Simple_Jack

Menstrual blood for women.

I'm just going by how this is presented in the Prajnaparamita literature. Ultimate bodhicitta is the wisdom that comprehends all phenomena as free from extremes i.e. non-arising. This is what bodhisattvas on the path of seeing realize and become increasingly familiarized with on the path of meditation. This is actually a Lam Rim text, sorry for the mix up. This is still a good resource though.

Yeah, pick whatever one you like, there's translated commentaries out there from the Sakyapas, Nyingmapas, Kagyupas and Gelugpas.

It's neither, being that it's free from all extremes, since ultimate bodhicitta is 'unconditioned.'

Uh huh, just like how yours are derived from clinging to signs and characteristics i.e. conceptual elaborations.

I have a feeling that this is viewed within a Vedanta framework. The Dalai Lama follows Tsongkhapa's presentation verbatim: which is why I think you would, figuratively speaking, shit a brick if you learned more in depth about the Gelugpa sects position on relative and ultimate levels of emptiness.

Read Maitreya's Abhisamayalankara aka. "Ornament of Clear Realization" w/ commentary.

Reposting this, from the "internet Buddhist" Loppon Namdrol, on TTB's: Whoever is attached to a result for this life, is not a Dharma person. The purpose of Dharma is liberation, not feeling better in this life. The purpose of Dharma is not the cultivation of mundane compassion, and so on. The purpose of Dharma is to control afflictions, then overcome them, and finally, to attain a state of total omniscience and freedom. ... Real bodhicitta comes from realizing your nature. The rest is just contrived bullshit conceptual bodhicitta that is of no use at all. ... None. Completely inauthentic and not connected at all to sentient beings real situation, which is that they are suffering because they do not know their own nature. All the contrived conceptual wishful thinking about how nice it would be to save sentient beings does not help them, or oneself, even one little bit. I am not saying "don't be nice to people" -- of course one should be nice. But one shouldn't paint being decent with religious fantasies. ... Uncontrived bodhicitta is based on one's personal experience of the nature of the mind, and from that stems limitless compassion for others. What I am saying is that intellectually cultivated bodhicitta is next to useless. ... Basically, intellectually contrived bodhicitta is just a facsimile, since it does not have actual compassion as its basis... we are not talking about mind training -- at least I am not. I am talking about fake bodhicitta. It is better for people to admit that they don't want to attain buddhahood for all sentient beings if in fact they really do not have that kind of compassion. Otherewise, bodhicitta just turns into a bunch pious foppery.

I first saw durkhrod chogori aka. Gerard use that term, which other posters then started using. It's a taobums catchphrase used as a means to belittle a group that is seen as not engaging in the actual practice of the [buddhist] path. CT, should be familiar with Tsongkhapa's innovations, but Jetsun as far as I know, doesn't seem to be familiar with Tsongkhapa's works or the general Gelugpa presentation of relative and ultimate truth. I think he would shit a brick, if he knew what the Gelugpa stance on the role of logic and analysis was, on the path. @ Jetsun: have you read/received explanation/watched or listened to video/audio commentaries on Tsongkhapa's seminal works?

Yeah, but you have to be careful on where these quotes are coming from or who translated them: http://www.fakebuddhaquotes.com/

Believing in reincarnation is not a prerequisite to liberation. Karma just means action, which requires intention (among other factors to make it complete).

It's really not necessary to learn in depth about the cosmology and terminological origins for these practices, unless: 1. You plan on becoming a teacher. 2. For general knowledge and/or scholarly pursuits. What matters is receiving instructions from a qualified guru. Traditionally, in Vajrayana, while on retreat, a person would receive some instructions on practice and then go off to meditate on these instructions; they would then report back after an X amount of time or after certain signs of meditative experiences. Based off of that, they either would be told to go back and meditate some more or receive further instructions. In any case, you don't have to go that route, since you could just receive transmission from ChNN and attend retreats or watch webcasts, thereby learning all you would need to know in order to make progress. Although, scholarly pursuits do serve their purpose as Loppon Malcolm pointed out on this forum: http://www.vajracakra.com/viewtopic.php?f=57&t=1086&start=380 Mustang Cave wrote: It always surprises me that buddhist scholars study in order to establish orthodoxy. Malcolm: No. Scholars study in order eliminate unnecessary concepts, like all the concepts you have been spinning in this thread about Dzogchen. It is because we encounter people such as you, loaded with concepts, that we resort to addressing the very concepts from which you claim to be free but in which you are nevertheless trapped. For the record, rigpa is not synonymous with the "natural state". Furthermore, abiding in a state devoid of conceptual thought, can still mean being bound by concepts i.e. signs and characteristics. He really shouldn't be expected to, since technically, he should only be talking about this between people who have received transmission.

An excerpt from "The Benefits of Walking Meditation" by Sayadaw U Silananda - brackets are mine: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/silananda/bl137.html "...Our effort in walking meditation is to see our movements as closely as the camera sees them, frame by frame. We also want to observe the awareness [i.e. attention/attentiveness] and intention preceding each movement. We can also appreciate the power of the Buddha's wisdom and insight, by which he actually saw all of the movements. When we use the word "see" or "observe" to refer to our own situation, we mean that we see directly and also by inference; we may not be able to see directly all of the millions of movements as did the Buddha. Before yogis begin practicing walking meditation, they may have thought that a step is just one movement. After meditation on that movement, they observe that there are at least four movements, and if they go deeper, they will understand that even one of these four movements consists of millions of tiny movements. They see nama and rupa, mind and matter, arising and disappearing, as impermanent. By our ordinary perception, we are not able to see the impermanence of things because impermanence is hidden by the illusion of continuity. We think that we see only one continuous movement, but if we look closely we will see that the illusion of continuity can be broken. It can be broken by the direct observation of physical phenomena bit by bit, segment by segment, as they originate and disintegrate. The value of meditation lies in our ability to remove the cloak of continuity in order to discover the real nature of impermanence. Yogis can discover the nature of impermanence directly through their own effort. After realizing that things are composed of segments, that they occur in bits, and after observing these segments one by one, yogis will realize that there is really nothing in this world to be attached to, nothing to crave for. If we see that something which we once thought beautiful has holes, that it is decaying and disintegrating, we will lose interest in it. For example, we may see a beautiful painting on a canvas. We think of the paint and canvas conceptually as a whole, solid thing. But if we were to put the painting under a powerful microscope, we would see that the picture is not solid — it has many holes and spaces. After seeing the picture as composed largely of spaces, we would lose interest in it and we would cease being attached to it. Modern physicists know this idea well. They have observed, with powerful instruments, that matter is just a vibration of particles and energy constantly changing — there is nothing substantial to it at all. By the realization of this endless impermanence, yogis understand that there is really nothing to crave for, nothing to hold on to in the entire world of phenomena."

Thanks for the help. I'll make sure to watch out for this in the future.

No, problem.

A different take on this comes from Mahayana Buddhism, where as part of the bodhisattva ideal, one is to broadly accumulate worldly knowledge to be of more benefit to sentient beings (i.e. math, science, literature, philosophy, farming, engineering, etc.)

Can't argue with that.

Ven. Huifeng of Fo Guang University [Taiwan] presented this to me: The terms are: 道家 Dàojīa 道 dào = Way / Path / etc. But also related to principle, truth, etc. 家 jīa = family / house / lineage / etc. in this case, of a family of thought The term is used to refer to the scholars of the broad Dao traditions, but this is practically all the early Chinese philosophers with the exception of Rujia (= Confucianism). More philosophical, the ideas and principles involved. 道教 Dàojiào 教 jiào = teach Kind of more like "religion of Dao", includes practices, techniques, methods, etc. iconography, worship, offerings, etc. 老莊 Lăo-Zhuāng 老子 Lăozĭ = the wise sage Li Er, otherwise known as Laozi. 莊子 Zhuāngzĭ = the wise sage known as Zhuangzi. These two, or rather, the two texts attributed to them, are known as Lao Zhuang. They are the heart of the Daojia, but less so of Daojiao. While the above Daojia and Daojiao are kind of like "philosophical" and "religious" Daoism, the problem is that the texts of Lao and Zhuang are just Chinese thought, not specifically belonging to something called "Daoism" alone; and likewise many of the practices involved in Daojiao (eg. burning paper money on the auspicious dates) are just common Chinese ritual / folk / religious practices. ~~ Huifeng Basically, we're arguing for two competing scholarly agendas. Apparently, one has been widely deemed as outdated and abandoned in favor of a model that is more accurate of the developmental history of Daoism. For instance Robinet's stance on this was "...we shall often have to consider the question of the relationship between what are called "philosophical Taoism" and "religious Taoism"...We shall see again and again that this division has no significance. I share the view that this is a nonexistent problem arising from only an apparent difference, one that exists in all religions and mystical systems - the difference between self-discipline (techniques, training, etc.) and either the results of this discipline or the speculations that can accompany or crown it." [ch.1, pg.3]; while also distinguishing popular religion from Daoism.

Is there something wrong in learning about an area of interest?

I didn't pretend that I did. Could you tell me the historical usage of those terms? It's a continual process.

Russell Kirkland actually addresses this in the beginning of his book Taoism: The Enduring Tradition http://books.google.com/books?id=o9Op-hy1-5QC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false: "The Chinese public today, like most in the outside world, generally know little about the Taoist tradition, though some are curious about whether it might have something to contribute to their lives. Meanwhile, many Westerners still imperialistically assume that the primary reason for them to study the religions of other cultures is to identify elements that can be appropriated into their own lives, or even new religious identities that can be assumed at will by "any of us." A proper understanding of Taoism requires one to recognize all such motivations, to ensure that they do not interfere with one's interpretive efforts, for instance by causing one to discount elements of Taoism that do not suit one's own taste or reinforce the biases of one's own age or culture." Western academic institutions produce some of the best scholarly work on East Asian studies. Post something from a reputable academic source from an easterner.

This is an obsolete model of the different historical developments of Daoism: "For one thing, most scholars who have seriously studied Taoism, both in Asia and in the West, have finally abandoned the simplistic dichotomy of tao-chia and tao-chiao - "philosophical Taoism" and "religious Taoism." A few have begun offering new models for understanding the continuities among the ideas and practices presented in the data of Taoist texts of various periods....Today, none of these interpretive models seem sufficiently nuanced to ensure a full and accurate understanding of all the diverse but interrelated forms of Taoism that evolved over the long history of China...it should be noted in this connection, however, that Taoists have never made any distinctions of such kinds, and it is such very facts that challenge our hermeutical imagination." - pg. 2, Taoism: The Enduring Tradition by Russell Kirkland As far as I know, Daojia/Daojiao and Lao-Zhuang are used interchangeably by the Chinese. There's no historical basis for any of these statements and shows a bias against certain mystical elements deemed as 'superstitious'. That's your prerogative, but this doesn't reflect accurately on the history of its development in its native country. This is an excerpt of a book from an individual who was apparently a top scholar of her field: "In China Taoism is one of the "three teachings" (along with Buddhism and Confucianism). It took shape only gradually, during a slow gestation that was actually a progressive integration of various ancient lines of thought. No precise data can be set for its birth, and the integration of outside elements into the religion has never ceased. If we add to this the enrichment of Taoism through-out its history with new revelations or new inspirations, we can see how open a religion it is, constantly progressing and evolving, and how difficult it is to not only date its first appearance but also to define its boundaries. Thus we can legitimately say, along with Livia Kohn, that "Taoism has never been a unified religion, and has constantly consisted of a combination of teachings based on a variety of original revelations". Thus it can be grasped only in its concrete manifestations, and it is meaningless to speak of Taoism as a whole. As I put this work together, however, I came to realize that if there is a single thread that runs through Taoism, it lies in its genealogy and in the cumulative and integrative process of its evolution." - pg. 1, Taoism: Growth of a Religion by Isabelle Robinet, trans. by Phyllis Brooks

What I meant was that a developmental division between a "religious" and "philosophical" forms of Daojia does not exist in China's history. Furthermore, "Dao", is a cultural term that is not limited [in meaning] to any particular Chinese school of thought. What you put forth is a version of "Taoism" from the viewpoint of a modern Western secular/physicalist mindset.

And you are putting forth an Orientalist version of "Taoism" that exists only in the minds of Westerners...

Dude, chill out, no one's out to get you.