Simple_Jack

For an in depth coverage of Hinayana and Mahayana tenets you might be interested in "The Way to Buddhahood": http://books.google.com/books?id=eGVL9j9mDnkC&source=gbs_navlinks_s.

Do a search for Peter Harvey's "An Introduction to Buddhism: Teachings, History, and Practices". The "5 heinous crimes", in Buddhism, are all considered causes for being born in Avici Hell. They are: 1. Matricide 2. Patricide 3. Killing an arahant 4. Causing a schism in the [monastic] sangha 5. Shedding the blood of a buddha. IMO, the reason for the disparity in offence between 3 and 5, is for the same reason that Buddha explains [http://dharmafarer.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/22.12-Dana-Vacchagotta-S-A-3.57-piya.pdf] the difference in merit accrued from giving offerings to a stream entrant and so on: that is, in terms of spiritual development (e.g. 2 accumulations of merit and wisdom), a buddha surpasses that of an arahant.

In addition, a so called pandita is described as A scholar in the foundation of outer and inner objects of knowledge. A so called kusali is described as One who has the most dedication inwardly after severing all outer distractions. In terms of actual perfect Buddhahood: the first, having become knowledgeable about all objects of knowledge, has severed doubt through hearing, reflection and meditation. Then, because of severing doubt through meditating which makes samadhi essential, the pandita gradually attains Buddhahood after actualizing the Dharma of realization. A kusali necessarily has the same basis, but when considered alone, a pandita is closer to Buddhahood. -- Sakya Pandita

In addition, a so called “pandita” is described as “A scholar in the foundation of outer and inner objects of knowledge.” A so called “kusali” is described as “One who has the most dedication inwardly after severing all outer distractions.” In terms of actual perfect Buddhahood: the first, having become knowledgeable about all objects of knowledge, has severed doubt through hearing, reflection and meditation. Then, because of severing doubt through meditating which makes samadhi essential, the pandita gradually attains Buddhahood after actualizing the Dharma of realization. A kusali necessarily has the same basis, but when considered alone, a pandita is closer to Buddhahood. -- Sakya Pandita

"The mind is no-mind. The nature of the mind is luminosity." ~ Aṣṭasāhasrikāprajñāpāramitāsūtra

The function of Dzogchen, Mahāmudra, Perfection of Wisdom is to transcend limitations, not to stay bound in them. But the view of Dzogchen, Mahāmudra and Mahāmadhyamaka are not partial at all since they are based on direct [yogic] perception of reality. But the Buddhist view is not actually a verbal construct, and for that matter neither is Buddhist awakening. For example, one needs only to understand the dependent nature of afflictions to become a stream entrant and so on, becoming free of the fetters. This does not require elaborate philosophy. It merely requires confidence in the teaching of dependent origination and the four truths of nobles. Likewise, for the realization of emptiness on the path of seeing, one simply has to reflect on the absence of extremes (for a very long time, albeit), as Shantideva states, "when neither an entity or a non-entity remain before the mind, at the time, the mind is pacified", and this too is an experiential view. In the case of Vajrayāna, the view, such as it is, is based on the experience of the example wisdom at the time of direct introduction or the third and fourth empowerments. Unfettered equipoise in the mind essence, or "ordinary awareness" is the view of Vajrayāna. ~ Loppon Namdrol

Right back at ya, buddy. If you want to learn about Buddhism heed Greg Goode's advice and put down the neoadvaita: http://thetaobums.com/topic/33591-the-superiority-of-tantra-to-sutra/page-24#entry527249 Greg Goode wrote: Hi, this is Greg Goode, author of The Direct Path. Stop reading the Direct Path. I'm serious. It's not about anatta, except very indirectly at the very end. But very few people have the patience to stick it out that far. Put that book down and anatta will make much more sense more quickly. It will come into clarity both theoretically, and experientially through meditation.

This calls for a quote by Loppon-la: The actual mode of meditation in rang stong and gzhan stong are not different at all. The difference lay primarily in how they conceptualize the view in post-meditation. The basis in gzhan stong is still emptiness, albeit is an emptiness qualified by the presence of ultimate buddha qualities, where samsaric phenomena are considered extraneous. Why? Because these ultimate qualities are only held to appear to exist in post-equipoise, but their appearance of existence disappear when in equipoise. The equipoise in both rang stong and gzhan stong is characterized as an equipoise free from extremes. In the case of commoners, this freedom from extremes is arrived through analysis that negate the four extremes in turn. This is necessary even in gshan stong because attachment to the luminosity described by the PP sutras will result in an extreme view, just as grasping to emptiness results in an extreme view. As I said, the most salient difference between R and S is in their post-equipoise formulation. In terms of how adherents of the so called R and S views actually meditate, there is no ultimate difference. The pitfall of both approaches is the same -- failure to eradicate all extremes results in the former grasping to non-existence as emptiness, and the latter grasping to existence as emptiness. The purpose of Madhyamaka analysis is not to come to some imagined "correct" generic image of the ultimate, but rather to exhaust the mind's capacity to reify phenomena according to any extreme so that one's experience of conventional truth upon reaching the path of seeing in post-equipoise is that all phenomena are seen to be illusions, dreams and so on i.e. unreal and yet apparent due to the force of traces. It is exactly emptiness precisely in the fashion that I described it, even in Dolbuwa's presentation. ~ Loppon Namdrol

I will continue to beat people over the head with quotes from Loppon-la for as long as I post on TTB's. Everyone will learn about Buddhism that way. That was a crude summary, since Sutra Mahamudra is the perfection of wisdom teachings wrapped up in the tantras and dohas of the mahasiddhas. Tantra Mahamudra is the path of the two stages (which the result of is Mahamudra), while Essence Mahamudra is equivalent to direct introduction, being a cig car method of sudden awakening.

That's funny because this (along with its commentary by the same author) is a meditation manual which modern teachers still use to teach Sutra Mahamudra.

Like when I quote Loppon-la? I do it so TI won't accuse me of making stuff up, which benefits everyone, therefore I quote him whenever there's an opportunity. What they propose is that a mind freed from subject object transforms into wisdom, and if this wisdom does not really exist, liberation is impossible. In order for this wisdom to exist, then the mind out of which wisdom is transformed necessarily must exist. Yogacara thus becomes a non-dual realist system. This is not simply a prasanga disctinction -- this is a universal mahdyamaka charge against the treatises of yogacara. As an aside, what the Madhyamakas are trying to explain to the Yogacarin is that they cannot have their cake and eat it too. The issue has been, as always, whether post-Yogacara Madhyamakas like Bhavaviveka were justified in their critiques of Maitreyanatha, Asanga, and Vasubandhu. It is clear that after the attacks of Bhavaviveka and so on on the Yogacara school, that there was a response which involved a) altering the Perfection of Wisdom in 25 and 18 thousand lines with the addition of the Maitreya chapter in order to b} provide justification of the reworking the three nature model. Basically, we can identify three phases of Yogacara: the sutra period, original commentatator period, and the post-Madhyamaka response period. What we observe in period two is trenchent attacks by Asanga in particular on the austerity of the perfection of wisdom vision and a concern that it lead to a form of annihilationism. What we observe in period three is a revamping of Yogacara, recasting the three natures in terms of the two truths. This latter phase represents a defeat for the Yogacara system in general, since the three natures are completely unnecessary given the presentation of two truths. However, late Yogacarin partisans managed to communicate their ideas to Tibet, and since the time of Dolbupa, centuries of followers of gshan stong have been seriously confused about what the actual teaching of Maitreyanatha, Asanga, and Vasubandhu might have been, especially as this has been conflated with the tathagatagarbha theory. ~ Loppon Namdrol

@ ralis The fundamental flaw with this line of reasoning, from the POV of Dharma, is that this does not account for yogic experience; in fact this is a presupposition of secular-materialists who get involved with Dharma. From the POV of Dharma, if you can't even begin to verify the experience of the 1st dhyana, then on what grounds are you going to dismiss a yogi's development of mundane siddhi, for example, other than inference based on limited karmic vision? As a qualifier of this statement, I'm not saying that people cannot practice from this base nor am I advocating for the literal acceptance of Meru cosmology. Apech, you're jumping through hoops to justify that you have faith in the teachings, own it! Shradda is a liberative factor in the 8-fold noble path which can only increase from personal experience of the teachings.

Not the case at all. The Karma Kagyu (or shentong view for that matter) does not have a monopoly on Vajrayana. Arguments between shentong and rangtong are irrelevant when considering that Mahamudra is the definitive view and path for the Sarma schools. "Blind faith" is a misnomer, which is not the case, because obviously you must have faith in science over and above the Dharma; which can only be the conclusion considering your reaction against my statement on the secular-materialist view. Which is a species of mentalism which gets deconstructed, and ultimately speaking, is a non-existent in buddhadharma.

Case in point, ralis. Anyways, when it comes to the Dharma, it's no skin off my back whether you put more faith in the physical sciences. You've clearly made your choice.

I'm really speaking out against the secular-materialist view which uses the physical sciences as a tool for its justification.

Yogacara is definitely a "non-dual" realist (Buddhist definition) system.

@ deci belle Recognizing unfabricated presence vs the conceptualizing mind is just day 1 of Dzogchen; one is not then officially a Dzogchenpa

Is the fault on Dzogchen that Zoom & Co. are essentially the Carvakas of the 21st century? They've made their choice.

In second thought, it seems you partake in scientific realism.

Great, so you also partake in positivism?

Materialism is a philosophical position. Would you prefer physicalism?

Ralis has stated that he doesn't ascribe to materialism; he enjoys positivism.

Probably best not to equate the two when you consider my above post.