same way. But it began to get a little puzzling. In my readings of Prasangika Madhyamika (which never mentions a global awareness), they never say that anywhere that emptiness=awareness. Nevertheless, I was supplying this equivalence for myself, making the mental substitution of one highest path's highest term with another's. As I continued, there seem less and less evidence that Madhyamika was doing this, but I didn't encounter anything that knocked the idea away. It got more and more puzzling for me. And then one day I read this from Nagarjuna's Mūlamadhyamakakārikā. Sloka IX:4, about the "prior entity," or a subject or owner or substrate for what is seen and heard. (translations from the Garfield edition). "If it can abide Without the seen, etc., Then, without a doubt, They can abide without it." Then it dawned on me! The independence (and hence the dependence) that Buddhism is talking about is two-way, not just one-way. If A is logically independent from B, then B is logically independent from A. If you can have a self that doesn't depend on things seen, then you can have things seen that do not depend on a self. So, for Nagarjuna, can you really have a self that is truly bilaterally independent from what is seen? No, because of his next sloka, IX:10: "Someone is disclosed by something. Something is disclosed by someone. Without something how can someone exist? Without someone how can something exist?" With these two verses, I finally understood the two-way dependence that Buddhism was talking about. And both halves of that important line in the Heart Sutra finally made sense!!