Are Sangha's Healthy?

[RongzomFan]

dzogchen both employ forms of zhine and lhakthong.

 

Allan Wallace says they are not part of Dzogchen.

 

Start listening to Alan Wallace at 1:25

 

"not Vajrayana. Not Dzogchen."

 

 

Even at my Tibetan temple, we sit in zhine every week.

 

And? Tibetan Buddhism includes all levels of sutric and tantric Buddhist teaching.

 

Shamatha is not even Buddhist. Shakyamuni's unique contribution was vipassana.

 

Shakyamuni was practicing nonconceptual meditation

 

Nonconceptual meditation is a contradiction in terms. Meditation by definition is conceptual.

 

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=4704

 

according to Ajahn Brahm

Ajahn Brahm is teaching Hinayana.

 

I wish more vajrayanists had a foundation in the lower yanas, its absurd how arrogant and egotistical people can be if they haven't tempered those aspects of themselves. Not directed at anyone in particular, just my own experience w vajrayanists as opposed to practitioners of "lower" yanas

 

This is just a bunch of logical fallacies and opinions.

[Seeker of Wisdom]

In every Buddhist tradition, shamatha is an integral foundation. Vajrayana, Dzogchen, all of them. It's indispensable.

 

The 8fold path goes all the way, just each aspect has deeper, less conceptual interpretation further along the path.

 

A tantric path without virtue, shamatha and prajna is missing the point somewhat. Ngondro and shamatha and vipassana practices are there for a reason.

 

Nobody gets even as far as stream-entry without shamatha.

 

Those of us who haven't achieved even that shouldn't be arrogant, looking down on Theravada and other Mahayana traditions, as though our wisdom is greater because we have a different intellectual opinion.

 

How many of us are actually on the Bodhisattva bhumis, to be able to look down and complain that Theravada only leads to Arhatship, or some Mahayana school has a slightly wrong view on an extremely subtle concept which we only comprehend intellectually at best?

 

It's like a preschooler criticising string theory. Ridiculous.

 

Alan Wallace consistently emphasises the need for shamatha as a foundation for explicitly Dzogchen practice.

 

Shamatha is a Buddhist thing, not any less valuable because it came before. Shakyamuni mastered it before then doing vipassana. It's necessary to make the mind serviceable so realisation can blossom.

 

You're mining quotes to try to support your arrogant looking down on everyone else; ignoring significant parts of the Buddha's teaching like his enthusiastic recommendation of anapana sati, shamatha and vipassana together leading to attainment in the parable of the misbehaved prince; and most of Alan Wallace's career.

 

How is meditation conceptual? It's not exactly conceptual to watch the breath, or thoughts, or use a koan, with no judgement or rumination or analysis or attempt to understand conceptually whatsoever.

[RongzomFan]

You're mining quotes to try to support your arrogant looking down on everyone else

 

That's your mental projection. I always say all of Buddhadharma is divine.

[konchog uma]

Allan Wallace says they are not part of Dzogchen.

 

Start listening to Alan Wallace at 1:25

 

"not Vajrayana. Not Dzogchen."

 

 

well i can cite teachers who teach it as part of dzogchen and you can cite teachers who don't, which is stupid, why i said it depends on who teaches it. Ontul is head of Yangtzab lineage and was teaching from Garab Dorje's instructions so if thats not authoritative enough for you, don't meditate! Meditation has helped me greatly so im going to stick with it. Theres no point having this conversation any further.

 

 

 

Nonconceptual meditation is a contradiction in terms. Meditation by definition is conceptual.

 

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=4704

 

that thread was about the dhyanas, not the whole of meditation. Again, if you think nonconceptual meditation is impossible, don't sit. Awareness is not in and of itself conceptual, and meditation resting in this awareness is possible according to some teachers.

 

Ajahn Brahm is teaching Hinayana.

 

Then he is probably qualified to talk about the contents of the hinayana sutras. I knew you would focus on that fact instead of the point of what i was saying, so i pointed out that his background has nothing to do with the fact that the Buddha taught a tenfold path including nonconceptual wisdom and meditation. Your thinking that Brahms teaching of hinayana or the dhyanas is some kind of refuting of my point is a logical fallacy (composition/division)

 

This is just a bunch of logical fallacies and opinions.

 

which logical fallacy? and yes its my opinion. well observed.

[konchog uma]

In every Buddhist tradition, shamatha is an integral foundation. Vajrayana, Dzogchen, all of them. It's indispensable.

 

The 8fold path goes all the way, just each aspect has deeper, less conceptual interpretation further along the path.

 

A tantric path without virtue, shamatha and prajna is missing the point somewhat. Ngondro and shamatha and vipassana practices are there for a reason.

 

Nobody gets even as far as stream-entry without shamatha.

 

Those of us who haven't achieved even that shouldn't be arrogant, looking down on Theravada and other Mahayana traditions, as though our wisdom is greater because we have a different intellectual opinion.

 

How many of us are actually on the Bodhisattva bhumis, to be able to look down and complain that Theravada only leads to Arhatship, or some Mahayana school has a slightly wrong view on an extremely subtle concept which we only comprehend intellectually at best?

 

It's like a preschooler criticising string theory. Ridiculous.

 

Alan Wallace consistently emphasises the need for shamatha as a foundation for explicitly Dzogchen practice.

 

Shamatha is a Buddhist thing, not any less valuable because it came before. Shakyamuni mastered it before then doing vipassana. It's necessary to make the mind serviceable so realisation can blossom.

 

You're mining quotes to try to support your arrogant looking down on everyone else; ignoring significant parts of the Buddha's teaching like his enthusiastic recommendation of anapana sati, shamatha and vipassana together leading to attainment in the parable of the misbehaved prince; and most of Alan Wallace's career.

 

How is meditation conceptual? It's not exactly conceptual to watch the breath, or thoughts, or use a koan, with no judgement or rumination or analysis or attempt to understand conceptually whatsoever.

 

There's little point trying to make a point to any scholar who is so wrapped up in their scholarship that they are completely convinced that they are right and anyone who practices a different way is wrong. Alwayson is really smart but there is some kind of ivory tower complex going on where he only sees things in his own way (or Malcolms). His loss really.

 

The Buddhadharma has always been flexible to a point, and its not about finding a Golden Truth, but about finding practices that work to liberate and awaken innate wisdom. Within those rough guidelines, there are lots of ways to practice. Thats why the mahasiddhas could have visions and innovate new practices that Shakyamuni didn't teach, and its still considered Buddhadharma. Ken McLeod gives a great interview about this in the latest podcast on BuddhistGeeks called "truth is a red herring".

[konchog uma]

inasmuch as sanghas are groups of practitioners (the vajrayana view of the body of bodhisattvas notwithstanding), they might be healthier than other groups based on the fact that they probably have a meditation practice

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/07/opinion/sunday/the-morality-of-meditation.html?_r=0

a short and interesting article from a recent NYT about a meditation study

[RongzomFan]

Again, if you think nonconceptual meditation is impossible, don't sit.

 

I don't sit.

 

In Vajrayana, we have stuff like trul khor, tummo and karmamudra instead.

 

Then he is probably qualified to talk about the contents of the hinayana sutras. I knew you would focus on that fact instead of the point of what i was saying, so i pointed out that his background has nothing to do with the fact that the Buddha taught a tenfold path including nonconceptual wisdom and meditation. Your thinking that Brahms teaching of hinayana or the dhyanas is some kind of refuting of my point is a logical fallacy (composition/division)

 

Where does any authority say you can apply eightfold path to Vajrayana?

 

Alwayson is really smart but there is some kind of ivory tower complex going on where he only sees things in his own way (or Malcolms). His loss really.

 

My views come from Dudjom Rinpoche, head of the Nyingma school.

 

Further details are in The Big Red Book.

 

I also referenced the Eighth Karmapa.

Edited July 18, 2013 by alwayson

[konchog uma]

I don't sit.

 

it shows.

 

Where does any authority say you can apply eightfold path to Vajrayana?

 

according to the sutra system, right view is a prerequisite to any dharma practice.

http://www.nyingma.com/artman/publish/8_fold_noble_path.shtml

[konchog uma]

in my lineage of vajrayana (drikung kagyu), under my teacher anyway, we have to take refuge and bodhisattva vows (hinayana and mahayana) and spend time with those teachings before we can take tantric vows and receive instructions in the yogas.

[RongzomFan]

By the way, Bliss of Inner Fire states that tummo is superior to meditation:

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=IhPtIBEhGtYC&pg=PA24&dq=bliss+of+inner+fire+Even+if+you+could+stay+in+Samadhi+meditation+twenty-four+hours+a&hl=en&sa=X&ei=3YLnUejsKIrc8ATOooC4Cw&ved=0CDEQuwUwAA#v=onepage&q=bliss%20of%20inner%20fire%20Even%20if%20you%20could%20stay%20in%20Samadhi%20meditation%20twenty-four%20hours%20a&f=false

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=IhPtIBEhGtYC&pg=PA132&dq=bliss+of+inner+fire+Gampopa+told+Milarepa+that+he+had+such+deep+samadhi+meditation+that+he+could+meditate+for+many+days+without+distraction+or+slug-gishness.+Milarepa+simply+laughed+and+said,&hl=en&sa=X&ei=KYHnUayfPILs8gSG24HwCQ&ved=0CDMQuwUwAA#v=onepage&q=bliss%20of%20inner%20fire%20Gampopa%20told%20Milarepa%20that%20he%20had%20such%20deep%20samadhi%20meditation%20that%20he%20could%20meditate%20for%20many%20days%20without%20distraction%20or%20slug-gishness.%20Milarepa%20simply%20laughed%20and%20said%2C&f=false

Edited July 18, 2013 by alwayson

[RongzomFan]

according to the sutra system, right view is a prerequisite to any dharma practice.

http://www.nyingma.com/artman/publish/8_fold_noble_path.shtml

 

It is merely a page on the eightfold path, of which right view is a component.

Edited July 18, 2013 by alwayson

[Seeker of Wisdom]

By the way, Bliss of Inner Fire states that tummo is superior to meditation:

Milarepa said that because it was appropriate for Gampopa at that time.

 

In general, stuff that deals with chi is only an auxiliary, because it's playing with form and sensation, only in the substage of warming in the stage of intensified effort.

 

At most chi practices on their own can only lead to the 3rd jhana, going further requires dropping the subtle hindrance of bliss for greater equanimity.

 

Do you even have a teacher? You really should have one if you're following a tantric path... it's so easy to mislead yourself by missing all the subtleties and ignoring fundamental practices and principles. And if you do have a teacher, lol they don't know what they're doing either judging by your, well, nonsense.

 

I hope one day you get out of this cage you've built for yourself.

Edited July 18, 2013 by Seeker of the Self

[RongzomFan]

Milarepa said that because it was appropriate for Gampopa at that time.

 

In general, stuff that deals with chi is only an auxiliary, because it's playing with form and sensation, only in the substage of warming in the stage of intensified effort.

 

At most chi practices on their own can only lead to the 3rd jhana, going further requires dropping the subtle hindrance of bliss for greater equanimity.

What the hell is chi? I follow Indian tantra, not Chinese stuff.

Do you even have a teacher?

Of course I do. Do you?

I hope one day you get out of this cage you've built for yourself.

Cage implies I'm rigid and can't change.

 

However, I was extremely against karmamudra. Now I'm extremely enthusiastic about karmamudra.

 

I was pro-Tsongkhapa. Now I am anti-Tsongkhapa.

it's so easy to mislead yourself by missing all the subtleties and ignoring fundamental practices and principles

Who is ignoring fundamentals? Vajrayana has its own preliminary practices such as ngondro, rushan etc.

Edited July 18, 2013 by alwayson

[Simple_Jack]

yes it says tantric Buddhahood 'incorporates' sutric buddhahood ...(page 62) ... so one supercedes and yet incorporates the other ... so the sutric view is not wrong or incompatible but only lesser or incomplete somehow.

 

PS. is this book worth buying? I am thinking of getting it.

 

Have you given any thought as to how there could be a lesser buddhahood merely based on a difference of method?

 

Lets say that you already accept the claims of Buddhism including such a thing as buddhahood: going by the above we would have to conclude that Gautama or the other 6 (or 3 depending on which model you go by) buddhas who proceeded before him were not samyaksambuddhas; despite cultivating for 3 incalculable eons to be reborn in that lifetime with the 32 major and 80 minor marks [of a buddha] to reestablish the buddhadharma in the world.

 

If you look past the bravado of Vajrayana by starting to question and examine its claims of superiority: then you start to find out that there really isn't any basis for these formulations outside the sphere of verbal or written rhetoric. This is coming from someone who has been initiated into its practices.

[Simple_Jack]

Then you have someone like Dudjom Rinpoche, the regent of Guru Rinpoche, who says:

 

Why should it be mandatory for someone to defer to Dudjom Rinpoche as an arbiter of Buddhism (especially if they aren't Vajrayana practitioners)?

 

The eightfold path is not even Mahayana.

 

Eightfold path ends up with nirvana and arhatship, not Buddhahood.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

Then you have someone like Nyoshul Khen Rinpoche who says something like this: "When a Dzogchen Yogi hears Shakyamuni Buddha turning the Wheel of the Dharma of the Four Noble Truths he hears Samathabhadra proclaiming the most profound Dzogpachenpo" [http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=13390].

 

The 4NT and 37 factors of awakening can be found in the Prajnaparamita Sutras (Edward Conze translations). How this (and the 8 fold noble path) applies to bodhisattvas on the path of seeing and path of meditation is explained here: http://www.lotsawahouse.org/tibetan-masters/patrul-rinpoche/stages-and-path; and here: http://books.google.com/books?id=imLeWkU40m0C&pg=PA394&lpg=PA394&dq=8+fold+noble+path+-+treasury+of+precious+qualities&source=bl&ots=c2QQd5Ngib&sig=ZLf6LnSSzyKkiP_nWa-s-cJTNL0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=dPPnUanIB-3F4APj04CYBQ&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

[konchog uma]

By the way, Bliss of Inner Fire states that tummo is superior to meditation:

 

its superior for cutting through obscurations, but not everyone can learn tummo, and trying to practice from books is universally taught to be dangerous.

 

Like i said, in my lineage at least, one can learn tummo from the lama after refuge, bodhisattva, ngondro, tantric vows, and if the lama thinks youre ready. lol meditation is a little more accessible than that.

 

i didn't say meditation was the most superior for everything btw so your point is a bit of non sequitur

[Simple_Jack]

 

I hope one day you get out of this cage you've built for yourself.

 

Why should he? Vajrayana has it's own set of principles and path that revolves around it's methods.

 

What you're witnessing is just typical Vajrayana supersessionism.

[konchog uma]

It is merely a page on the eightfold path, of which right view is a component.

 

again, well observed. lol however if one were to read that page, they would find that it supports the idea that within the sutra system, right view is considered a prerequisite to any dharma practice. You asked how the 8fold path related to vajrayana.

 

Has anyone ever brought to your attention that you never really answer posts as they are written, you just pick the parts that you can respond to smugly with a brief negation. It makes conversation with you pointless, which is probably the goal of your approach, but you're not helping anyone, much less yourself. I don't really care to talk to you about this any more since this is like the 3rd post in this conversation in which you have missed the stated point entirely and instead picked bones with the related minutae. Thanks.

[RongzomFan]

Why should it be mandatory for someone to defer to Dudjom Rinpoche as an arbiter of Buddhism (especially if they aren't Vajrayana practitioners)?

 

They don't have to subscribe to Dudjom Rinpoche.

 

But someone implied I'm just going by my own views, which is not the case.

[RongzomFan]

but not everyone can learn tummo

 

Do hatha yoga then. In this case, I will reference Namdrol. He is a big hatha yoga fan.

Edited July 18, 2013 by alwayson

[RongzomFan]

however if one were to read that page, they would find that it supports the idea that within the sutra system, right view is considered a prerequisite to any dharma practice.

 

Where is any phrase even resembling "any dharma practice" on that webpage?

 

Has anyone ever brought to your attention that you never really answer posts as they are written, you just pick the parts that you can respond to smugly with a brief negation. It makes conversation with you pointless, which is probably the goal of your approach, but you're not helping anyone, much less yourself. I don't really care to talk to you about this any more since this is like the 3rd post in this conversation in which you have missed the stated point entirely and instead picked bones with the related minutae. Thanks.

 

Has anyone ever brought to your attention you never really read webpages as they are written, you just perceive words that you want and respond smugly with a false assertion. It makes conversation with you pointless, which is probably the goal of your approach, but you're not helping anyone, much less yourself. I don't really care to talk to you about this any more since this is like the 3rd post in this conversation in which you have just made stuff up. Thanks.

Edited July 18, 2013 by alwayson

[RongzomFan]

If you look past the bravado of Vajrayana by starting to question and examine its claims of superiority: then you start to find out that there really isn't any basis for these formulations outside the sphere of verbal or written rhetoric. This is coming from someone who has been initiated into its practices.

 

What a B.S. statement.

 

Sutrayana does not have direct introduction, trul khor, tummo, karmamudra etc.

[Simple_Jack]

Has anyone ever brought to your attention, that you haven't shown anyone who says the eightfold path can be applied to Vajrayana?

 

Well, if you take into account that its tantras expound non arising of dharmas, freedom from extremes, etc. and its methods revolve around realizing this: then, IMO, that is the start of the 8-fold noble path in terms of distinguishing right view. Let's not forget that the Tibetans were big into the study of Madhyamaka which further establishes that they sought right view in accord with the teachings of Shakyamuni Buddha.

 

If a Vajrayana practitioner is on the path of seeing or the path of meditation: then they're applying the 4NT/8FNP to realize buddhahood.

 

What a B.S. statement.

 

Sutrayana does not have direct introduction, trul khor, tummo, karmamudra etc.

 

Case in point.

[Apech]

Have you given any thought as to how there could be a lesser buddhahood merely based on a difference of method?

 

Lets say that you already accept the claims of Buddhism including such a thing as buddhahood: going by the above we would have to conclude that Gautama or the other 6 (or 3 depending on which model you go by) buddhas who proceeded before him were not samyaksambuddhas; despite cultivating for 3 incalculable eons to be reborn in that lifetime with the 32 major and 80 minor marks [of a buddha] to reestablish the buddhadharma in the world.

 

If you look past the bravado of Vajrayana by starting to question and examine its claims of superiority: then you start to find out that there really isn't any basis for these formulations outside the sphere of verbal or written rhetoric. This is coming from someone who has been initiated into its practices.

 

I think I may have given the wrong impression. Buddhahood is buddhahood ... what changes is the 'view' given in the sutrayana or vajrayana ... and the view is just a way of expressing buddhahood. As I have been taught all the views are correct i.e. dharma but that the view develops as you go along. The word superior is used to be sure ... but too much is made of that particularly in the west. Its not so much right or wrong but more 'look at it this way' ...'look at it that way' ... Historically denigration of hinayana has happened but I think this was criticisms aimed at particular wrong (i.e. non-buddhist views which crept in) more than anything.

[RongzomFan]

Yes in Andhra Pradesh, Mahayana arose in reaction to crypto-realist Abhidharma.

 

Guang Xing. The Concept of the Buddha: Its Evolution from Early Buddhism to the Trikaya Theory. 2004. pp. 65-66

 

Warder, A.K. Indian Buddhism. 2000. p. 313

 

Barber, Anthony W. Buddhism in the Krishna River Valley of Andhra. 2008.

 

etc. etc.

Edited July 18, 2013 by alwayson