The Skeptical "Buddhist"...Critical thinking & Buddhism..

[Apech]

Hi Stefos I will attempt to answer your points ....

 

The highest Teachings of Tibetan Buddhism DO in fact refute other Tibetan Buddhist schools.

 

Not to be patronizing but I share & ask the following rhetorical questions...please share your answers:

 

For example, Je Tsongkapa vs. Sakya Pandita vs. etc. vs. etc.

 

Not sure what you mean by 'Je Tsongkapa vs. Sakya Pandita' they weren't contemporaries ... however within the context of what you say I assume you are referring to their criticisms of other schools and teachers. This has to be understood, I think, in the following way. At periods of Tibetan history the dharma declined in authenticity ... it was always a broad church in that it encompassed many schools and practices so the idea that there were different sects and so on was not the problem. The problem was that certain practices deviated from what could be termed Buddhism. I think the core definition for this would be the Four Seals (that compounded phenomena are impermanent, that self-hood is a the cause of suffering, that phenomena are empty and the nirvana is perfect peace) ... if teaching does not uphold these it cannot be said to be Buddhist. Also certain practices tended to abandon the path and thus were not effective in producing liberation. Great teachers like Sakya Pandita during their lifetimes because of their great skill in teaching dharma were able to correct the deviances that occurred in those times. In doing so they publicly criticised what were non-Buddhist philosophies and practices. I don't think you will find in anything he said a refutation of any level of genuine Buddhism. he upheld one and at the same time Hinayana, Mahayana, Vajrayana and so on. I not aware of any Lama who would suggest that you should abandon any level of teachings but simply that you should understand that for instance the Hinayana is a limited form of dharma suitable for certain persons, it is dharma but perhaps not the whole picture. Similarly with the Mahayana six pefections and bodhicitta ... if you study or practice Dzogchen or Mahamudra then it is not a case of abandoning these views but building on them. Some statements about the non-conceptual ultimate reality might sound like they do refute more limited and more highly conceptualised understandings but to see it in this way would I think be misleading.

 

 

Another example is the the "Consciousness only" school & Zen.

Chogyal Namkhai Norbu says that Dzogchen is not about an "Alaya-vijnana" nor is it Zen.

What do we make of that?

 

What we can make of that is that Zen is a mind-only school and Dzogchen is Madhyamika ... so Dzogchen would refute the idea that Mind is ultimately real as it takes a different view. However this is about 'the view' that is the intellectual understanding which is developed to support practice. Clarity about the view is essential but is not the same thing as inner realisation. Reality is reality whatever philosophical view you take of it ... if it wasn't it would be reality would it.

 

The deep inference IS that these schools are in fact off base and lacking. Period.

 

You may make that inference if you so choose. But I would say that it would be merely a conceptual distinction. Are you denying the possibility of liberation/awakening through Zen?

 

 

CNN did speak about Buddha Shakyamuni's teachings but from the Tibetan Kanjur & not the Pali texts either.

 

What do we make of that?

 

He comes from the tradition of Tibetan Buddhism.

 

To me, it seems obvious that the Tibetan schema is working within the paradigm of it's own Kanjur & it's own historical tracing.

 

Another issue is that one never hears about the Theras or any other ancient school from Tibetan sources....Why?

 

Theravada is the only extant Hinayana school the others having died out. Tibetans claim to be Buddhists ... even where the transmission is via the Mahasiddhis why should we dispute this? I do not believe in or have any confidence in the modern secular fundamentalist Buddhist approach ... in the sense that I see dharma as the whole journey and not just the beginning. I think the idea that for instance Nagajuna is not really Buddhist because he taught non-dualism is bogus and discounts the possibility of genuine direct realisation.

 

Moot point.

Stefos

 

Is it?

[Simple_Jack]

Another example is the the "Consciousness only" school & Zen.

Chogyal Namkhai Norbu says that Dzogchen is not about an "Alaya-vijnana" nor is it Zen.

 

What do we make of that?

 

The deep inference IS that these schools are in fact off base and lacking. Period.

 

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.

 

CNN did speak about Buddha Shakyamuni's teachings but from the Tibetan Kanjur & not the Pali texts either.

 

What do we make of that?

 

To me, it seems obvious that the Tibetan schema is working within the paradigm of it's own Kanjur & it's own historical tracing.

 

Another issue is that one never hears about the Theras or any other ancient school from Tibetan sources....Why?

 

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

[RongzomFan]

Actually, ChNN himself likes Zen and referred to it as the pinnacle of Sutrayana teachings.

 

 

I would be very surprised. Zen is absolute crap.

[RongzomFan]

What we can make of that is that Zen is a mind-only school and Dzogchen is Madhyamika

 

Dzogchen is not based on Madhyamaka.

 

Dzogchen does not have dependent origination like Madhyamaka.

 

And Madhyamaka does not have an explanation of the basis (gzhi) involving the Five Pure Lights.

Edited July 2, 2013 by alwayson

[Apech]

I would be very surprised. Zen is absolute crap.

 

 

he wrote a book called Dzogchen and Zen ... I doubt that he just said 'its absolute crap'.

[Simple_Jack]

I would be very surprised. Zen is absolute crap.

 

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

[Apech]

Dzogchen is not based on Madhyamaka.

 

Dzogchen does not have dependent origination like Madhyamaka.

 

And Madhyamaka does not have an explanation of the basis (gzhi) involving the Five Pure Lights.

 

Ok ... I wrote sloppily.

[RongzomFan]

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

 

Malcolm shits on Zen since Esangha. Are you kidding me yo?!

 

And I've read that ChNN book before.

Edited July 2, 2013 by alwayson

[Simple_Jack]

he wrote a book called Dzogchen and Zen ... I doubt that he just said 'its absolute crap'.

 

Lol, we were thinking of the same thing.

[Simple_Jack]

Malcolm shits on Zen since Esangha. Are you kidding me yo?!

 

And I've read that book before.

 

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

[RongzomFan]

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

 

You are the one who cited him lol. Although much worse on Esangha, here are a couple of threads with Malcolm shitting on Zen on DW:

 

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=69&t=6882&start=0#p82258

 

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=69&t=5102

 

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=1388&start=20

[Simple_Jack]

You are the one who cited him lol. Although much worse on Esangha, here are a couple of threads with Malcolm shitting on Zen on DW:

 

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=69&t=6882&start=0#p82258

 

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=69&t=5102

 

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=1388&start=20

 

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

Edited July 2, 2013 by Simple_Jack

[RongzomFan]

No he said that ChNN liked Zen.

 

I'm not buying any of this.

[Simple_Jack]

Zen, like Dzogchen, also does away with the dichotomy between Mind and matter. 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.

 

That makes it more accurate and easier to understand what I mean.

 

I'm not buying any of this.

 

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!!!

[RongzomFan]

I'm busy. I'll address all this nonsense lata.

[Simple_Jack]

I'm busy. I'll address all this nonsense lata.

 

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

[Jeff]

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

 

Dzogchen is the realization of the ultimate state. Buddhism is a path, so why would "Dzogchen without Buddhism is not possible"? Are you saying that if anyone realizes the primordial state, they are by definition a Buddhist (by default)?

 

Regards, Jeff

[Simple_Jack]

Dzogchen is the realization of the ultimate state. Buddhism is a path, so why would "Dzogchen without Buddhism is not possible"? Are you saying that if anyone realizes the primordial state, they are by definition a Buddhist (by default)?

 

Regards, Jeff

 

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

[RongzomFan]

Its already been addressed in that thread, so it doesn't really matter:

 

Wow, you are resting your case on that?

 

One person saying ChNN hates Zen, and the other person saying

 

"ChNN likes Chan/Zen just fine.

 

I am not sure I understand the rest of your question."

Edited July 2, 2013 by alwayson

[Simple_Jack]

Wow, you are resting your case on that?

 

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.

[RongzomFan]

No, because it's already been addressed in the 1st post of the 2nd link you posted from DW.

 

1st post of the 2nd link I posted from DW is from a clown named Indrajala.

 

Read the Malcolm's comments in the rest of the thread.

[RongzomFan]

Zen, like Dzogchen, also does away with the dichotomy between Mind and body.

 

No it doesn't. Zen is a sutra system. There are no vayus in Zen. In Dzogchen mind is vayu.

[Simple_Jack]

Wow, you are resting your case on that?

 

One person saying ChNN hates Zen, and the other person saying

 

"ChNN likes Chan/Zen just fine.

 

I am not sure I understand the rest of your question."

 

Ok fine, it's not determined at this time whether ChNN likes Zen. This does not dismiss my other comment at this time

 

1st post of the 2nd link I posted from DW is from a clown named Indrajala.

 

Read the Malcolm's comments in the rest of the thread.

 

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.

[Simple_Jack]

No it doesn't. Zen is a sutra system. There are no vayus in Zen. In Dzogchen mind is vayu.

 

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.

[stefos]

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

 

 

ChNN likes Chan/Zen just fine.

 

I am not sure I understand the rest of your question.

 

Suck it, Alwayson!!!

 

What the HECK is going on here man?

 

I've been given introduction by Guru Norbu....That's why I'm writing about this stuff....to gain clarity!

 

OHH NOOOOO..........Man.

 

I did NOT want this stuff to happen.

 

I'm sorry.

 

I'm busy. I'll address all this nonsense lata.

 

 

Listen, I'm trying to gain clarity for myself.

 

I found out about Dzogchen through Krishnamurti's writings.

 

Krishnamurti said to question....The Buddha Shakyamuni did too!

 

That's what I'm doing.

 

You & Simple Jack are confusing me.

 

Forget this....I'm done.

BYEEE

 

Stefos