Simple_Jack

Mahayana teaches the relative and ultimate truths model. This sort of investigation is for the realization of the inseparability of samsara/nirvana (e.g. the Heart Sutra.) This is why Mahayana teaches a non-abiding nirvana and why the whole path of Mahayana is based off the commitment of vows; to re-enter cyclical existence to benefit sentient beings (accumulating merit, while progressing towards anuttarasamyaksambodhi.) Dzogchen doesn't bother with the two-truths model. It simply teaches that the basis only displays as one way, while the experience of the basis differs only with either having vidya or avidya.

Hey, you're free to interpret things in any way you want. It's your path and your practice, not mine.....GLHF!

Taking into account what the Buddha said in the Mahaparinibbana Sutta: "Therefore, Ānanda, dwell making yourselves your island (support), making yourselves, not anyone else, your refuge; making the Dhamma your island (support), the Dhamma your refuge, nothing else your refuge." He may have originally wanted to leave behind a community that modeled itself off of democratic egalitarianism. In either case, he still left behind a community of monks, many of whom were realized arhats. If we take the account of the 1st council (that was held a year after Buddhas death,) as factual: Then we have 500 realized disciples, who came together in the 1st council, to lay down the tenets of what Shakyamuni Buddha taught for future generations.

Again, here's two other suttas that are related to the above: I just wondering: Are you "Karma Dorje" from Dharmawheel? I'm just curious, because recently that poster has also quoted David Loy in order to support his Advaitan interpolation of Buddhist teachings.

Haha, not surprising you would quote someone like David Loy in order to support your position. Quoting him is like quoting the abomination that is 'Dark Zen' or that Zen/Neo-Advaitan crossover Adyashanti....No credibility whatsoever when it comes to Buddhism. The above is the type of people from the West that Wapola Rahula criticized in his book. In order to understand both these suttas, we have to see it's relation to what Buddha says in the Pabhassara Sutta and Sabba Sutta: So with the above suttas, we can have a better understanding of the notes to the "Brahmanimantanika Sutta": So, we can conclude that "consciousness without feature," in these suttas is not pointing to a consciousness that is beyond the 'All,' that Buddha describes; but a citta/mind that is no longer stained by defilements; no longer clinging to the conceit of "I AM. No longer subjected to the cycle of becoming, since the roots of ignorance, aggression, craving having been cut off: No longer having any support for the conditions of arising. This is what is meant by "consciousness without feature."

/

Well, 500 arhats isn't a few people, if we take the account of the 1st council as fact. Then again, I'm not saying the Pali canon, is the "end all and be all" of Shakyamuni's teaching. If we go by what Mahayana teaches (and what alwayson has been saying,) there can be and are more than one [samyaksam-] Buddha who teaches sentient beings simultaneously in any one universe.

Eh, than we have the majority like you, who prefers that everyone conforms to the dubious "all paths lead to the ONE/equally lead to GOD;" that 'Hindu's' have been pushing and the New Age folks have taken up.

Sure, although personally, I think that the Pali cannon is the closest representative of what can be considered Shakyamuni Buddha's 'original teaching.' It's not only the format (which looks as though it really was passed on orally at one point,) but also that there are suttas which may have influenced later Mahayana sutras (such as the Diamond Sutra; check out the Alagaddupama Sutta.) Buddhism tends to take on the cultural flavor of the countries it's disseminated into. Looking at China, we can see how it adapted and evolved into a distinct Chinese form of Buddhism (such as the Pure Land sect, Ch'an, Tien-Tai, etc.) If I recall correctly, there was a Ch'an abbot (eh, can't recall his name right now) who made a major change to how the monastic system operated. This is what led to the monastic communities becoming agricultural based, which ultimately allowed them to accommodate the growing number of people who joined the monasteries. You can read about this in Nan Huaijin's "Basic Buddhism: Exploring Buddhism and Zen." It also goes over the general development of Buddhism throughout it's history in China (Nan Huaijin's "The Story of Chinese Zen," deals more specifically with the development of Ch'an in China.)

Forgot to add that in Pali cannon, Suddhodana wasn't a king, but a nobleman of the Gotama clan (possibly a regional governor in Sakiya.)

::Sigh:: Too bad there aren't more of his videos with English subs....

Here's a link with more credible information http://indology.info/papers/cousins/node4/:

Wow, that's a shitty resource for information on the historical Buddha. I would think you could do much better in posting credible information.

Noted. I'll keep this in mind when reading that type of material. What about the Dunhuang cave documents? I've noticed that a lot of the stuff coming out there tends to provide a more accurate or at least a different take on the history of Tibet. You know of anything that's been published on this, within the last few years?

Just to make sure, I did a search on accesstoinsight and google: Nothing came up with that phrase. I posted these suttas in another thread, where Buddha clearly defines what the Middle Way is: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.090.than.html http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.086.than.html

Hey, you're free to interpret things in whatever way you want.

Yes. Part of the reason, why i brought up ChNN's books is because, I've seen it mentioned that Bon already had their own Dzogchen teachings. Read the other link: This makes me want to get ChNN's books now, to compare with.

Wait, hold on: What about ChNN's university lectures that were later published into books (Light of Kailash; Necklace of Zi; Dreung, Deu, Bon; Zhang Zhung: Images from a lost kingdom?) Have you read them? I haven't, but have been interested in buying them; that's why I'm asking. *Actually, I don't think, all of them were from his lectures when he was teaching in Italy.

There's been scholarly research done that has shown that the Prajnaparmita-Sutras and the 'third turning sutras,' came much later after the Buddha had passed away; also that they all weren't composed in India. Whether it was revealed to certain individuals through the Sambhogakaya level, a product of realization that was composed later, or as reaction to certain elements of those times: Still, I can appreciate and have faith in the Mahayana ideal (of the bodhisattvas.) I remember, on Dharmawheel, the example of the Dzogchen tantras came up. Whether or not they were composed in India, didn't take anything away in the end: They were a product of realization (and have continued to lead others to that same realization.) I think the history of what became Mahyana, is interesting to say the least. I don't think that takes away the meaning of what's being conveyed in the Mahayana sutras (obviously, we can see their influence in East Asian Buddhism.)

Correction to my previous post: Rigpa consists of 3 knowledges. According to the suttas in Theravada Buddhism, this is what Nibbana means [http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca3/nibbana.html:] So, we can conclude that Nibbana is the complete blowing out/cessation of the cycle of becoming. Paying particular attention to the text in bold: We can see that Nibbana, shares the same meaning as in the "Prajnaparamita-Sutras." That it's not an actual state that is free from extremes nor a real state of 'non-duality.' In this context, it's pointing to the non-arising of dharmas; which in Buddhism is due to their interdependent nature. Maybe, you should keep questioning your current understanding? Just thought, you wouldn't mind learning more about Dzogchen: Since you've said you been initiated into the Dzogchen Community of ChNN.

Haha, yeah I totally parroted Malcolm on that one. When I saw that, I was thinking of suttas like the Tivijja Sutta (On Knowledge of The Vedas,) for example [http://www.dhammaweb.net/Tipitaka/read.php?id=13 - Where Buddha doesn't teach the path to reach arhatship to the Brahmins, but only on the means for "union with Brahma.] So, I initially thought that it would make sense that Gautama was raised a Vedic Indian, being that he was born in the kshatriya caste (according to the Pali cannon.) That he definitely didn't set out to subvert Vedic culture, but repurposed Vedic concepts. Of course, I'm not saying he was a reformer (among one of the things that 'Hindu' propaganda like's to push.) Since, clearly he set out to teach a path that was said to have been tread by others before him, but rediscovered and propagated to those with the conditions to understand his Dharma; after initially hesitating, before he set out to do so: "This Dhamma that I have attained is deep, hard to see, hard to realize, peaceful, refined, beyond the scope of conjecture, subtle, to-be-experienced by the wise. But this generation delights in attachment, is excited by attachment, enjoys attachment. For a generation delighting in attachment, excited by attachment, enjoying attachment, this/that conditionality and dependent co-arising are hard to see. This state, too, is hard to see: the resolution of all fabrications, the relinquishment of all acquisitions, the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding. And if I were to teach the Dhamma and if others would not understand me, that would be tiresome for me, troublesome for me." Reading this though, for me, sheds new light on the matter. Could you cite some other names of authors that mention this?

Well, obviously there's no direct reference to Brahman in the Pali cannon; though there is an indirect example of this view, in the Alagaddupama Sutta: Meh, it's all relative. Ummm, you've just made Dzogchen lower than Hinayana. Dzogchen is considered the path of "self-liberation." Rigpa consists of 3 wisdoms: Two of which are kadag and lhun grub. As a student of ChNN explained (anyone correct me please,) thoughts are termed nangwa and are absent by definition. Since they aren't grasped, thought's don't become concepts; they are spontaneously 'self-liberated' upon inception. This is how ChNN explains it [http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/search/label/Chogyal%20Namkhai%20Norbu%20Rinpoche:] ...Even if those who begin to practice this find it difficult to continue in this state for more than an instant, there is no need to worry about it. Without wishing for the state to continue for a long time and without fearing the lack of it altogether, all that is necessary is to maintain pure presence of mind, without falling into the dualistic situation of there being an observing subject perceiving an observed object. If the mind, even though one maintains simple presence, does not remain in this calm state, but always tends to follow waves of thoughts about the past or future, or becomes distracted by the aggregates of the senses such as sight, hearing, etc., then one should try to understand that the wave of thought itself is as insubstantial as the wind. If one tries to catch the wind, one does not succeed; similarly if one tries to block the wave of thought, it cannot be cut off. So for this reason one should not try to block thought, much less try to renounce it as something considered negative. In reality, the calm state is the essential condition of mind, while the wave of thought is the mind's natural clarity in function; just as there is no distinction whatever between the sun and its rays, or a stream and its ripples, so there is no distinction between the mind and thought. If one considers the calm state as something positive to be attained, and the wave of thought as something negative to be abandoned, and one remains thus caught up in the duality of accepting and rejecting, there is no way of overcoming the ordinary state of mind." "Naked Awareness," is a bad and misleading translation of rigpa. As ChNN teaches, rigpa means knowledge; which is contrasted with marigpa. I've also seen gnas pa translated as "calm state." Going by Malcolm's translation, this is inaccurate [http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=81&t=10147:] "...For example, "rang gi lus" means simply "one's body" likewise, "rang gi rig pa" means simply "one's knowledge". In the most ancient dzogchen commentaries such as the two volume commentary on the sgra thal gyur, "rang" of rang rig is glossed simply as gnas pa i.e. as a location." Also, Nibanna is simply the cessation of ignorance, craving, and aggression. Nibanna is unconditioned because the 12-fold chain of dependent co-arising ceases: "Mind-body," is nama-rupa.

Correction: These are MODERN translations, from MODERN translators in the West.

For Ch'an, it goes further than that: It is the 'mental reality' of Buddha's teachings. The Chinese Agamas most likely have the Sarvastivadan Abhidharma. Ask someone who is actually knowledgeable and who can read Classical Chinese. Thankfully, I know what Brahman is. As for the rest....Hey, you're free to interpret things any way you want.

The story goes that Bodhidharma gave Huike the Lankavatara Sutra as a symbol of transmission after he helped him to reach his great awakening. This was passed down to each successive Patriarch's, until Hongren (5th patriarch) recited stanzas from the Diamond Sutra to Hui-neng. From then on the Diamond Sutra became the definitive sutra of the Ch'an school. Did you read my post on pg.2? Many of the Chinese Agamas were from Central Asia. These scriptures were not based off of Pali, but several different languages which included Gandhari (which the oldest sutras come from.) There wasn't a single corpus from which all sutras came from, but a collection which different schools put to writing after a period of being passed on orally. The Chinese Agamas are nearly identical to the contents of the Pali cannon, despite not stemming from the same translations (I've seen this mentioned more than once, by people who can read/translate Classical Chinese.) "Neti, neti," is an affirming negation, to discover the Self, which is unseparated from Brahman. This has no place in the anatman teachings of Buddhism. Nibbana in Theravada, is described as the cessation of ignorance, aggression and craving. Clearly, these are your own interpolations. Yes, Buddha borrowed a lot from Vedic Culture, because he was a Vedic Indian. He didn't set out to usurp nor subvert Vedic culture. Instead, he repurposed many of these concepts to fit with his teachings. The cosmology of Buddhism is completely different from the essentially top-down Monist cosmology of Advaita (due to Buddha teaching dependent origination.) This also differs from the other eternalist atmavada schools of Samkhya and Jainism, even though they don't posit a creator God either. Via Negativa, is just another way another way of affirming some "thing," via negation. This is still based off of realist views, which are predicated upon imputations of "it is" and "it is not." Nibbana, is the "undying, unborn, unbecoming, unconditioned," because the 12-fold chain of dependent origination ceases due to the cessation of ignorance, craving, aggression. Yes, "atman," was expressed differently between the different sects. Buddha covers every eternalist and nihilist view in the Brahmajala Sutta. This does not mean that Buddhism taught an atman or held views of partial eternalism. There are also translations out there where atta was wrongly and deliberately used by certain translators. This is covered in Wapola Rahula's "What The Buddha Taught." The different sub-scools that split after the 2nd council, didn't differ so radically that they were completely divorced from what we have today. Some of those sub-schools died out, while some of the other teachings were carried on and merged to create today's Hinayana and Mahayana.