How is a "reliable person" defined according to Buddhadharma?
It would be the Buddha or his disciples. Really, what we are talking about here is citational or scriptural authority. The Samdhinirmocana Sūtra states:
As such, the reasoning of a valid proof is the authority of direction perception; the authority of inference, and the authority of trustworthy citations which is valid through the five valid characteristics.
Those five valid characteristics are:
The characteristic of being supported on a direct perception, the characteristic of being supported on a direct perception which is the basis for that, the characteristic of the application of example in one's own reasoning, the characteristic of perfectly establishment and the characteristic of a scripture proven to be completely valid.
You should look into this sūtra for a more detailed explanation.
How is a "reliable person" defined according to Buddhadharma?
It would be the Buddha or his disciples. Really, what we are talking about here is citational or scriptural authority. The Samdhinirmocana Sūtra states:
As such, the reasoning of a valid proof is the authority of direction perception; the authority of inference, and the authority of trustworthy citations which is valid through the five valid characteristics.
Those five valid characteristics are:
The characteristic of being supported on a direct perception, the characteristic of being supported on a direct perception which is the basis for that, the characteristic of the application of example in one's own reasoning, the characteristic of perfectly establishment and the characteristic of a scripture proven to be completely valid.
You should look into this sūtra for a more detailed explanation.
Thank you! I will try to locate a copy.
A question related to this (which gets back to Bakmoon's earlier post) might be "what level of conviction (sraddha) is needed/appropriate before taking refuge?" The testimony of reliable persons (as defined above) only works if one already has confidence in the Buddha to the point that one believes he could not have been mistaken about any of the important topics that he spoke of. In short, to make an appeal to authority, one really has to be sure the authority is right.
That's obviously different from simply having a high regard for the Buddha, or being drawn to aspects of his teachings. But is that degree of confidence a prerequisite for refuge, in your view?
Lazy_eye wrote:
That's obviously different from simply having a high regard for the Buddha, or being drawn to aspects of his teachings. But is that degree of confidence a prerequisite for refuge, in your view?
There are three kinds of refuge, fear, faith and compassion. The first is hardly refuge at all. One cannot take refuge without faith in the Buddha and his teachings, even if you mouth the words. However, even mouthing the words without faith sets up a cause for the arising of faith even if very weak.
Lazy_eye wrote:
Yes, of course, but when we are talking about "Buddhism" in a general way, Theravada is relevant. Even though Vajrayana may not teach a "gradual path," it would be incorrect factually to say that the notion of a gradual path is un-Buddhist.
Vajrayāna does teach a gradual path, it is just much faster.
Also, one should understand that in Vajrayāna, direct perception and inferences are not authorities. The Abhibodhikramopadeśa of Master Āryadeva states:
At the time of the ultimate view of secret mantra,
the direct perception by mind and sense organs
and inferences are not authorities,
but the profound scriptures and intimate instructions are authorities.
At the outset one should seek to develop wisdom by listening [to the dharma], for it enables one to grasp the meaning of the authoritative scriptures. Then, with analytical intellect one differentiates between the apparent and the ultimate meaning.
dharmagoat wrote:The Bhāvanākrama of Kamalaśīla explains:
At the outset one should seek to develop wisdom by listening [to the dharma], for it enables one to grasp the meaning of the authoritative scriptures. Then, with analytical intellect one differentiates between the apparent and the ultimate meaning.
Yes, this is perfect. Of course, one must listen only to a qualified teacher of Dharma.
With an understanding of the meaning so differentiated, one should meditate on the reality of the pure state and not on its apparent aspect. If one meditates wrongly and fails to clear away all doubts, one will not achieve perfect awareness. As a result, the meditation becomes fruitless, like the meditation of the radical dogmatists.
With an understanding of the meaning so differentiated, one should meditate on the reality of the pure state and not on its apparent aspect. If one meditates wrongly and fails to clear away all doubts, one will not achieve perfect awareness. As a result, the meditation becomes fruitless, like the meditation of the radical dogmatists.
What is this referring to?
Which translation are you using, and which of the three Bhāvanākramas? I need to look at the Tibetan.
Malcolm wrote:Which translation are you using, and which of the three Bhāvanākramas? I need to look at the Tibetan.
The quote appears in Lobsang P. Lhalungpa's translation of Dakpo Tashi Namgyal's Mahāmudrā: The Quintessence of Mind and Meditation (aka Moonbeams of Mahāmudrā). Which actual Bhāvanākrama is not mentioned in the English text. A number in the margin indicates it occurs on page 112 of the original Tibetan manuscript.
With an understanding of the meaning so differentiated, one should meditate on the reality of the pure state and not on its apparent aspect. If one meditates wrongly and fails to clear away all doubts, one will not achieve perfect awareness. As a result, the meditation becomes fruitless, like the meditation of the radical dogmatists.
What is this referring to?
This translation is a little strange.
After that, based on the meaning differentiated in that way, one should mediate on the true meaning and not on that which is not the true meaning. If one grasps that which is not [the true meaning], one's meditation will be incorrect and since one's doubt will not be removed, also right knowledge [samyagjñānam, one of the eight limbs] will not arise. Therefore, since one's meditation does not become meaningful, it is similar with the meditation of non-buddhist (mu stegs pa, tīrthikas)
dharmagoat wrote:So as I read it, the scriptures are the authority, but careful understanding of them is required to make them effective.
Yes, that is correct. This is the main reason why my posts generally are supported on citations.
I think we are on the same page now.
It is also important to provide citations, because if for example, one has not understood something correctly, and uses a citation to support it, another may come along and point out to you why you have made an error.
It is a simple generosity, and you have no idea how much time I spend looking up citations.
Oversimplification of "what is Buddhism" is really common.
People read one sentence and think they know 100% of Buddhism.
I've been told to exercise extreme caution when asked, "what is Buddhism?"
And to avoid questions like, "What is Buddhism to you? What is Buddhism in [a sentence, 3 words, 1 word, etc.] ?"
The nuances of Buddhism don't allow for that kind of simplification to result in a entirely true statement.
Unless you replied something like, "Buddhism is Buddhism", but even that runs the risk of people reading things in that aren't there.
They may think that [a]=[a], or, "things are what they are" is the definition of Buddhism, which again is untrue.
It's very important to speak precisely about Buddhism now because China is using the confusion from our being unclear, to Western and SE Asians, to form pseudo-Buddhist cults to further their political agendas.
tlee wrote:It's very important to speak precisely about Buddhism now because China is using the confusion from our being unclear, to Western and SE Asians, to form pseudo-Buddhist cults to further their political agendas.
Now that you have seeded our suspicion, can you tell us any more about this?
How would we recognise these alleged Chinese pseudo-Buddhist cults?
Do you actually know of anyone that has been approached to work for them?
If you believe this to be a genuine issue, I recommend you start a thread on it.
