Dzogchen (and Buddhism) Summarized

[goldisheavy]

You are an idiot. The Indian COMMENTARIES of this tantra contain Dzogchen. These commentaries were written in Sanskrit in India.

 

WOW.

 

Even if Styrofoamdog is wrong about a thing or two, I wouldn't call him an idiot. He's wise and compassionate. But you are definitely a small-minded idiot though.

[RongzomFan]

Even if Styrofoamdog is wrong about a thing or two, I wouldn't call him an idiot. He's wise and compassionate. But you are definitely a small-minded idiot though.

 

 

You don't have any credibility, since you think certain forum people here are more knowledgeable than the Dalai Lama, who is a knowledgeable by all accounts.

 

Stick to getting banned, like you normally do.

Edited June 28, 2010 by alwayson

[styrofoamdog]

You are an idiot. The Indian COMMENTARIES of this tantra contain Dzogchen. These commentaries were written in Sanskrit in India.

 

WOW.

How very Buddhist of you, to call me an idiot. You truly embody the principle of no self, and the endeavor to perfect the wisdom of a bodhisattva.

 

Are these commentaries extant in Indian texts? Do they have parallel translations in the Chinese canon, do you know? Most important early Vajrayana texts from India are also found in the Chinese canon. Do these commentaries reference the Dzogchen tradition by name? If so, what is the Sanskrit term for the school? There is a Digital Sanskrit Buddhist Canon hosted by the University of the West, which preserves extant Sanskrit manuscripts from this period in history. Could you find these commentaries for me in Sanskrit? It would not only be of great interest to me, but if you wrote an academic paper on the subject, you would likely become published (if it actually established a link between Dzogchen and India).

[RongzomFan]

if you wrote an academic paper on the subject, you would likely become published

 

 

What the fuck?

 

This is not MY discovery or something dude.

 

I wish LOL

Edited June 28, 2010 by alwayson

[goldisheavy]

You don't have any credibility, since you think certain forum people here are more knowledgeable than the Dalai Lama, who is a knowledgeable by all accounts.

 

Stick to getting banned, like you normally do.

 

You do always like to put words into people's mouths, don't you? First you wrongly claimed I was a Communist. Now you are making an erroneous claim that I said Vajrahridaya was more knowledgeable than the Dalai Lama when all I did was ask you consider such possibility. I didn't say that's how it was. I just asked you to keep your mind open. You don't know what Dalai Lama's level of realization is. Nor do you know what Vajrahridaya's realization is. You don't even know your own realization, as is obvious due to your extreme reliance on authority to make your case, as well as your extremely tight clinging to reputation.

 

You need to sit up and shut up, as they say. I wouldn't suggest this to most people, but I am definitely suggesting it to you.

Edited June 28, 2010 by goldisheavy

[RongzomFan]

How very Buddhist of you, to call me an idiot.

 

 

Don't make me quote you.

[styrofoamdog]

What the fuck?

 

This is not MY discovery or something dude.

 

I wish LOL

A real link to Indian traditions is not currently recognized by scholars.

 

Sanskrit Buddhist Canon:

http://www.uwest.edu/sanskritcanon/dp/index.php?q=node/107

 

Chinese Buddhist Canon with Sanskrit names:

http://www.acmuller.net/descriptive_catalogue/indexes/index-sanskrit.html

 

I would be interested in finding reference to Dzogchen in Sanskrit or Chinese texts predating the arrival of Buddhism in Tibet. Since you have told me very confidently that commentaries on this Indian tantra, referencing a Dzogchen tradition, are composed in Sanskrit and come from India, you should be able to tell us where.

Edited June 28, 2010 by styrofoamdog

[Sunya]

Styro,

 

Since you seem quote acquainted with Zen.. could you tell us about Shikantaza? I hear that's an advanced practice and seems to be very similar to Dzogchen trekcho meditation.

[styrofoamdog]

Styro,

 

Since you seem quote acquainted with Zen.. could you tell us about Shikantaza? I hear that's an advanced practice and seems to be very similar to Dzogchen trekcho meditation.

It is basically the main Zen method, for which all other meditations are skillful means. Shikantaza is just a name, and there are a million names for such practices among the different schools and traditions.

 

In the Diamond Sutra, Subhuti asks the Buddha how a bodhisattva can pacify his mind, and how the mind should dwell so as to attain Supreme Perfect Enlightenment. The Buddha replies that he should pacify his mind thusly, and that his mind should dwell thusly. There is no distinction between anything in this suchness. However, it is so inconceivable to Subhuti that he tells the Buddha that he does not understand.

 

When people try to stay in what Dzogchen calls the natural state of the mind, they often become confused and attached to various thoughts that arise. Then doubt comes up, and they begin to think more and ask questions. For example, although some people on this thread have experienced a bit of this natural state, how many could sit indefinitely in meditation, and attain samadhi all without expending any effort? The Sandhinirmocana Sutra says that all tathagatas arise from a state of effortlessness, yet everyone puts forth this effort due to karma and grasping.

 

Therefore, this is just one part of seeing the path, and they are unable to refrain from delusions. As a result of Subhuti's confusion, the Buddha has a long lecture teaching non-attachment, cutting down all conceptualization. He repeatedly tells Subhuti to practice thusly, and that all worthy sages are distinguished by means of the unconditioned Dharma. The main teaching of the Diamond Sutra is actually this blocking method, turning the mind away from grasping at different phenomena that arise, so as to be able to abide in the natural state. To know that all phenomena are thus, and to use this knowledge to become a buddha, is the purpose of the Prajnaparamita sutras.

 

Simply sitting and abiding thusly (natural state) is the essential teaching of Shikantaza. The reason that some schools emphasize koans first is to develop some clarity of mind so that people can more easily remain unattached to the various mental formations that arise. However, if someone remains in a state of no-thought, this is called no-birth, and that is also the wrong path: dead tree Zen. In proper the contemplation, one does not create nor suppress mental formations. Here is a Zen poem describing the free state of dwelling nowhere and remaining unattached to anything.

 

Trees of swords and mountains of knives

Are your cushion for meditation;

The dragon's pond and the tiger's den

Compose that which is your Zen seat.

If you let no evil into your mind,

You can exist amongst the wolves and tigers.

There is another poem from the Tang dynasty about watching thoughts while remaining unattached:

 

Recognizing the East wind,

Blossoms in reds and purples

Merely indicate the arrival of Spring.

"Recognizing the East wind" means recognizing mental formations as false and illusory, which correspond with the element of wind within the body. "Blossoms in reds and purples" are the cakras opening up on the body, which the meditator remains unattached to. "Arrival of spring" is a metaphor used by Daoists as well, for the state when the energy in the body flows completely freely, rejuvenating and refreshing the body. However, this is just watching the mind and remaining unattached to false thoughts. It is still not abiding thusly without discriminations as the Buddha originally taught. There is another Zen poem in response to it composed later correcting it:

 

Why should I recognize the East wind?

I don't give a damn if it's Spring or not.

Hopefully these different illustrations help. The Diamond Sutra became the central teaching of the Zen school after the Tang Dynasty, and it is always a good reference for the Zen teachings because so much of the teaching methods are shared.

[C T]

This is how Tibetan masters view the birth of Dzogchen. Not saying who is right or wrong - just presenting it from one perspective. I am sure if you ask a Nepalese or a Bhutanese Dzgn Master they will each weave a different brocade in relation to its inception.

 

According to Tibetan belief, before the Dzogchen teachings appeared in this world, they spread in the 3 divine realms of Akanishtha, Tushita and the Abode of the 33 Gods on the summit of Mount Sumeru. Akanishtha, in this case the symbolic Akanishtha, is where Dzgn was taught to the gods, and is within samsara. This is as opposed to the ultimate Akanishtha, which is the realm of buddha nature itself. In this symbolic Akanishtha, the dhamakaya buddha Samantabhadra manifested out of the spontaneous sound of dharmata and taught the Dzogchen tantras.

 

The teachers of the 3 kayas, in the context of Ati, are called the dharmakaya buddha Samantabhadra, the sambhogakaya buddha Vajradhara, and the nirmanakaya buddha Vajrasattva. This last named buddha Vajrasattva was the buddha who transmitted the Dzgn teachings to the first human vidyadhara, the knowledge-holder Garab Dorje. It is said he received the six million 400 thousand Dzgn tantras directly from Vajrasattva.

 

Buddha Shakyamuni was the last of the twelve holders of the Dzgn teachings. But the person who actually spread them in this world was Garab Dorje. How was it transmitted? Vajradhara is said to be the manifestation of the dharmakaya buddha Samantabhadra, yet with all the adornments. He is the same buddha, but when he appears in a form that is fully ornamented he is known as Vajradhara. At the same time, Vajradhara, in his sambhogakaya buddha form, transmitted the Dzgn teachings through his emanation as nirmanakaya buddha Vajrasattva, who then passed on the Dzgn teachings to Garab Dorje. GD is the first human being who disseminated these teachings, but as i mentioned earlier, that does not mean that Buddha Shakyamuni was not a holder of those teachings. Still, the one who truly propagated the 6,400,000 verses, or 'shlokas', of the Dzgn tantras in our world was GD. He condensed them all into 3 sentences called the Three Words That Strike The Vital Point - Recognize your own nature, decide on one point, and gain confidence in liberation.

 

Within Ati yoga are subdivisions such as Outer Mind, inner Space, and Secret Instruction. There is also a fourth, called the Innermost Unexcelled Section, or sometimes known as Innermost Heart Essence, which consists of the extraordinary Dzgn teachings. It is said that the ultimate view of the teachings given by the nirmanakaya buddha is the view of the Middle Way, Madhyamika. The ultimate view given by the sambhogakaya buddha is Mahamudra, and the ultimate view given by the dharmakaya buddha buddha is Dzgn, the Great Perfection. Although Buddha Shakyamuni had, of course, realized the nature of the 9 Vehicles, in his function as the nirmanakaya buddha he publicly gave teachings appropriate for shravakas, pratyekabuddhas and bodhisattvas. The primary view, in this case, was the Middle Way, Madhyamika, whereas GD emphasized Ati Yoga, especially the Dzgn view of the outer, inner and innermost sections of Mind, Space and Instruction. He condensed all the Dzgn tantras into the 3 Vital Points (as mentioned above).

Edited June 28, 2010 by CowTao

[RongzomFan]

Thanks CowTao for that.

 

Since Styro is primarily is arguing about authenticity based on Indian traditions, you cannot obtain Buddhahood via Zen in one lifetime. You cannot travel 10 bhumis in one lifetime in Sutra. Impossible. Later Japanese Zen masters said you can acheive Buddhahood in one lifetime, but this is not authentic to the Mahayana sutras of India. Females cannot obtain Buddhahood at all, unless they are reborn as male first.

 

 

So much for Styro sticking to the authentic teachings of India.

 

 

The only way to obtain Buddhahood in one lifetime in the sutras, is that you are already a ninth stage bodhisattva. And then even according to sutra, you need tantric-style empowerment to remove the knowledge obscuration to omniscient Buddhahood.

 

And with that, I am done with this fucking thread. mikaelz, you can ride my ass all you want.

Edited June 28, 2010 by alwayson

[Sunya]

It is basically the main Zen method, for which all other meditations are skillful means. Shikantaza is just a name, and there are a million names for such practices among the different schools and traditions.

 

In the Diamond Sutra, Subhuti asks the Buddha how a bodhisattva can pacify his mind, and how the mind should dwell so as to attain Supreme Perfect Enlightenment. The Buddha replies that he should pacify his mind thusly, and that his mind should dwell thusly. There is no distinction between anything in this suchness. However, it is so inconceivable to Subhuti that he tells the Buddha that he does not understand.

 

When people try to stay in what Dzogchen calls the natural state of the mind, they often become confused and attached to various thoughts that arise. Then doubt comes up, and they begin to think more and ask questions. For example, although some people on this thread have experienced a bit of this natural state, how many could sit indefinitely in meditation, and attain samadhi all without expending any effort? The Sandhinirmocana Sutra says that all tathagatas arise from a state of effortlessness, yet everyone puts forth this effort due to karma and grasping.

 

Therefore, this is just one part of seeing the path, and they are unable to refrain from delusions. As a result of Subhuti's confusion, the Buddha has a long lecture teaching non-attachment, cutting down all conceptualization. He repeatedly tells Subhuti to practice thusly, and that all worthy sages are distinguished by means of the unconditioned Dharma. The main teaching of the Diamond Sutra is actually this blocking method, turning the mind away from grasping at different phenomena that arise, so as to be able to abide in the natural state. To know that all phenomena are thus, and to use this knowledge to become a buddha, is the purpose of the Prajnaparamita sutras.

 

Simply sitting and abiding thusly (natural state) is the essential teaching of Shikantaza. The reason that some schools emphasize koans first is to develop some clarity of mind so that people can more easily remain unattached to the various mental formations that arise. However, if someone remains in a state of no-thought, this is called no-birth, and that is also the wrong path: dead tree Zen. In proper the contemplation, one does not create nor suppress mental formations. Here is a Zen poem describing the free state of dwelling nowhere and remaining unattached to anything.

 

 

There is another poem from the Tang dynasty about watching thoughts while remaining unattached:

 

 

"Recognizing the East wind" means recognizing mental formations as false and illusory, which correspond with the element of wind within the body. "Blossoms in reds and purples" are the cakras opening up on the body, which the meditator remains unattached to. "Arrival of spring" is a metaphor used by Daoists as well, for the state when the energy in the body flows completely freely, rejuvenating and refreshing the body. However, this is just watching the mind and remaining unattached to false thoughts. It is still not abiding thusly without discriminations as the Buddha originally taught. There is another Zen poem in response to it composed later correcting it:

 

 

Hopefully these different illustrations help. The Diamond Sutra became the central teaching of the Zen school after the Tang Dynasty, and it is always a good reference for the Zen teachings because so much of the teaching methods are shared.

 

Thank you..

[goldisheavy]

Thanks CowTao for that.

 

Since Styro is primarily is arguing about authenticity based on Indian traditions, you cannot obtain Buddhahood via Zen in one lifetime.

 

This is impossible to prove or demonstrate. People who say this harm themselves because they spread a negative and illogical blind belief. It's a useless conjecture.

 

You cannot travel 10 bhumis in one lifetime in Sutra. Impossible. Later Japanese Zen masters said you can acheive Buddhahood in one lifetime, but this is not authentic to the Mahayana sutras of India. Females cannot obtain Buddhahood at all, unless they are reborn as male first.

 

This is again, absurd. You're talking out of your ass.

 

So much for Styro sticking to the authentic teachings of India.

 

No, Styro is sticking to real hard evidence that we actually have rather than to the hagiography of Dzogchen. I still respect the hagiography and find it interesting but I also respect scholarly hard evidence. I find both interesting, instead of just one.

 

The only way to obtain Buddhahood in one lifetime in the sutras, is that you are already a ninth stage bodhisattva. And then even according to sutra, you need tantric-style empowerment to remove the knowledge obscuration to omniscient Buddhahood.

 

Absurd. This is why religion is harmful to the world. It spawns dogmatic and closed-minded morons like you.

 

And with that, I am done with this fucking thread.

 

None too soon, slugger.

[styrofoamdog]

[Raymond Wolter]

So all about the three Yanas of Buddhism; do they mean anything more than different paths to the same goal? If Dependent Oritigination/Emptiness/Pratityasamutpada is the goal of all the three Yanas, then how can one Yana be superior to the other? Even if one speaks in terms of simply the speed? What can be a useful and skillful means for one need not be for another. So if one is simply sticking to Shamata+Vipassana routine the Theravadain style, is he at a disadvantage compared to the another following Vajrayana? If so, why and how? What really is the significance of the three Yanas? Or they simply represent different points in the historical development of Buddhism? I do not know about Theravadin Pali suttas but certain Vajrayana tantras and Dzogchen/Mahamudra texts criticize Theravadin and sometimes even Sutra based Mahayana methods as inferior and leading to a lower realization. Should one take such comparisons seriously at all?

 

Thanks.

 

Googling ...both Vajra and Mikael seem correct in their own ways...

 

1. The sUtrayAna ascertains that the ultimate nature, the absolute truth - is free from elaborations of eight extremes, but it does not realize the nature of the union of the ultimate sphere and primordial wisdom as it is. Tantra, having dispelled that ignorance, realizes the nature of the union of the ultimate sphere and primordial wisdom.

 

2. sUtrayAna ascertains phenomena, the things of relative truth, as the nature of interdependent arising like a magical apparition (mAyA), but is it ignorant because of not yet having ascertained phenomena as the bodies and primordial wisdoms, but having ascertained them as just impure like magical apparitions. Tantra ascertains that all are the play of the Buddha-bodies and primordial wisdoms, the non-duality of the ultimate sphere and primordial wisdom, the non-duality of the two truths and the supreme ultimate body.

 

3. The meditational aspect of tantra is superior because of the two stages: the skillful means of the development stage and the wisdom of the perfection stage.

 

4. In sUtrayana, there is no path to attain enlightenment which does not abandon the objects of desire. Whereas in tantra, having taken the objects of desire, without abandoning, as the path of training, which protects the mind-consciousness easily and blissfully, one becomes able to attain the state of vajradhara in this very lifetime.

 

5. Tantra is the training for exceptional persons who possess superior qualities. The general quality is the superiority of having five special powers which generate enlightenment; and the special quality is the wisdom of realizing the profound view of tantra as well as a strong power of faith with no fear.

 

The goal in both sUtra and tantrayanas is the attainment of enlightenment. The differences are the means that lead to the goal. In tAntric teachings, the view is indivisibility of cause and result. The appearances of the five external elements are five female Buddha consorts, the appearances of the five inner aggregates are five male Buddha consorts, the hosts of thoughts are five primordial wisdoms, and the world and beings are equally pure as the Buddhas.

 

Since the practitioners of tantra realize all phenomena as totally pure, they enjoy everything in the indivisible nature of the two truths. Since the practitioners of sUtra perceive things as good or bad, they are unable to take every aspect of phenomena as the support of training, whereas tantra can transform everything as the means of training.

 

The sUtric teachings of bodhisattvayAna or mahAyAna assert that beings possess the Buddha-essence (tathAgatagarbha). With the Buddha-essence as the seed and with training on the accumulations of merits and primordial wisdom as the conditions during numerous lives, the Buddha-essence will blossom, and as a result, enlightenment is achieved. It is called the yAna of causation as it asserts that cause and the result are successive.

 

In the tAntric view wherein the cause and result are indivisible, the Buddha-essence is naturally present in all living beings with its virtues complete, like the sun with its rays, and that is the basis of purification. The eight consciousnesses with appearances, like clouds, obscure the Buddha-essence and these are the ones to be purified for the light of virtues to shine forth. Thereby, the attainment of the absolute universal ground shining forth, as it is, like the sun, is the result of purification. At that time, since there are no longer the previous defilements, although the names and habituations of the universal ground have been transformed, in reality they manifest without differentiation or succession.

 

In essence, the sUtras and tantras do not differ regarding the view of emptiness, the absolute truth, but their differences lie in the view of appearances, the relative truth.

 

 

dude, who cares.

 

comparing everything to Dzogchen is comparing apples to oranges and is fruitless It sounds very close to Mahamudra view and maybe Dzogchen Semsde, but Rainbow Body isn't a big deal to Mahamudra, its only the end-all be-all of Nyingma. other schools don't really care about it. so I don't think Rainbow Body should be mentioned in every thread as a comparison to how high a path leads.

 

yeah and he teaches from a certain perspective. Rinpoche himself said that practitioners of the Great Transfer (Phowa, which is what Kagyus focus on) achieve the same realization as Dzogchen with the Rainbow Body. Dzogchen is all method, like every form of Buddhism. are Dzogchen masters above Mahamudra masters or Chan masters who don't mention Jalus? I don't think so. Tibetan Buddhists always have a sense of superiority in their lineage and method and they always claim it as the best or the highest. this goes back in history to when lineages competed with each other. You gotta be Rime, and not just about TB but about Buddhism in general.

 

Rime is about all the TB lineages, not about every type of Buddhism. Vajrayana does transcend Zen/Mahayana/Chan in method and the view is more nuanced. Yes, it is superior, as it's Tantra, it's a subtler path.

 

You may not be able to see this, but it always has been a subtler path with more methods and faster enlightenment. That's how Tantra is defined. It doesn't matter what your personal opinion is, as it's not fully educated, not that mine is, but it is more educated.

 

Dzogchen is also the highest form of Vajrayana transcending Tantra with some view similar to Zen, but Zen is not as nuanced and does indeed have different results, though Mahamudra and powa results in the same.

 

I feel that I'm right, so I'll mention it in as many threads as I see fit. Why not? Why are you so effected?.. that's a better question.

 

I've hardly been writing in many threads anymore anyway. I just thought it should be mentioned because goldisheavy is interested in Dzogchen style it seems. Vajrayana method is considered superior, not that individuals in any path are superior, as there are phenomenal practicioners in any lineage that get it in a deeply subtle level who's speech all sounds like Semsde. Which is wonderful! I wasn't downplaying it... just expanding.

 

Dzogchen is my practice and Dzogchen is the most interesting to me. So... of course you'll find me mentioning it as well as Vajrayana. that's the way it is. I don't practice Zen and am not fighting secret attractions to it. Though I find it wonderful as well, just not as attractive for me for reasons of yes... Vajrayana superiority.

 

I don't agree. you're more educated in the elitist view of Tibetan Buddhism, I know that.. but I've studied some Theravada and Chan/Zen and I feel i'm right that all methods of Buddhism all lead to the same goal.

 

Education doesn't always mean wisdom anyway. someone can be really educated but if their source of education is seeped in sectarian propaganda than that's not that wonderful. as great a method as sectarian propoganda is, i don't question, but we live in a global age now. trusting Tibetan source on Chan from the 9th century is kind of strange when you have access to the Chan sources themselves. same with Theravada, so called "Hinayana" by the Mahayanists, but doesn't share any of the criticisms because this isn't 2nd century AD India. Times change.

 

you feel that you're right that's fine. I think that brown rice is really excellent for digestion but i'm not gonna go to a diet forum and mention it on every thread. that's just weird. not every thread has to turn into brown rice is the best dish type deal.. even if it were true.

 

You've hardly been around the practices of Vajrayana which incorporate visualisation, vipashyana, physical yogas, specific tantric practices which have specific fruits, medicinal practices, dancing practices... I'm sorry, but there are endless more methods in Vajrayana than any other form of Buddhism, it's just true that as the wheels turn, as Dzogchen is the 4th turning, it's the highest turning. You have very little exposure to it thus far. So you can't really speak much on what it actually teaches, and I hardly can, but only can say what little I know.

 

Agree or not. Even ChNNR agrees that Dzogchen is the highest path in Buddhism. Not that individuals aren't great in any tradition, but Vajrayana is faster and does the Buddha dance more quicker.

 

To me, your view lacks understanding. I'll tell you so. Take it or leave it...

 

 

I don't think you read my posts. I'm not saying Dzogchen doesn't have more methods. i'm saying it doesn't lead to a "better" or "higher" realization than other Buddhist paths. so saying fuck Chan because it doesn't lead to Ranbow Body is silly. I view Rainbow body as one expression of enlightenment.

 

duh Namkai Norbu Rinpoche says Dzogchen is the highest path. that's his path lol, and Tibetan Buddhism is the only tradition he's been exposed to... actually since he was a kid... well,, before he was born. so you could say he is a little biased I doubt any Rinpoche's have truly given any other Buddhist tradition an objective viewing without being biased by the 3 Yana system.

 

this really is like Catholics arguing against Protestants saying their path gets them in a higher better heaven. it's the same damn religion. chill.

 

Dzogchen is the 4th turning according to Dzogchen btw. i know this sort of sectarian bashing is common in the Tibetan Buddhist forum on E Sangha, but you should go to the Chan/Zen forum and try that and see the kind of response you get.

 

See for Buddhism, it's dependent origination that's infinite potentiality through the quality of emptiness. Emptiness is not an existing non-thing that pulsates potentiality. It's the quality of phenomena that grants infinite variableness.

 

If one really reads the Pali Suttas, one gets the Mahayana interpretation from them. It's not that Hinayana is even a slandering, which is what Hinayanins don't get because they want to protect their egos. It's saying that the interpretation of the Suttas as self liberation is a Hinayana view, it's not an absolute interpretation of the Pali Suttas as the Mahayanist interpretation of the Pali Suttas is Mahayana as the Buddha even said, "I'm doing this for all of you" when he left the palace. You can be a Theravadin and have a Mahayana view and practice about it. Also the Buddha himself taught the Mahayana to certain disciples at the same time that he taught the Hinayana view. The first Mahayana scriptures were recordings of things the Buddha said while he was alive, then some later ones were recorded from higher realms as he left through the 4th Jhana which leads to the Peerless Deva realm where he taught countless beings from even after he died.

 

Yes, because Hinayana is just a way of interpreting, and not the scriptures themselves, as the scriptures themselves do teach a Mahayana view if one reads them carefully, though not as clearly as what are attributed to the Mahayana scriptures. Through technological globalisation, there are a lot of gaps being closed.

 

Yes, someone who clings to Theravada does not understand that it intends Mahayana. So, I don't really care what a Theravadin would say about Mahayana because they don't understand how the Pali Suttas lead to Mahayana. The earliest Mahayana sutras were written down at the same time as the early Pali Suttas.

 

Edited June 28, 2010 by Raymond Wolter

[RongzomFan]

saw the naga maiden suddenly transform into a man

 

 

I know I said I was done with this thread, but this was to fun. See my bold emphasis above.

 

EPIC FAIL

[Pero]

Well I don't really want to get involved in a debate, but I'll give a shot to answering your questions according to my limited understanding.

 

So all about the three Yanas of Buddhism; do they mean anything more than different paths to the same goal? If Dependent Oritigination/Emptiness/Pratityasamutpada is the goal of all the three Yanas, then how can one Yana be superior to the other? Even if one speaks in terms of simply the speed? What can be a useful and skillful means for one need not be for another.

 

Good points, you are correct. Superiority of the path mostly depends on the person's capacity. For example, if someone is unable to practice Vajrayana but is able to practice ordinary Mahayana then for that person ordinary Mahayana is superior and vice versa. However this is from the point of view of individuals.

 

So if one is simply sticking to Shamata+Vipassana routine the Theravadain style, is he at a disadvantage compared to the another following Vajrayana?

 

Well that depends on his goal, since Theravada is not a Mahayana school, the result will not be the same as someone practicing Vajrayana which is a Mahayana school.

 

What really is the significance of the three Yanas?

 

Different paths for different people, depending on their capacities, affinities and so on.

 

Or they simply represent different points in the historical development of Buddhism?

 

That could be it too.

 

I do not know about Theravadin Pali suttas but certain Vajrayana tantras and Dzogchen/Mahamudra texts criticize Theravadin and sometimes even Sutra based Mahayana methods as inferior and leading to a lower realization. Should one take such comparisons seriously at all?

 

Well certainly Hinayana may be criticized by Mahayana schools because the goal of Mahayana is Buddhahood while the goal of Hinayana is Arhatship. This though doesn't mean that Arthatship is not a worthy goal. From the POV of someone practicing to attain Arhatship this criticism is irrelevant. But for someone on the Mahayana path it's important so he knows what to practice. You should know that even within Dzogchen there are various teachings and one that is "higher" always criticizes the "lower". I think this is not to say that the lower has no value but simply to show how to practice the higher teachings without falling into the lower ones.

[styrofoamdog]

I know I said I was done with this thread, but this was to fun. See my bold emphasis above.

 

EPIC FAIL

Yes, she instantly transformed into a perfected male bodhisattva, and then instantly became a buddha. There was no rebirth as a male in a future life, nor were there eons of effort to perfect the six paramitas. She became a buddha in her lifetime. In the Vimalakirti Nirdesa Sutra, Shariputra must also accept that there is no true characteristic of male or female, and that women cannot be discriminated against in Mahayana. Shariputra's two erroneous arguments were the same as your own, he was wrong on both counts, and had to silently accept the authority of the naga maiden's words.

[goldisheavy]

So all about the three Yanas of Buddhism; do they mean anything more than different paths to the same goal?

 

It all depends on how you use them. Yana is a vehicle. The three vehicles are, say, bicycle, motorcycle, and a car. With the bicycle, if you go in the wrong direction, you get slowly lost. With motorcycle, if you go in the wrong direction, you get lost slightly faster. With a car, if you go in the wrong direction you get lost quickly. So as you can see, the faster the vehicle is at getting you to your goal, the more quickly lost you become if you misuse that vehicle.

 

So which one is better? There is no way to tell! Not any one of them is better. For example, even if you take your car in the right direction in the middle of the New York City, a bicycle will likely beat it. If there is a forest that's blocking your path, a car may get stuck in it, since it is designed for paved ways, but motorcycle and bicycle will pass just fine through the forest. Should the car break on the road, you may not be able to fix it. A motorcycle and bicycle are both easier to fix than a car, because you can actually understand how they work, since they are simple. A car depends on a constant supply of gasoline, and so does a motorcycle, even though a motorcycle is much more efficient in gasoline/petrol consumption. But bicycle requires no gasoline. Cars pollute our environment much more, even when they deliver their occupants very quickly to the destination, we all pay the price. Bicycles pollute much less.

 

So which vehicle is better? As you can see, actually, you can't say definitely which vehicle is better. All vehicles are a set of trade-offs.

 

It's true that many tantras are full of criticism. But as I demonstrated by my quotation, they criticize everything and not just sutrayana. There is plenty, plenty of criticism for every tantra and yoga. At the same time, one an easily criticize ati yoga. Maybe you can't, but I certainly can. That doesn't mean I don't like ati, it just means I see it for what it is -- a relative construct, or in zen terms, a finger.

 

In the past I've criticized Zen plenty of times. But that doesn't mean every Zen teacher is an idiot who is subject to my criticism. It doesn't mean Zen is inherently flawed. As far as my criticism is concerned it is only applicable to how a lot of people approach Zen today and not more than that. Zen has some really awesome texts, like the blood sermon, for example, or the Vimalakirti Nirdesa Sutra, or the Shodoka, which is as good as any Dzogchen tantra or Longchenpa writing.

 

Spiritual paths are tools, like hammer. A hammer doesn't lead to a house or to a shed. A hammer just as well leads to a bruised finger. It all depends on how you use it.

 

If Dependent Oritigination/Emptiness/Pratityasamutpada is the goal of all the three Yanas, then how can one Yana be superior to the other?

 

Wisdom is the goal. And yes, that's a good question, how can they be superior to one another? And if one of them is superior, which one and for whom and when?

Edited June 28, 2010 by goldisheavy

[goldisheavy]

Two other points with regard to the text quoted by Raymond:

 

2. sUtrayAna ascertains phenomena, the things of relative truth, as the nature of interdependent arising like a magical apparition (mAyA), but is it ignorant because of not yet having ascertained phenomena as the bodies and primordial wisdoms, but having ascertained them as just impure like magical apparitions. Tantra ascertains that all are the play of the Buddha-bodies and primordial wisdoms, the non-duality of the ultimate sphere and primordial wisdom, the non-duality of the two truths and the supreme ultimate body.

 

At no time does Sutrayana imply that a magical apparition is something impure. That's a personal predisposition of the author of that quote interfering with understanding.

 

In sUtrayana, there is no path to attain enlightenment which does not abandon the objects of desire. Whereas in tantra, having taken the objects of desire, without abandoning, as the path of training, which protects the mind-consciousness easily and blissfully, one becomes able to attain the state of vajradhara in this very lifetime.

 

That's not exactly a fair criticism because as far as worldly things are concerned, Buddha has recommended a way between the extremes of hedonism and abstinence. Basically Buddha has recommended moderation and not an abandonment of the objects of desire when we are talking about the day to day life. But let's take this further. When it comes to meditation, all the jhanas are indeed mental objects, and are indeed objects of desire. And even though jhanas are objects of desire, Buddha has nonetheless recommended them. At the same time, such desires as the desire for liberation and so on are considered wholesome and are not abandoned, but rather matured with wisdom. In other words, the person changes one's understanding of what it means to be liberated and the desire softens naturally without it being expressly abandoned.

 

Besides, even the Dzogchen tantras say that Buddha is wishless. So also, an argument can be made that Dzogchen (the highest tantra) does indeed abandon desires. Have you read "Buddhahood Without Meditation/Nang-jang"? It is unequivocally renunciate in flavor.

 

Quoting page 49 of Nang-jang:

 

"It is an enormous flaw not to understand that what manifests as the body is empty, and instead to invest it with truth. This flaw is the consuming demon (za-dre), since the power of the efforts you make for the sake of the body eats away at the fruit of omniscience. It is the murderous executioner (shi-shed), since it provides the link from one cycle to the next in samsara, causing the appearances of birth and death to manifest. It is what cuts the life force (srog-chod), since for the sake of the body you are driven to seek happiness from clothing and so forth, and so you sever the lifetime of liberation with the fixation on attachment and aversion that perpetuates hope and fear. It is also what steals the breath (ug-len), since it robs you of the breath of lasting happiness. Therefore, all those who fixate on the apparent objects of the six modes of consciousness (tsog-drug) are like deer perceiving a mirage to be water and chasing after it, when not even an iota of essence has ever existed.

 

This is not from sutrayana. That's Dudgom Lingpa, a Dzogchen heavyweight champ of the time recounting of his visionary account with Longchhenpa Drimed Odzer.

 

So as you can plainly see, Vajrayana and Sutrayana are both so varied and profound that you can find quotes inside of their texts to support virtually anything. So you shouldn't make any conclusive statements as to what criticizes what and what offers what manner of path. At least get a clue first and then talk.

Edited June 28, 2010 by goldisheavy

[Raymond Wolter]

So you shouldn't make any conclusive statements as to what criticizes what and what offers what manner of path. At least get a clue first and then talk.

 

Gold, those were not my own conclusions. The text is from Longchen Rabjam's Dzogchen discourse translated by Tulku Thondup. I am just quoting them here to clarify my understanding. So they don't necessarily reflect my conclusion or knowledge/cluelessness of this topic.

[Raymond Wolter]

You should know that even within Dzogchen there are various teachings and one that is "higher" always criticizes the "lower". I think this is not to say that the lower has no value but simply to show how to practice the higher teachings without falling into the lower ones.

 

That is exactly my question. If the goal is the same realization of Emptiness/Pratityasamutpada for all the teachings and sub-teachings, how does one, let's say for practical purposes, distinguish between high and low?

 

1. A person is capable of both Mahayana and Vajrayana. Does that make both the paths "same" for him considering neither is relatively "high" or "low" with respect to each other for him?

2. Or is "high" and "low" determined on the basis of side-effects like Mikael pointed out? Jalus, Rainbow body, Siddhis, higher Kayas etc.?

3. Or is it mostly the Arhatship vs Bodhisattva vs Buddhahood that differentiates between high/low teachings?

 

Another question I implied earlier was whether the yanas were of progressive nature? In other words, if one takes the yana system of Vajrayana, Hinayana and Sutrayana are used as precursors to Mantra and Tantra yanas using these yanas as preperatory steps to get to Vajrayana, Atiyoga and other supposedly "higher" teachings. So there is a well defined hierarchy on one side and on the other side there is also the same realization at the end of each of the yanas. Other than the relative highness or lowness of teaching based on what works for who and how well, there is no real hierarchy in these yanas - Is that what you are suggesting here?

 

Thank you.

Edited June 28, 2010 by Raymond Wolter

[goldisheavy]

Gold, those were not my own conclusions. The text is from Longchen Rabjam's Dzogchen discourse translated by Tulku Thondup. I am just quoting them here to clarify my understanding. So they don't necessarily reflect my conclusion or knowledge/cluelessness of this topic.

 

Whose conclusions they are is not important. What's important is that they are wrong.

[goldisheavy]

That is exactly my question. If the goal is the same realization of Emptiness/Pratityasamutpada for all the teachings and sub-teachings, how does one, let's say for practical purposes, distinguish between high and low?

 

1. A person is capable of both Mahayana and Vajrayana. Does that make both the paths "same" for him considering neither is relatively "high" or "low" with respect to each other for him?

 

You seem to be confused here. You present the paths as a matter of some doing, or, some elbow grease, as it were. It's as if the person is capable of using the table saw and the band saw, both, so which saw is superior then? Well, wisdom is not really a matter of doing like using the various saws would be. It's a matter of realization. It's your ability to reach an a-ha moment, and then it's also a measure of how profound your a-ha moment is. Which is to say, how much does your life change due to your a-ha moment? If not much, then it's as if you didn't have any a-ha at all, so it was weak sauce. But this is tricky, because a slightly sick person experience only a slight improvement on the way to health, so a slight improvement is not necessarily a bad improvement. If a gravely sick person experiences a slight improvement, that's bad. So the slightness of the a-ha alone is not enough to indict the a-ha, but it's an important factor to consider.

 

Can the person wake up from reading a Vajrayana text? Mahayana text? Attending a lecture by Vajrayana, Mahayna, etc. practitioner? Performing some ritual? None of the above? All of the above?

 

Everything is possible. Under the right conditions, a rock falling on your head can awaken you. That doesn't mean we need to pelt everyone's head with rocks, but that also doesn't mean rocks don't work, period.

 

Vajrayana people constantly mention that Vajrayana is a path for people with higher capacity. Well, jee. People with higher capacity need lower quality teachers and texts to get enlightened, because the higher the capacity the more you depend on your inner factors and less on the outer circumstances. So, a higher capacity person can awaken from something relatively stupid, whereas a dumber person will need to receive very sublime and very many instructions.

 

In other words, a healthy person can drink dirty water and slake one's thirst because of the strong immune system. A sickly person needs to drink only the cleanest water or risk dying due to infection. So the fact that Vajrayana is a teaching only for the high capacity people is not necessarily a credit to it. People who are suited to Vajrayana don't need Vajrayana. People who need it most aren't suited for it, at least if we blindly believe some of the Vajrayana folks.

 

2. Or is "high" and "low" determined on the basis of side-effects like Mikael pointed out? Jalus, Rainbow body, Siddhis, higher Kayas etc.?

 

That's personal preference because such things are adornments.

 

3. Or is it mostly the Arhatship vs Bodhisattva vs Buddhahood that differentiates between high/low teachings?

 

These are pointless sectarian squabbles that don't present any kind of practically interesting distinctions.

 

Another question I implied earlier was whether the yanas were of progressive nature? In other words, if one takes the yana system of Vajrayana, Hinayana and Sutrayana are used as precursors to Mantra and Tantra yanas using these yanas as preperatory steps to get to Vajrayana, Atiyoga and other supposedly "higher" teachings.

 

This can't be true. If yanas were progressive, then the higher yanas would not criticze the lower yanas just like if you meet someone who was on a three leg journey to your town, you don't criticize the first leg of that journey as mistaken.

 

So if the yanas are progressive, all are necessary and none can be criticized. If they can be criticized, they aren't all necessary and they aren't all progressive.

Edited June 28, 2010 by goldisheavy

[Raymond Wolter]

You seem to be confused here. You present the paths as a matter of some doing, or, some elbow grease, as it were. It's as if the person is capable of using the table saw and the band saw, both, so which saw is superior then? Well, wisdom is not really a matter of doing like using the various saws would be. It's a matter of realization. It's your ability to reach an a-ha moment, and then it's also a measure of how profound your a-ha moment is. Which is to say, how much does your life change due to your a-ha moment? If not much, then it's as if you didn't have any a-ha at all, so it was weak sauce. But this is tricky, because a slightly sick person experience only a slight improvement on the way to health, so a slight improvement is not necessarily a bad improvement. If a gravely sick person experiences a slight improvement, that's bad. So the slightness of the a-ha alone is not enough to indict the a-ha, but it's an important factor to consider.

 

Can the person wake up from reading a Vajrayana text? Mahayana text? Attending a lecture by Vajrayana, Mahayna, etc. practitioner? Performing some ritual? None of the above? All of the above?

 

Everything is possible. Under the right conditions, a rock falling on your head can awaken you. That doesn't mean we need to pelt everyone's head with rocks, but that also doesn't mean rocks don't work, period.

 

Vajrayana people constantly mention that Vajrayana is a path for people with higher capacity. Well, jee. People with higher capacity need lower quality teachers and texts to get enlightened, because the higher the capacity the more you depend on your inner factors and less on the outer circumstances. So, a higher capacity person can awaken from something relatively stupid, whereas a dumber person will need to receive very sublime and very many instructions.

 

In other words, a healthy person can drink dirty water and slake one's thirst because of the strong immune system. A sickly person needs to drink only the cleanest water or risk dying due to infection. So the fact that Vajrayana is a teaching only for the high capacity people is not necessarily a credit to it. People who are suited to Vajrayana don't need Vajrayana. People who need it most aren't suited for it, at least if we blindly believe some of the Vajrayana folks.

 

 

 

That's personal preference because such things are adornments.

 

 

 

These are pointless sectarian squabbles that don't present any kind of practically interesting distinctions.

 

 

 

This can't be true. If yanas were progressive, then the higher yanas would not criticze the lower yanas just like if you meet someone who was on a three leg journey to your town, you don't criticize the first leg of that journey as mistaken.

 

So if the yanas are progressive, all are necessary and none can be criticized. If they can be criticized, they aren't all necessary and they aren't all progressive.

 

Thanks Gold. Very clear indeed.