original buddhism

A forum for those wishing to discuss Buddhist history and teachings in the Western academic manner, referencing appropriate sources.
Aryjna
Posts: 59
Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2017 12:45 pm

Re: original buddhism

Postby Aryjna » Sun Jul 16, 2017 3:35 pm

Tuybachau wrote:- Do not be ignorant. Rely on the dharma not the individual. 
- Read the sutras first.


But you are interpreting the dharma, and as such are asking others to accept your authority, not the authority of the dharma through specific quotations. In that case, you should present your credentials.

User avatar
Lobsang Chojor
Posts: 475
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2015 8:08 pm
Location: England

Re: original buddhism

Postby Lobsang Chojor » Sun Jul 16, 2017 8:16 pm

Tuybachau wrote:That classification teaching is either provisional or dishonest.

Why do you think this?

The idea of Mahayana and Hinayana being paths of renunciation is not controversial within Tibetan Buddhism, see my example of The Three Principal Aspects of the Path.
ༀ་ཨ་ར་པ་ཙ་ན་དྷཱི༔ Oṃ A Ra Pa Ca Na Dhīḥ

"Morality does not become pure unless darkness is dispelled by the light of wisdom"
    Aryasura, Paramitasamasa 6.5

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 23559
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: original buddhism

Postby Malcolm » Mon Jul 17, 2017 6:41 am

Tuybachau wrote:
Anonymous X wrote:
Tuybachau wrote:
- Bodhisattvas practicing Prajnaparamita on the Mahayana path do not either renounce or appropriate either Samsara or Nirvana.
- Mahayana is not about renunciation and/or appropriation.


From the Dzogchen point of view, Malcolm is repeating how the sutra system is classified, a path of renunciation, both Hinayana & Mahayana.

Lopon Tenzin Namdak: From Bonpo Dzogchen Teachings,

Both the Buddhist and the Bonpo teachings are divided into Sutra, Tantra, and Dzogchen. Each of these three systems has a different Base, a different Path, and thus they lead to a different Fruit or result. The method proper to the Sutra system is the path of renunciation (spong lam), the method proper to the Tantra system is the path of transformation, (sgyur lam), and the method proper to Dzogchen is the path of self-liberation, (grol lam).


That classification teaching is either provisional or dishonest.


Or your understanding itself is incomplete. Have you considered this possibility?
Atikosha
Tibetan Medicine Blog
Sudarsana Mandala, Tibetan Medicine and Herbs
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


There is neither sharp nor dull in the capacity of sentient beings. If it is asked why this is so, it is because an introduction is sufficient.


— Self-Liberated Vidyā Tantra

Tuybachau
Posts: 28
Joined: Sun Sep 20, 2015 4:32 am

Re: original buddhism

Postby Tuybachau » Mon Jul 17, 2017 3:09 pm

Lobsang Chojor wrote:
Tuybachau wrote:That classification teaching is either provisional or dishonest.

Why do you think this?

The idea of Mahayana and Hinayana being paths of renunciation is not controversial within Tibetan Buddhism, see my example of The Three Principal Aspects of the Path.


- One who aspires to the path of bodhisattvas should read mahayana sutras first.

"
"'Mahakashyapa,  if,  without  casting  aside  the  eight  errors,  you  can  enter  into  the  eightemancipations; if, while possessing the marks of error, you can enter the correct Law; if with one meal you can feed all beings, offering alms to the Buddhas and the sages and worthy persons, then after that you may eat your food.
"'One who eats in this manner neither possesses earthly desires nor is separated from earthly desires, neither enters into a meditative state of mind nor arises out of such a state, neither dwells in this world nor dwells in nirvana.
"
From Chapter 3 THE DISCIPLES of the Vimalakirti Sutra

"
The  bodhisattva  Treasure  Sign  said,  "To  yearn  for  nirvana  and  not  delight  in  the  world constitutes  a  dualism.  But  if  one  does  not  yearn  for  nirvana  and  does  not  loathe  the  world,  there will be no dualism. Why? If there is binding, there will be un-binding. But if there is no binding to
begin with, who will seek to be unbound? And where there is no binding and unbinding, there will be no yearning and no loathing, and in this way one may enter the gate of nondualism."
"
From Chapter 9 ENTERING THE GATE OF NONDUALISM of the Vimalakirti Sutra

"
"Shariputra, the Thus Come Ones have only a single Buddha vehicle which they employ in order to preach the Law to living beings. They do not have any other vehicle a second one or a third one. 
Shariputra, the Law preached by all the Buddhas of the ten directions is the same as this.
"
From Chapter 2 EXPEDIENT MEANS of the Lotus Sutra

"
The Buddha said to Kasyapa: "As an example: there is a man here who, as he sees that the moon is not yet out, says that the moon has departed, and entertains the thought that the moon has sunk down. But this moon, by its nature, does not sink down. When it appears on the other side of the 
world, the people of the other side say that the moon is out. Why? Since Mount Sumeru obstructs[vision], the moon cannot reveal itself. The moon is always out. It has, by nature, no coming out or sinking down. The same is the case with the Tathagata, the Alms-deserving, the All-Enlightened One. He manifests himself in the 3,000 great-thousand worlds; or he gives the semblance of having parents in Jambudvipa or of entering Nirvana in Jambudvipa. The 
Tathagata, by nature, does not enter Nirvana. But all beings say that he truly enters Parinirvana.
"
From Chapter 15 The Moon Parable of the Mahaparinirvana Sutra

"
"Good sons, since their enlightenment is fully perfected, you should know that bodhisattvas are not attached to the dharma, and do not seek liberation from the dharma. They do not hate saṃsāra and do not love nirvana. They do not venerate one for keeping the precepts, nor despise the person who breaks them. They are not in awe of the adept practitioner and do not look down on the beginner.
Why? Because they are all enlightened. It is like vision seeing an object. The vision completely pervades without experiencing like or dislike. Why? Vision, in essence has no duality, therefore there is neither like nor dislike. "
"
From Chapter 3 Universal Vision Bodhisattva of the Sutra of Perfect Enlightenment

"
Again, Mahamati, the great Parinirvana is neither destruction nor death. Mahamati, if the great Parinirvana is death, then it will be a birth and continuation. If it is destruction, then it will assume the character of an effect-producing deed. For this reason, Mahamati, the great Parinirvana is neither destruction nor death. Neither has it anything to do with vanishing;l it isthe goal of the Yogins. Again, Mahamati the great Parinirvana is neither abandonment nor attainment, neither is it of one meaning nor of no-meaning..
"
From CHAPTER 2 COLLECTION OF ALL THE DHARMAS of the Lankavatara Sutra

Tuybachau
Posts: 28
Joined: Sun Sep 20, 2015 4:32 am

Re: original buddhism

Postby Tuybachau » Mon Jul 17, 2017 3:15 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Tuybachau wrote:
Anonymous X wrote:
From the Dzogchen point of view, Malcolm is repeating how the sutra system is classified, a path of renunciation, both Hinayana & Mahayana.

Lopon Tenzin Namdak: From Bonpo Dzogchen Teachings,

Both the Buddhist and the Bonpo teachings are divided into Sutra, Tantra, and Dzogchen. Each of these three systems has a different Base, a different Path, and thus they lead to a different Fruit or result. The method proper to the Sutra system is the path of renunciation (spong lam), the method proper to the Tantra system is the path of transformation, (sgyur lam), and the method proper to Dzogchen is the path of self-liberation, (grol lam).


That classification teaching is either provisional or dishonest.


Or your understanding itself is incomplete. Have you considered this possibility?


By claiming that mahayana, the path of bodhisattvas, is a path of renunciation, one slanders the dharma.

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 23559
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: original buddhism

Postby Malcolm » Mon Jul 17, 2017 4:07 pm

Tuybachau wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
Tuybachau wrote:
That classification teaching is either provisional or dishonest.


Or your understanding itself is incomplete. Have you considered this possibility?


By claiming that mahayana, the path of bodhisattvas, is a path of renunciation, one slanders the dharma.


This suggests your understanding of the Mahāyāna is somewhat deficient You should perhaps read the Bodhisattvapitika Sūtra, Bodhicaryavatara, Siksasammucaya, and so on.
Atikosha
Tibetan Medicine Blog
Sudarsana Mandala, Tibetan Medicine and Herbs
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


There is neither sharp nor dull in the capacity of sentient beings. If it is asked why this is so, it is because an introduction is sufficient.


— Self-Liberated Vidyā Tantra

Tuybachau
Posts: 28
Joined: Sun Sep 20, 2015 4:32 am

Re: original buddhism

Postby Tuybachau » Mon Jul 17, 2017 6:11 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Tuybachau wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
Or your understanding itself is incomplete. Have you considered this possibility?


By claiming that mahayana, the path of bodhisattvas, is a path of renunciation, one slanders the dharma.


This suggests your understanding of the Mahāyāna is somewhat deficient You should perhaps read the Bodhisattvapitika Sūtra, Bodhicaryavatara, Siksasammucaya, and so on.


If you aspire to the path of bodhisattvas, mahayana, you should learn to rely on the definitive meanings not the provisional 依了義、不依不了義. 
See Mahaparinirvana sutra chapter 8 The Four Reliances/Dependables 四依止 and this sutra:
http://buddhism.lib.ntu.edu.tw/BDLM/sut ... 3n0420.pdf

pael
Posts: 331
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2013 12:49 pm

Re: original buddhism

Postby pael » Mon Jul 17, 2017 6:28 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Tuybachau wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
Or your understanding itself is incomplete. Have you considered this possibility?


By claiming that mahayana, the path of bodhisattvas, is a path of renunciation, one slanders the dharma.


This suggests your understanding of the Mahāyāna is somewhat deficient You should perhaps read the Bodhisattvapitika Sūtra, Bodhicaryavatara, Siksasammucaya, and so on.

Where to get Bodhisattvapitika Sūtra in English?
May all beings be free from suffering and causes of suffering

The Artis Magistra
Posts: 43
Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2017 7:00 am

Re: original buddhism

Postby The Artis Magistra » Mon Jul 17, 2017 8:45 pm

Maybe it is somewhere here? If not, you may benefit from other things on there, or enjoy some of those things.

http://www.buddhasutra.com/

The Artis Magistra
Posts: 43
Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2017 7:00 am

Re: original buddhism

Postby The Artis Magistra » Mon Jul 17, 2017 9:00 pm

This might be a good place for starting out with what you are looking for as well https://archive.org/details/TheFlowerOr ... dfdtyxxytd

User avatar
monktastic
Posts: 460
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2012 3:48 am
Location: NYC

Re: original buddhism

Postby monktastic » Mon Jul 17, 2017 11:33 pm

pael wrote:Where to get Bodhisattvapitika Sūtra in English?


From a brief search it seems to be a synonym for the Avatamsaka Sutra, which can be found in many places (e.g., http://www.cttbusa.org/avatamsaka/avata ... ntents.asp).
This undistracted state of ordinary mind
Is the meditation.
One will understand it in due course.

--Gampopa

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 23559
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: original buddhism

Postby Malcolm » Mon Jul 17, 2017 11:58 pm

Tuybachau wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
Tuybachau wrote:
By claiming that mahayana, the path of bodhisattvas, is a path of renunciation, one slanders the dharma.


This suggests your understanding of the Mahāyāna is somewhat deficient You should perhaps read the Bodhisattvapitika Sūtra, Bodhicaryavatara, Siksasammucaya, and so on.


If you aspire to the path of bodhisattvas, mahayana, you should learn to rely on the definitive meanings not the provisional 依了義、不依不了義. 
See Mahaparinirvana sutra chapter 8 The Four Reliances/Dependables 四依止 and this sutra:
http://buddhism.lib.ntu.edu.tw/BDLM/sut ... 3n0420.pdf


Relying on the definitive meaning in no way contradicts the path of renunciation which is clearly taught as the principle expedient means in Mahāyāna. To insist that it does means abandoning the relative in favor of the ultimate. Buddha taught two truths; the one of worldly convention, and the ultimate truth. These two truths are not in contradiction. Someone who does not understand that common Mahāyāna is a path of renunciation does not understand the meaning of the two truths.
Atikosha
Tibetan Medicine Blog
Sudarsana Mandala, Tibetan Medicine and Herbs
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


There is neither sharp nor dull in the capacity of sentient beings. If it is asked why this is so, it is because an introduction is sufficient.


— Self-Liberated Vidyā Tantra

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 23559
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: original buddhism

Postby Malcolm » Mon Jul 17, 2017 11:58 pm

monktastic wrote:
pael wrote:Where to get Bodhisattvapitika Sūtra in English?


From a brief search it seems to be a synonym for the Avatamsaka Sutra, which can be found in many places (e.g., http://www.cttbusa.org/avatamsaka/avata ... ntents.asp).



It is not that sutra. It is an separate sūtra.
Atikosha
Tibetan Medicine Blog
Sudarsana Mandala, Tibetan Medicine and Herbs
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


There is neither sharp nor dull in the capacity of sentient beings. If it is asked why this is so, it is because an introduction is sufficient.


— Self-Liberated Vidyā Tantra

User avatar
Queequeg
Global Moderator
Posts: 3434
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: original buddhism

Postby Queequeg » Tue Jul 18, 2017 4:24 am

Malcolm wrote: common Mahāyāna

Sorry to interrupt. I have not been following along except the last page.

Is this a technical term?

The reason I ask is that Zhiyi identifies "Common Teaching" to refer to some forms of Mahayana that I suppose could be identified as a path of renunciation. He also identifies two other Mahayana teachings that do not involve renunciation. That's irrelevant to my question, though.
“Once you have given up the ghost, everything follows with dead certainty, even in the midst of chaos.”
-Henry Miller

User avatar
liuzg150181
Posts: 29
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2016 7:41 am

Re: original buddhism

Postby liuzg150181 » Tue Jul 18, 2017 4:42 am

Queequeg wrote:
Malcolm wrote: common Mahāyāna

Sorry to interrupt. I have not been following along except the last page.

Is this a technical term?

The reason I ask is that Zhiyi identifies "Common Teaching" to refer to some forms of Mahayana that I suppose could be identified as a path of renunciation. He also identifies two other Mahayana teachings that do not involve renunciation. That's irrelevant to my question, though.

In contrast to uncommon Mahayana,a.k.a Vajrayana?

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 23559
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: original buddhism

Postby Malcolm » Tue Jul 18, 2017 6:36 am

Queequeg wrote:
Malcolm wrote: common Mahāyāna

Sorry to interrupt. I have not been following along except the last page.

Is this a technical term?



Yes. It refers to all non-Vajrayāna traditions including Chan/Zen.
Atikosha
Tibetan Medicine Blog
Sudarsana Mandala, Tibetan Medicine and Herbs
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


There is neither sharp nor dull in the capacity of sentient beings. If it is asked why this is so, it is because an introduction is sufficient.


— Self-Liberated Vidyā Tantra

Temicco
Posts: 95
Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2015 8:47 am

Re: original buddhism

Postby Temicco » Tue Jul 18, 2017 8:30 am

Malcolm wrote:
Queequeg wrote:
Malcolm wrote: common Mahāyāna

Yes. It refers to all non-Vajrayāna traditions including Chan/Zen.


And what do you say that "path of renunciation" entails, exactly?
"The nature of mind has no defilement; it is basically perfect and complete in itself.
Just get rid of delusive attachments, and merge with realization of thusness."
--Baizhang Huaihai

"It is just a matter of never letting there be even a moment's interruption in your awareness of your real nature."
--Yuanwu Keqin

User avatar
Queequeg
Global Moderator
Posts: 3434
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: original buddhism

Postby Queequeg » Tue Jul 18, 2017 11:15 am

liuzg150181 wrote:
Queequeg wrote:
Malcolm wrote: common Mahāyāna

Sorry to interrupt. I have not been following along except the last page.

Is this a technical term?

The reason I ask is that Zhiyi identifies "Common Teaching" to refer to some forms of Mahayana that I suppose could be identified as a path of renunciation. He also identifies two other Mahayana teachings that do not involve renunciation. That's irrelevant to my question, though.

In contrast to uncommon Mahayana,a.k.a Vajrayana?


I should have been more clear - common, in the sense of 'shared'. Hinayana and Common Teaching Mahayana both seek resolution in the Absolute, ie. anatman and sunyata, respectively. Separate and Perfect Teaching Mahayana do not - the former having the ideal of the bodhisattva who never abandons beings and the latter finding spontaneous perfection in neither abandoning nor not abandoning, etc. The latter two are still Mahayanateachings, with the Perfect Path considered the Original Gate of Ekayana.
“Once you have given up the ghost, everything follows with dead certainty, even in the midst of chaos.”
-Henry Miller

User avatar
Queequeg
Global Moderator
Posts: 3434
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: original buddhism

Postby Queequeg » Tue Jul 18, 2017 11:17 am

Malcolm wrote:
Queequeg wrote:
Malcolm wrote: common Mahāyāna

Sorry to interrupt. I have not been following along except the last page.

Is this a technical term?



Yes. It refers to all non-Vajrayāna traditions including Chan/Zen.


Is Vajyaryana 'uncommon' as in extraordinary or different?
“Once you have given up the ghost, everything follows with dead certainty, even in the midst of chaos.”
-Henry Miller

User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 798
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
Location: Whitby, Ontario

Re: original buddhism

Postby Coëmgenu » Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:39 pm

Queequeg wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
Queequeg wrote:Sorry to interrupt. I have not been following along except the last page.

Is this a technical term?



Yes. It refers to all non-Vajrayāna traditions including Chan/Zen.


Is Vajyaryana 'uncommon' as in extraordinary or different?
I thought "common Mahāyāna" was Madhyamaka and the earliest Prajñāpāramitā sūtrāṇi, but I just realized I was confusing it with "Classical Mahāyāna", a concept in EBT studies.
"My pure land is not destroyed,
yet the multitude sees it as consumed in fire,
with anxiety, fear, and other sufferings
filling it everywhere."
(Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtra XVI)

All these dharmāḥ are the status of dharma, the standing of dharma, the suchness of dharma; the dharma neither departs from things-as-they-are, nor differs from things-as-they-are; it is the truth, reality, without distortion.(SA 296, 因緣法)
揭諦揭諦,波羅揭諦,波羅僧揭諦,菩提薩婆訶(Prajñāpāramitāhṛdayasya Mantra)


Return to “Academic Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests