Simple_Jack

Can any mods move this thread over to the Buddhist sub-forum, please?

Cool, Tathagatagarbha teachings. Here's some excerpts from Asanga's Mahayanasutralamkara with commentary by Vasubhandu [translated by the AIBS team]: Chapter 6 Thatness pgs. 49-51 A verse refuting the error of the view of self: 2. The self-notion itself does not have the identity of a self, nor does the (selfish being's) deforming habit; their natures are different. Apart from these two there is no other (self,) so it arises only as an error; liberation is therefore the termination of a mere error. The self-notion itself does not have the nature of a (substantial) self, nor does the (selfish being's) deforming habit. Their nature differs from the (absolutist's) imaginatively constructed self. (The deforming habit) consists of the five appropriative bodymind systems, for it is produced from the mental addictions and negative instinctual conditionings. Nor is there (any self) found apart from those two (with the) nature of an (absolute) self. Therefore, there is no self, and the self-notion is born of error. Moreover, it should be understood that because there is no self, liberation is merely the termination of error, and there is no (substantial person) at all who has been liberated. Two verses on the criticism of such error: 3. How is it that beings rely on what is merely an error and do not realize that the nature of suffering is constant? How is it they are unaware and aware, suffer and do not suffer, and are objective and not objective? 4. How is it that beings, directly aware of the relativistic origin of things, still resort to some other creator? What kind of darkness is this through which the existent goes unseen and the nonexistent is observed? How is it that people rely on the view of a self which is nothing but an illusion and do not see that the nature of suffering is always connected to creations? They are not intellectually aware of this intrinsic suffering (although) they are experientially aware of suffering. They suffer because suffering has not been eliminated; but, because of the nonexistence of a self which possess that suffering, they do not (really) suffer. They are objective, since there is no self in persons; there are only objects. Yet again they are not objective, for there is objective selflessness. When people directly perceive the relational occurrence of things, (in the form) "There occur such and such things in dependence upon such and such conditions," how is it then that they resort to the view that seeing and the like are created by some other creator and are not contingent occurrences? What kind of darkness is this which makes people not see the relationally occurrent which exists, and see the self which does not exist? Darkness could make it possible for the existent to be unseen, but not for the nonexistent to be seen! Chapter 9 Enlightenment pgs. 82-83 23. In pure voidness buddhas achieve the supreme self of selflessness, and realize the spiritual greatness of the self by discovering the pure self. This shows the supreme self of the buddhas in the uncontaminated realm. Why? Because hers is the self of supreme selflessness. Supreme selflessness is completely pure suchness, and that is a buddha's "self," in the sense of "intrinsic reality." When this is completely pure, buddhas attain superior selflessness, a pure self, Therefore by attaining a pure self buddhas realize the spiritual greatness of self. Thus it is with this intention that buddhas are declared to have a supreme self in the uncontaminated realm. 24. That is why buddhahood is said neither to exist nor not to exist. When such inquiries are made about a buddha, the way of impredicability is preferred. For that reason, buddhahood is not said to exist, for suchness is characterized by the (ultimate) nonexistence of persons and things. Since buddhahood has such a nature, it is also not said that it does not exist, for it exists in the nature of suchness. Therefore, when inquiries are made about the existence or nonexistence of a buddha, such as whether or not a transcendent lord exists after death impredicability is preferred. 25. Like the fading of heat in iron and of shadows in visions is (the fading of delusions) in the buddha's mind and intuition; it cannot be declared as either existent or nonexistent. 26. For buddhas, in the immaculate realm there is neither unity nor plurality, because they are incorporeal like space and yet still accord with their previous bodies.

It was my opinion, that the polarized sectarianism that Theravada shows towards Mahayana, is arbitrary when considering the above.

Even in the predominantly Theravadin countries, according to Dr. Wapola Rahula, there are those who take vows to become buddhas: http://www.budsas.org/ebud/ebdha126.htm "In the 12th Century AD., in Myanmar (a strictly Theravada country), King Alaungsithu of Pagan, after building Shwegugyi Temple, set up an inscription in Pali verse to record this act of piety in which he publicly declared his resolution to become a Buddha and not a Sravaka. In Sri Lanka, in the 10th Century, King Mahinda IV (956-972 AD.) in an inscription proclaimed that "none but the Bodhisattvas would become kings of Sri Lanka (Ceylon)". Thus it was believed that kings of Sri Lanka were Bodhisattvas. A Thera named Maha-Tipitaka Culabhaya who wrote the Milinda-Tika (about the 12th Century AD.) in the Theravada tradition of the Mahavihara at Anuradhapura, says at the end of the book in the colophon that he aspires to become a Buddha: Buddho Bhaveyyam "May I become a Buddha," which means that this author is a Bodhisattva. We come across at the end of some palm leaf manuscripts of Buddhist texts in Sri Lanka the names of even a few copyists who have recorded their wish to become Buddhas, and they too are to be considered as Bodhisattvas. At the end of a religious ceremony or an act of piety, the bhikkhu who gives benedictions, usually admonishes the congregation to make a resolution to attain Nirvana by realising one of the three Bodhis - Sravakabodhi, Pratyekabodhi or Samyaksambodhi - as they wish according to their capacity." I don't think there was ever this polarizing attitude (between what we now refer to as "Hinayana" and "Mahayana") in Medieval India, especially if we take into account the curriculum's of the monastic universities such as Nalanda: where Hinayana and Mahayana were taught together. In Mahayana Buddhism [using this as an umbrella term] all the lower vehicles build off of each other and culminate into the buddha vehicle which encompasses the rest. From the perspective of the buddha vehicle: they're all just means to mature sentient beings, of differing capacities, to the state of buddhahood.

@ alwayson That quoted part from deci belle's post looks like it's inspired by a line out of the Diamond Sutra; which could mean she's referring to prajnaparamita.

.

Jhana states does not apply to Dzogchen or Vajrayana as a whole. I'm sure you've already read ChNN's books, so just review "The Crystal And The Way Of Light". First you have to drop the Western Abrahamic perspective of upholding a "real" doctrine or of possessing a "truer" expression of the ultimate when studying Dharmic traditions (or any Far Eastern religion really); while also putting aside Theravadin sectarianism. You should read Rajiv Malhotra's "Being Different"*. Again it's not that the goals of Hinayana and Mahayana [using this as an umbrella term for all sects] are fundamentally different, but it's a matter of degree or depth of perception of the ultimate and its relation to the path and fruit of practice(s). The POV of the Dzogchen tantras has already been explained here: http://thetaobums.com/topic/26805-buddha-kept-silent-about-god/?p=404828 *Here's an article to give you an idea of what's covered in "Being Different": http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rajiv-malhotra/religious-difference-with-mutual-respect_b_1165589.html

Anyone posting here regularly practice the sadhana along with the mantra? Just curious.

Bump.

Even in the Pali canon, deities typically associated with "Hinduism", made pledges to be protectors of the buddhadharma and its followers. Calling to them for help or even venerating them is applicable in Buddhism. Haha, you know according to one of the "Jataka Tales": in one of his animal lives in his bodhisatta career (as a partridge), he was teaching the Vedas to a group of Brahmins, before being killed by a jealous ascetic who turned out to be Devadatta in a previous lifetime. I would just follow the advice and instructions of my guru (in your case ChNN), since in the end, conceptual knowledge belongs to the relative sphere which is unable to penetrate through to direct experience. Cultivation entails transcending conceptual constructs in order to reach the ultimate, right? You already have conviction in ChNN and Dzogchen, correct? So what's the use in studying the conceptual baggage of the lower yanas if you already have confidence in what ChNN teaches?

In order for someone to fulfill the bold sentence would require unbiased examination and applying what is already laid out in Hinayana, Mahayana or Vajrayana; all the while applying these teachings within the context of the teachings themselves (while being engaged without any prejudice from prior knowledge or experiences).

Bump. These suttas clearly delineate the exact meaning of Right View in Buddhism and insight into the 3 characteristics (i.e. anicca, dukkha, anatta).

Really? Are you selectively choosing what information to receive and retain? Do you seriously not remember what I posted in this thread?: http://thetaobums.com/topic/28497-the-skeptical-buddhistcritical-thinking-buddhism/?p=446717 It doesn't matter, there's a team of translators who are starting to translate the Chinese Agamas into English (if you care enough to read it).

For anyone that's interested: 1. Tsongkhapa's Ocean of Reasoning on scribd: http://www.scribd.com/doc/113108520/Ocean-of-Reasoning 2. Tsongkhapa's Sngags rim chen mo/Great Treatise on the Stages of Tantra: Vol 1 - http://books.google.com/books/about/Tantra_in_Tibet.html?id=STm_SEdgoCkC Vol 2-3 - http://books.google.com/books/about/The_Yoga_of_Tibet.html?id=goXfIvghdmYC Also, look for a new translation of the above by Thomas F. Yarnall & AIBS team called "Great Treatise on the Stages of Mantra".

Still, kudos to the Tibetans for creating their own unique takes on traditional Indian philosophical treatises. Speaking of Yogacara, here's a preview of Tsongkhapa's Ocean Of Eloquence: http://books.google.com/books?id=sX4RtxEUlLgC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

.

.

Yeah, Kadampa refers to the lineage of Atisha.

.

.

.

.

.

It's ironic that the Shugdenpa's refer to themselves as the "New Kadampa", since that term's use is accredited by the Gelugpa's to refer to themselves.

That's because the Kangyur has translations of the Chinese Agamas.