Forbidden Archeology

[Malcolm]

Just things can exist or manifest simply because they have no fixed nature, similarly texts can have meaning, in particular liberative substance, because they have no fixed textual meaning.

• 'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'
  
  'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
  
  'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master — that's all.'
  
  Alice was too much puzzled to say anything; so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. 'They've a temper, some of them — particularly verbs: they're the proudest — adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs — however, I can manage the whole lot of them! Impenetrability! That's what I say!'
  
  'Would you tell me please,' said Alice, 'what that means?'
  
  'Now you talk like a reasonable child,' said Humpty Dumpty, looking very much pleased. 'I meant by "impenetrability" that we've had enough of that subject, and it would be just as well if you'd mention what you mean to do next, as I suppose you don't mean to stop here all the rest of your life.'
  
  'That's a great deal to make one word mean,' Alice said in a thoughtful tone.
  
  'When I make a word do a lot of work like that,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'I always pay it extra.'

[Urgyen Dorje]

Malcolm...

Sure, there's that way of looking at it. Post structuralism renders all texts meaningless as all meaning is arbitrary.

My view is that dharma texts are meaningless without a master who can teach from the oral tradition as well as from realization. As such a post structural approach to texts gives the dharma texts an infinite space of interpretation according to the realization of the teacher and the needs of the students.

[Malcolm]

As such a post structural approach to texts gives the dharma texts an infinite space of interpretation according to the realization of the teacher and the needs of the students.

I really don't agree with this idea.

[Urgyen Dorje]

I'm really not trying to bust chops. This is something I've pondered for a while. It's also not something I'm overly committed to. It's something I'm exploring. It' snot something I have a profound intellectual commitment to.

If it's against the view of dharma, please red pill me on that.

From my vantage point, this approach immediately derails the views of many who feel that they can study the dharma on their own by reading texts without resorting to a teacher. It also derials the views of many who feel that they can just buy books and complete a shedra without relying on teachers for clarification of the difficult points in the source materials. It also derails the view that many have that they can expound on tantric materials, dzogchen, mahamudra, after simply receiving instructions.

From my vantage point this puts everything back on the valid cogintion of a buddha. Might be a realized teacher, might be a holder of the oral tradition and lineage of blessings of a realized teacher.

But definitely something trans-textual.

Without this, the texts are just marks on paper. Or we're as good as blind.

As such a post structural approach to texts gives the dharma texts an infinite space of interpretation according to the realization of the teacher and the needs of the students.

I really don't agree with this idea.

[Malcolm]

None of what you are saying gives teachers an infinite license to interpret texts however they like.

I'm really not trying to bust chops. This is something I've pondered for a while. It's also not something I'm overly committed to. It's something I'm exploring. It' snot something I have a profound intellectual commitment to.

If it's against the view of dharma, please red pill me on that.

From my vantage point, this approach immediately derails the views of many who feel that they can study the dharma on their own by reading texts without resorting to a teacher. It also derials the views of many who feel that they can just buy books and complete a shedra without relying on teachers for clarification of the difficult points in the source materials. It also derails the view that many have that they can expound on tantric materials, dzogchen, mahamudra, after simply receiving instructions.

From my vantage point this puts everything back on the valid cogintion of a buddha. Might be a realized teacher, might be a holder of the oral tradition and lineage of blessings of a realized teacher.

But definitely something trans-textual.

Without this, the texts are just marks on paper. Or we're as good as blind.

As such a post structural approach to texts gives the dharma texts an infinite space of interpretation according to the realization of the teacher and the needs of the students.

I really don't agree with this idea.

[Urgyen Dorje]

Malcolm...

Sorry for not expressing myself clearly.

The space of possible textual interpretations in infinite. In terms of dharma texts, what makes a textual interpretation valid is the valid cognition of a realized being who can pick specific textual interpretations from many according to his or her realization and the needs of his or her students. In contrast, when it comes to ordinary beings, we pick textual interpretations on the basis of our mundane interests and pet projects, intellectual proclivities, not on the basis of realization and compassion for students.

Does a teacher have an infinite license in interpreting a specific text? I don't know. A buddha?... probably yes.

The idea I'm playing with is Derrida's basic one liner that everything is context. I think with dharma texts that context is the valid cognition of realized beings and the oral tradition of lineage masters that continues that valid cognition. Without that context those texts can be anything. And people do make them anything. So for me, there are dharma texts, marks on pages, and the unbroken lineage of realization that unlocks those texts. The marks on the page make no sense without the unbroken lineage of realization to unlock them. This is why it's absurd, from my side as a practitioner, when academics study texts without any reference to the living tradition, and when students attempt to study texts without any guidance from the living tradition. I think an approach like this shuts down academic chauvinism, false lamas, teacher-less students, modernists, all in one swoop.

None of what you are saying gives teachers an infinite license to interpret texts however they like.

[Malcolm]

The space of possible textual interpretations in infinite. In terms of dharma texts, what makes a textual interpretation valid is the valid cognition of a realized being who can pick specific textual interpretations from many according to his or her realization and the needs of his or her students.

No, they cannot not. For example, you cannot interpret Dzogchen texts as theistic cosmology merely because you might have some people who come from a strong theistic background as students.

The words and meanings of these texts are set in tradition, and whole correspondence theories between words and meanings are not popular in the West, that is precisely how the texts themselves unpack themselves. And teachers must teach according to the intention of the text, without adding or subtracting a word.

The idea I'm playing with is Derrida's basic one liner that everything is context.

Yes, I know, and I think Derrida is an intellectual dilettante — but hey, that's just me.

I think with dharma texts that context is the valid cognition of realized beings and the oral tradition of lineage masters that continues that valid cognition. Without that context those texts can be anything. And people do make them anything. So for me, there are dharma texts, marks on pages, and the unbroken lineage of realization that unlocks those texts. The marks on the page make no sense without the unbroken lineage of realization to unlock them. This is why it's absurd, from my side as a practitioner, when academics study texts without any reference to the living tradition, and when students attempt to study texts without any guidance from the living tradition. I think an approach like this shuts down academic chauvinism, false lamas, teacher-less students, modernists, all in one swoop.

What you desire is the opposite of your method. And in any case, this notion of "valid cognition of realized beings" is highly problematic. How does anyone know who is realized and who is not? This is why texts have words, and those words have invariable meanings. Even if you are not realized, as long as you understand and convey the the meaning, there is always a possibility someone can wake up from the meaning you have communicated as long as you have a valid lineage.

[Urgyen Dorje]

The space of possible textual interpretations in infinite. In terms of dharma texts, what makes a textual interpretation valid is the valid cognition of a realized being who can pick specific textual interpretations from many according to his or her realization and the needs of his or her students.

No, they cannot not. For example, you cannot interpret Dzogchen texts as theistic cosmology merely because you might have some people who come from a strong theistic background as students.

A teacher who was understood the meaning of Dzogchen texts would not teach them as theistic cosmology. But he or she might teach the bodhisattva precepts from the vantage point of Mind Only versus Middle Way dependent upon the students needs.

The words and meanings of these texts are set in tradition, and whole correspondence theories between words and meanings are not popular in the West, that is precisely how the texts themselves unpack themselves. And teachers must teach according to the intention of the text, without adding or subtracting a word.

And it is only a realized being or somebody who understands the intention according to the oral tradition who is able to do this.

The idea I'm playing with is Derrida's basic one liner that everything is context.

Yes, I know, and I think Derrida is an intellectual dilettante — but hey, that's just me.

I don't own Derrida stock. I'm looking at ways of looking at texts that point back to the guru, the oral tradition, the lineage of blessings, and not just the texts themselves so we can get beyond an endless debate as to what texts really mean. Have realization? Hold oral tradition? Lineage holder? Then you know. Otherwise not.

I think with dharma texts that context is the valid cognition of realized beings and the oral tradition of lineage masters that continues that valid cognition. Without that context those texts can be anything. And people do make them anything. So for me, there are dharma texts, marks on pages, and the unbroken lineage of realization that unlocks those texts. The marks on the page make no sense without the unbroken lineage of realization to unlock them. This is why it's absurd, from my side as a practitioner, when academics study texts without any reference to the living tradition, and when students attempt to study texts without any guidance from the living tradition. I think an approach like this shuts down academic chauvinism, false lamas, teacher-less students, modernists, all in one swoop.

What you desire is the opposite of your method. And in any case, this notion of "valid cognition of realized beings" is highly problematic. How does anyone know who is realized and who is not? This is why texts have words, and those words have invariable meanings. Even if you are not realized, as long as you understand and convey the the meaning, there is always a possibility someone can wake up from the meaning you have communicated as long as you have a valid lineage.

If we decide that there is a life to Buddhist texts beyond marks on paper, and if we recognize the oral tradition of the lineage to be what unlocks the meaning of those marks on a piece of paper-- then we examine a teacher, his or her qualifications, and his or her qualities, and study those texts with that person.

[Urgyen Dorje]

Just forget it. I was told my posts needed to have a stated philosophical position. So I picked post-structuralism as it made the most sense for many of the threads I've been involved in.

If you study with a lama with real qualities, things go well, and there's not much to worry about.

If you don't, then WTF. Who knows what you're doing.

[Malcolm]

A teacher who was understood the meaning of Dzogchen texts would not teach them as theistic cosmology.

Which means you agree that Dzogchen texts have a specific meaning, and that it is invariable.

But he or she might teach the bodhisattva precepts from the vantage point of Mind Only versus Middle Way dependent upon the students needs.

It is fine to teach either, it is not fine to mix them up. Why? Because they have different intentions.

The words and meanings of these texts are set in tradition, and whole correspondence theories between words and meanings are not popular in the West, that is precisely how the texts themselves unpack themselves. And teachers must teach according to the intention of the text, without adding or subtracting a word.

And it is only a realized being or somebody who understands the intention according to the oral tradition who is able to do this.

But the meaning is in either case not arbitrary nor adaptable to students. Instead, it is the student who must adapt to the meaning. We do not adapt the meaning to the student.

I don't own Derrida stock. I'm looking at ways of looking at texts that point back to the guru, the oral tradition, the lineage of blessings, and not just the texts themselves so we can get beyond an endless debate as to what texts really mean. Have realization? Hold oral tradition? Lineage holder? Then you know. Otherwise not.

But this has nothing to do with "post structuralism" and everything to do with the fact that Buddhadharma is an oral tradition, in essence.

If we decide that there is a life to Buddhist texts beyond marks on paper, and if we recognize the oral tradition of the lineage to be what unlocks the meaning of those marks on a piece of paper-- then we examine a teacher, his or her qualifications, and his or her qualities, and study those texts with that person.

Again, this has nothing to do with some post-structuralist vanity. Words in Dharma texts have invariable meanings. They are not arbitrary nor are they infinite.

[Urgyen Dorje]

Malcolm...

All I'm saying is that the meaning of dharma has a lot less to do with black marks on a paper and everything to do with an unbroken oral tradition.

You said to pick a textual methodolgy. I did. Don't like it? I don't care as I've got no dogs in the lost modern fight.

It sounds like we're disagreeing to agree.

[Malcolm]

Malcolm...

All I'm saying is that the meaning of dharma has a lot less to do with black marks on a paper and everything to do with an unbroken oral tradition.

Yes, but this has never been a point of contention.

You said to pick a textual methodolgy.

I don't think I said this.

[Schrödinger’s Yidam]

Words in Dharma texts have invariable meanings.

Dharma texts tend to be pretty precise, but if they were all unequivocal then there would not be a gamut of interpretations of the major texts.

Personally I'll take an easy one as an example; the 4 Thoughts that Turn the Mind. Yes, they have a meaning that is pretty clear. But if they are contemplated, which is what TBs are told to do, you'll find layers of subtlety to them. Remarkably the "Precious Human Rebirth", if contemplated in this way, has a remarkable aspect to it. Basically it nullifies much of contemporary culture, which is predicated on the ideas that there is no such thing as Ultimate Truth, or if there is such a think it is completely inaccessible to humans. Was it intended to do that? No. But since it is the trailhead to the Path it remains valid even as circumstances and perspectives change.

[Urgyen Dorje]

Is anyone here Konchok Namdrol or Lhotse?

[rory]

Pick up the Dhammapada, pick up the Lotus Sutra; hard to figure out it's not. It's also not hard to see if your practice is fruitful. This whole post structuralist thing argument is a bore: next time someone yells 'fire' I'll wonder what the EXIT sign really means...
gassho
Rory