Simple_Jack

Apech your behavior is out of control, I'm going to report you to the MODS.

Maybe we'll find out soon: Bodh Gaya: Man detained for India Buddhist shrine blasts - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-23222495

Eh, it's typical in Buddhism, to find someone talking down to scholars who only have conceptual understanding of the Buddhist teachings. Milarepa was definitely learned in Buddhist teachings, whether he received these teachings orally or by studying Buddhist texts himself. An example from one of his songs here: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/search/label/Milarepa ".... The Buddha’s own hands couldn’t block the appearance of objects to the consciousness; A great yogi knows there is no object behind the appearance." This stanza is inspired by the Surangama Sutra, where Buddha is explaining the nature of consciousness (though don't quote me on this as I may be wrong; look in the section where Buddha is first giving teachings to Ananda).

Ahhh, reminiscent of such inane BS from around the period I first signed up on TTB's.

See, the thing is there is still room for debate. In Buddhist traditions this plays a role in accurately understanding the teachings. Even when it's criticizing other teachings within Buddhism. The problem is when discussions are fueled by hostility between the criticizer and the one being criticized. Also, it doesn't help that everyone who usually posts in the Buddhist sub-forum, thinks they're hot shit when it comes to Buddhism.

Welcome to the world of online Buddhist discussion. Blame people like me who are unable to follow the basic tenets of their doctrine. In actuality, this isn't unique to just Buddhist discussions, you can find this anywhere on the internet. There is very little opportunity for constructive discussion on this forum.

I already called him an idiot in a previous post, so it's a little late to be pointing this out. It's not about showing "true emotion". This isn't understood by the uninitiated: but there's tantric samaya reminding people not to feud between those who have received initiations from the same teacher. Go look at my post history: this has happened almost like clockwork when there's disagreement with what he posted. It's just frustrating because this should be about clarifying the teachings in order to help others become empowered , so that they can help themselves; not this disease of internet forums where people are arrogantly trying to be victorious in an internet debate just for the sake of selfishly one-upping the individual. This is not healthy for fostering an environment for learning. Honestly, I could expect this a over a year or more ago when there was still a level of overt animosity towards Buddhism (thanks to Vajrarhidaya) on this forum; where it was somewhat necessary to respond in such a way as to wade through all the misinformed BS that was being posted. Alas, this still happens every so often on the Buddhist sub-forum, almost as if these dickheads are replicating like agent Smith from the matrix movies. I know that I'm a hypocrite, because I'm just as much of a piece of shit for doing the same things. The irony of this is that it's spilling out into thread dealing with feuding between groups of people in Myanmar.

TI, you're a scumbag.

TI, you're an idiot. If it weren't for the pandits of India, Tibet or South East Asia: you wouldn't have all those books or articles to read and quote from when trying to make misinformed corrections nor would you have anything to talk shit against when someone provides information to counter your opinionative arguments. Woahhh there, it was a wedding and there wasn't any wine left for him and his crew to get wasted off of, so it was completely necessary for him make wine from water. Would you rather him or someone else go and make a wine run? That would've taken too long.

That's true, but I'm going by what Zen Master Dogen said here: http://books.google.com.sg/books?id=H6A674nlkVEC&pg=PA21&lpg=PA21#v=onepage&q&f=false From Bendowa, by Zen Master Dogen Question Ten: Some have said: Do not concern yourself about birth-and-death. There is a way to promptly rid yourself of birth-and-death. It is by grasping the reason for the eternal immutability of the 'mind-nature.' The gist of it is this: although once the body is born it proceeds inevitably to death, the mind-nature never perishes. Once you can realize that the mind-nature, which does not transmigrate in birth-and-death, exists in your own body, you make it your fundamental nature. Hence the body, being only a temporary form, dies here and is reborn there without end, yet the mind is immutable, unchanging throughout past, present, and future. To know this is to be free from birth-and-death. By realizing this truth, you put a final end to the transmigratory cycle in which you have been turning. When your body dies, you enter the ocean of the original nature. When you return to your origin in this ocean, you become endowed with the wondrous virtue of the Buddha-patriarchs. But even if you are able to grasp this in your present life, because your present physical existence embodies erroneous karma from prior lives, you are not the same as the sages. "Those who fail to grasp this truth are destined to turn forever in the cycle of birth-and-death. What is necessary, then, is simply to know without delay the meaning of the mind-nature's immutability. What can you expect to gain from idling your entire life away in purposeless sitting?" What do you think of this statement? Is it essentially in accord with the Way of the Buddhas and patriarchs? Answer 10: You have just expounded the view of the Senika heresy. It is certainly not the Buddha Dharma. According to this heresy, there is in the body a spiritual intelligence. As occasions arise this intelligence readily discriminates likes and dislikes and pros and cons, feels pain and irritation, and experiences suffering and pleasure - it is all owing to this spiritual intelligence. But when the body perishes, this spiritual intelligence separates from the body and is reborn in another place. While it seems to perish here, it has life elsewhere, and thus is immutable and imperishable. Such is the standpoint of the Senika heresy. But to learn this view and try to pass it off as the Buddha Dharma is more foolish than clutching a piece of broken roof tile supposing it to be a golden jewel. Nothing could compare with such a foolish, lamentable delusion. Hui-chung of the T'ang dynasty warned strongly against it. Is it not senseless to take this false view - that the mind abides and the form perishes - and equate it to the wondrous Dharma of the Buddhas; to think, while thus creating the fundamental cause of birth-and-death, that you are freed from birth-and-death? How deplorable! Just know it for a false, non-Buddhist view, and do not lend a ear to it. I am compelled by the nature of the matter, and more by a sense of compassion, to try to deliver you from this false view. You must know that the Buddha Dharma preaches as a matter of course that body and mind are one and the same, that the essence and the form are not two. This is understood both in India and in China, so there can be no doubt about it. Need I add that the Buddhist doctrine of immutability teaches that all things are immutable, without any differentiation between body and mind. The Buddhist teaching of mutability states that all things are mutable, without any differentiation between essence and form. In view of this, how can anyone state that the body perishes and the mind abides? It would be contrary to the true Dharma. Beyond this, you must also come to fully realize that birth-and-death is in and of itself nirvana. Buddhism never speaks of nirvana apart from birth-and-death. Indeed, when someone thinks that the mind, apart from the body, is immutable, not only does he mistake it for Buddha-wisdom, which is free from birth-and-death, but the very mind that makes such a discrimination is not immutable, is in fact even then turning in birth-and-death. A hopeless situation, is it not? You should ponder this deeply: since the Buddha Dharma has always maintained the oneness of body and mind, why, if the body is born and perishes, would the mind alone, separated from the body, not be born and die as well? If at one time body and mind were one, and at another time not one, the preaching of the Buddha would be empty and untrue. Moreover, in thinking that birth-and-death is something we should turn from, you make the mistake of rejecting the Buddha Dharma itself. You must guard against such thinking. Understand that what Buddhists call the Buddhist doctrine of the mind-nature, the great and universal aspect encompassing all phenomena, embraces the entire universe, without differentiating between essence and form, or concerning itself with birth or death. There is nothing - enlightenment and nirvana included - that is not the mind-nature. All dharmas, the "myriad forms dense and close" of the universe - are alike in being this one Mind. All are included without exception. All those dharmas, which serves as "gates" or entrances to the Way, are the same as one Mind. For a Buddhist to preach that there is no disparity between these dharma-gates indicates that he understands the mind-nature. In this one Dharma [one Mind], how could there be any differentiation between body and mind, any separation of birth-and-death and nirvana? We are all originally children of the Buddha, we should not listen to madmen who spout non-Buddhist views.

Ok fine, it's not determined at this time whether ChNN likes Zen. This does not dismiss my other comment at this time Malcolm is not an authority on the historical development of Chinese Buddhism. The former is more knowledgeable because he has an M.A. in East Asian Buddhist studies and can read/translate Classical Buddhist Chinese.

No, because it's already been addressed in the 1st post of the 2nd link you posted from DW. Also, because I never said that the path or methods of Zen and Dzogchen were the same.

This has already been addressed in this thread: http://thetaobums.com/topic/26805-buddha-kept-silent-about-god/?p=404828

Don't bother, just send it to me in a pm. Its already been addressed in that thread, so it doesn't really matter: http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=8318&hilit=namkhai+norbu&start=40 The state of Dzogchen is Buddhahood. Whoever practices Dzogchen is trying to integrate with that state. A Dzogchen without Buddhism is not possible, since Dzogchen represents the goal of all paths, whether non-Buddhist or Buddhist. That goal is buddahood or full awakening. "My vehicles are inconceivable,when summarized, are included in two, samsara and nirvana" -- The Tantra of Self-Arisen Vidyā

That makes it more accurate and easier to understand what I mean. http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=8318&hilit=namkhai+norbu&start=40 Matylda wrote: Namdrol wrote: Dzogchen abandons the dichotomy between mind and matter found in sutra and tantra. Theoretically, this is a most crucial difference. Because it abandons this dichtomy, it also abandons the dichtomy between the sentient and the non-sentient. N Matylda wrote: But then it sounds like zen teaching... I think Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche does not like it. Then what about the view? If it is only the mind body issue doesn't it implicate only the difference in the method? Then some would not agree again. ChNN likes Chan/Zen just fine. I am not sure I understand the rest of your question. Suck it, Alwayson!!!

No he said that ChNN liked Zen. I can find the thread if you don't believe me.

Why the hell would I care, lol? Both of you are supersessionist chodes.

Lol, we were thinking of the same thing.

According to Malcolm. Also refer to "Dzogchen and Zen" by ChNN: http://www.amazon.com/Dzog-Chen-Zen-Namkhai-Norbu/dp/0931892082.

It becomes sectarian bias when the other party concludes that Tsongkhapa's teachings are delusional. Which goes to show how widely Tsongkhapa's influence has spread.

Alaya-vijnana, the 12 links of D.O., etc. all arise due to ignorance. The basis displays the same way, but the experience of it differs only due to either having vidya or avidya. The path of Dzogchen differs even from Mahamudra, but the result of each is the same (i.e. buddhahood). The distinction that Dzogchen makes between the 9 yanas is ultimately the time it takes to reach buddhahood; with Dzogchen being the swiftest and most direct path to that goal. Actually, ChNN himself likes Zen and referred to it as the pinnacle of Sutrayana teachings. Zen, like Dzogchen, also does away with the dichotomy between Mind and body. The path of Zen is based off an amalgamation of the Tathagatagarbha Sutras and Prajnaparamita Sutras; with the distinction that its teachings are a peculiar transmission outside the confines of expressing the realization of a buddha in any predetermined way. Not exactly: http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=41&t=986 "Here is a reference in "Crystal Mirror", Vol 7, Dharma Publishing that partly addresses the question: pg.295 The remaining texts in the Prajanaparamita section of the bKa'-'gyur comprises the Paritta collection, works from the Pali tradition recited for blessing and protection. These sutras are (listing only the titles): 31 Dharmacakra-pravartana-sutra 32 Jatakanidana 33 Atanatiya-sutra 34 Mahasamaya-sutra 36 Maitri-bhavana-sutra 37 Panacasiksanusamsa-sutra 38 Giri-ananda-sutra 39 Nandopanandanagarajadamana-sutra 40 Mahakasyapa-sutra 41 Surya-sutra 42 Candra-sutra 43 Mahamangala-sutra WOW! #35 Maitri-bhavana sutra (or at least a version of it) is included! Chills went up my spine. Then there are several well-known Pali suttas mentioned. At the Pali correspondence site I mentioned there are several references to texts from the Digha Nikaya in particular that are included in the Kangyur (or at least exist in Tibetan). Digha Nikaya 1 for example. Several of these can probably be linked to their presumed Pali equivalent (like the Mangala Sutta, Suriya Sutta). Others are very familiar but I can't locate them just now (Panacasiksanusamsa-sutra, Mahakasyapa-sutra). Dharmacakra-pravartana-sutra is the Dharma-Chakra Pravartana Sutta and this is the First Turning of the Wheel. Kirt" Part of the Kanjur is based off of translations from the Chinese Agamas. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/piyadassi/protection.html#s23 - Paritta suttas

The duration of time spent in any particular realm isn't described as being fixed. Basically, it all depends on the sentient being's state of mind at the time of death.

Then again, he was also trained in the Sakyapa system, so naturally he's going to be biased towards the Gelugpa view since that sect was especially antagonistic towards Tsongkhapa's interpretation of madhyamaka (being that he was previously trained from the Sakyapas before establishing his own view of madhyamaka). I've definitely come across descriptions of emptiness that were similar to Tsongkhapa's descriptions in East Asian Buddhism (i.e. "empty of inherent existence"). So, I think that there would be no problem for someone to eventually have a non-conceptual realization of emptiness, if they were to be trained in that view. Dude, shut up, that article you posted was crap anyways.