original buddhism

[Caoimhghín]

The sutras do not teach theorems and views but do teach non attachment to propositions and views.

[...]

- The sutras do not teach principles, concepts.. but do teach non establishment of and non attachment to principles, concepts..

Like the principal of non-attachment to principles, concepts...?

[Malcolm]

The basis of the bodhisattva path is renunciation, which is obvious even to beginners, let alone scholars.

The basis of the bodhisattva path is the Buddha Nature which has nothing to do with renunciation or/and appropriation... That is what the definitive teaching is about and why it is to be relied on.

You seem to have a problem distinguishing view and path.

[Tuybachau]

The sutras do not teach theorems and views but do teach non attachment to propositions and views.

[...]

- The sutras do not teach principles, concepts.. but do teach non establishment of and non attachment to principles, concepts..

Like the principal of non-attachment to principles, concepts...?

- The thoughts about non attachment, principles, concepts.. arise and cease. Non attachment means neither trying to get rid of them nor trying to hold on to them to come up with others. Practice to watch/observe.

[Tuybachau]

The basis of the bodhisattva path is renunciation, which is obvious even to beginners, let alone scholars.

The basis of the bodhisattva path is the Buddha Nature which has nothing to do with renunciation or/and appropriation... That is what the definitive teaching is about and why it is to be relied on.

You seem to have a problem distinguishing view and path.

- You seem to confuse view with Buddha nature.

[Minobu]

The basis of the bodhisattva path is renunciation, which is obvious even to beginners, let alone scholars.

The basis of the bodhisattva path is the Buddha Nature which has nothing to do with renunciation or/and appropriation... That is what the definitive teaching is about and why it is to be relied on.

But bodhisattvayāna isn't the same thing as Buddha-nature, regardless of if it is "based" on it or not, yes? What matters is what bodhisattvayāna "is" (i.e. what is the practice of Bodhisattvayāna is), not what it is predicated on. What are the actual practices of Bodhisattvayāna? That is where you find out if it is or is not a path of renunciation, not from its theory or its metaphysics.

IMO obv.

As a point a few sects of Mahāyāna Buddhism do appear to be (almost?) completely belief/faith based. Do these outlier sects qualify as also being based in renunciation?

Is not the point of the Bodhisattva path and renunciation to mold one in the use of Buddha Nature for others. People seem to misunderstand Buddha Nature due to the word Buddha attached to it...or calling it Buddha Nature implies only good people get to play with it.

i might be off by a whole lot..and don't recommend this view to others....stick to the Bodhisattva path and rules of conduct is the best bet.

[Caoimhghín]

The basis of the bodhisattva path is the Buddha Nature which has nothing to do with renunciation or/and appropriation... That is what the definitive teaching is about and why it is to be relied on.

You seem to have a problem distinguishing view and path.

- You seem to confuse view with Buddha nature.

I am not sure what this even means. I doubt Malcolm was any surer.

I have read it quite a few times and I have no idea.

Can you (Tuybachau) elaborate on how Malcolm confuses "view" with "Buddha-nature" here?

[Minobu]

You seem to have a problem distinguishing view and path.

- You seem to confuse view with Buddha nature.

I am not sure what this even means. I doubt Malcolm was any surer.

I have read it quite a few times and I have no idea.

Can you (Tuybachau) elaborate on how Malcolm confuses "view" with "Buddha-nature" here?

i can't answer that...but you know it's all about pointing to..getting the other person to feel their way around this dharmic term Buddha Nature..

The Dzogchen crowd point s to it quite well.
When Malcolm said to us the Nichiren forum we don't have to go through all this suffering "just" forget the term he used but it was this whole Dzogchen themes of just letting it happen ...it's there for the picking so to speak...
then of course one is reborn in the pure land and all is revealed and understood...

i don't really go along with that but you still get a glimpse to the aspect of Buddha Nature or this primordial pure thing they point to...

it's all beyond words...and then you get this Soygal guy playing with it...a Dzogchen master who knew and just had samsaric fun....
again don't get emotional about it...see it for what it is....

we try to develop bodhicitta so this doesn't happen to us when we get to use it .. it is beyond our terms of good and evil...

[Anonymous X]

- You seem to confuse view with Buddha nature.

I am not sure what this even means. I doubt Malcolm was any surer.

I have read it quite a few times and I have no idea.

Can you (Tuybachau) elaborate on how Malcolm confuses "view" with "Buddha-nature" here?

i can't answer that...but you know it's all about pointing to..getting the other person to feel their way around this dharmic term Buddha Nature..

The Dzogchen crowd point s to it quite well.
When Malcolm said to us the Nichiren forum we don't have to go through all this suffering "just" forget the term he used but it was this whole Dzogchen themes of just letting it happen ...it's there for the picking so to speak...
then of course one is reborn in the pure land and all is revealed and understood...

i don't really go along with that but you still get a glimpse to the aspect of Buddha Nature or this primordial pure thing they point to...

it's all beyond words...and then you get this Soygal guy playing with it...a Dzogchen master who knew and just had samsaric fun....
again don't get emotional about it...see it for what it is....

we try to develop bodhicitta so this doesn't happen to us when we get to use it .. it is beyond our terms of good and evil...

Sounds like you are trying to pin the donkey's tail on the donkey while blindfolded. The best you will do with this is fabricate another point of view and reference point which doesn't really help you out of your own confusion and the belief that you need to figure all this out.

[Minobu]

Sounds like you are trying to pin the donkey's tail on the donkey while blindfolded. The best you will do with this is fabricate another point of view and reference point which doesn't really help you out of your own confusion and the belief that you need to figure all this out.

Look i am not about to openly challenge the instant promise of rebirth in the pure lands by sticking around a specific practice, . Give my opinion but not openly challenge , or negate it. By the by i do believe in pure lands.

Nor am I going to challenge this secrecy Dzogchen practitioners protect.
In polite society it is annoying to use secret teachings to challenge another's understanding of a topic. it's not fair and you people do it constantly.
You proselytize and thats not cool here.

From a lotus Buddhist perspective it's not a matter of trying to figure it out , it's more of a watch and see and as your practice is continued, in this defiled age.
As attested by millions in various Nichiren Shonin Schools.

Like i said i read the Dzogchen sections, and have read books i've gotten online that are offered for free and i approve of the wording that gives one a glimpse into Buddha Nature. the poetry is beautiful to me ears.
i don't know what you do with that glimpse..From what i read a Sadhana is reread and practiced overtime with a visualization that is meditated on.
i guess there is a faith thing one gets from the initiation which you hold and then use in debates.
i've heard claims that Certain Masters can actually have you experience something. i think they are rare but would love to attend on one.

i don't know...is that close?
i hope what you do helps , i really do. I don't see anyone here from the Dzogchen community claiming to achieve what ever you are supposed to achieve, lots of questions and views on the subject are discussed by the practitioners. But the only thing an outsider reads is that you need to know that you are there already so don't worry be happy ...


But as per the OP the only view i can attest to in Buddhism is from the words of The Lotus Sutra where Buddha says both i have not yet revealed the Truth , which led to the common Mahayana view that His life was a play and He did not first achieve enlightenment under the Bodhi Tree.

And all other Buddhist teachings lose their medicinal effect in the Latter Day of The Law , which everyone here knows we are in. The moment He reveals the lotus Sutra it is a harbinger of sorts that we are going to soon enter the Latter Day of The Law.

From a Lotus Buddhism perspective at this juncture sentients cannot "Just enter pure lands and attain enlightenment at death"

But you can live in, at this moment with the Pure Land of Eagle peak , which is the mandela formed when The Lotus Sutra was taught at Eagle Peak by Buddha Sakyamuni and the retinue that came to hear. Thats Lotus buddhism. You get to create your own Mandala similar due the the fact you are a Buddha already . with practice and the fact This is a Pure land already that you live in you eventually build your own Mandela . (Build? LOL...yo it's minobu posting here !)((never forget who you are reading folkses))

Lord Sakyamuni Buddha's harvest is over. They, His students , all attained enlightenment and have moved on. He admits to his teachings are no longer a valid medicine in the latter day of the law. He promised all His students enlightenment gathered at Eagle Peak.

One has to toss out The Lotus sutra in order to ignore this edict.

As per the OP , the only original Buddhism is the wish to free and liberate sentients from Samsara. all sorts of Buddhas have come and gone...Former Middle and Latter Day ages have have come and gone and started and ended over and over and over...

I recall Zasep Tulku Rinpoche teaching that the last god in the same position of Brahma and with the same function of, hated Dharma practice.
The universe was not cool for the Enlightened ones , so they ended his life before his time was due.

And we got very lucky with this god Brahma , for he loves Dharma and there are gods to help protect dharma for sentients , and this has been happening for a long time from our perspective.
but it to will end and who knows what will be.

So the Buddhas and Enlightened ones do have obstacles they work on , all sorts.

[Anonymous X]

Minobu,

I do appreciate what you are saying, in general. First off, I am not advocating the position of Dzogchen over what you are putting forth. I am an outsider in regards to Dzogchen practitioners and am not taken seriously at all by them because I don't speak the language or have the secret keys to the kingdom. But, I am not really interested in that and was just commenting on your proclivity for speculation about pure lands and other topics which don't really address the common misperceptions that us ordinary humans face in our lives which keep us circling around in our heads. The actuality of our own experience is the only thing that is important to observe, and the fabrication of this identity we hold so dear. This is an essential tenet which the Buddha openly addressed over and over again throughout his life. The idea of a self, an entity who is permanent, existent, and grasping, is at the center of all confusion and misunderstanding leading to division and suffering. All the rest is chopped liver.

[Invokingvajras]

From what I've gathered, it sounds like contemporary Buddhism is rather schismatic, in terms of vehicles, cultural and language barriers, expectations of loyalty to lineage-specific teachers, etc. There's less emphasis on control over oneself then there is this drive for one to control the believers. I'm all for Buddhism being accessible to all, but it seems like this has led us to a very dark period in which one's position outweighs right intention.

[yan kong]

From what I've gathered, it sounds like contemporary Buddhism is rather schismatic, in terms of vehicles, cultural and language barriers, expectations of loyalty to lineage-specific teachers, etc. There's less emphasis on control over oneself then there is this drive for one to control the believers. I'm all for Buddhism being accessible to all, but it seems like this has led us to a very dark period in which one's position outweighs right intention.

If we apply the label "Buddhism" to it then it that way. But then the Buddha refuted what he saw as wrong view in his time, we just labeled the other sects as Jains or Hindus. Things right now seem to be much the same to me as they've always been concerning conflicting ideas.

[Invokingvajras]

I refer to "Buddhism" as that which is believed by its followers to be "Buddha Dharma." Conflicting views between schools of thought such as Buddhists and Jains (keep in mind how small the Buddha's community was at this time) don't really apply here because they have separate origins.

A schism could recognized as dissent within a particular tradition and acting upon it with malicious intent, usually to gain something out of it such as prestige or power. Of course, it can be very difficult to discern what someone's intention is without having developed that insight. It would have been more obvious in the Buddha's time, especially to someone from within the order.

[Nyedrag Yeshe]

"...contemporary Buddhism is rather schismatic....."

You missed the point of many here in this thread. It has been schismatic since its inception, since Buddha's time! Nothing contemporary here!

[Invokingvajras]

"...contemporary Buddhism is rather schismatic....."

You missed the point of many here in this thread. It has been schismatic since its inception, since Buddha's time! Nothing contemporary here!

Since the Buddha's time, the only schism I'm aware of is Devadatta's attempt to create a new order (not counting the parinirvana aftermath). Correct me if I'm wrong. I'm calling attention to the fact that many of us are high and mighty about our respective affiliation. In the real world, Buddhists tend to shy away from each other if they aren't of the same lineage, race or nationality. Such is the nature of clinging to identity. Perhaps it's partially a result of anxiety, as to whether or not we are actually practicing the true Dharma in this age.

[Nyedrag Yeshe]

"...contemporary Buddhism is rather schismatic....."

You missed the point of many here in this thread. It has been schismatic since its inception, since Buddha's time! Nothing contemporary here!

Since the Buddha's time, the only schism I'm aware of is Devadatta's attempt to create a new order (not counting the parinirvana aftermath). Correct me if I'm wrong. I'm calling attention to the fact that many of us are high and mighty about our respective affiliation. In the real world, Buddhists tend to shy away from each other if they aren't of the same lineage, race or nationality. Such is the nature of clinging to identity. Perhaps it's partially a result of anxiety, as to whether or not we are actually practicing the true Dharma in this age.

If you have time and follow the whole thread, you'll see Malcolm and David discussing on this issue! In Malcolm's opinion schisms began already in Buddha's lifetime. But most scholars do agree that sectarian divides do come very early in Buddhist History!

[Caoimhghín]

If you have time and follow the whole thread, you'll see Malcolm and David discussing on this issue! In Malcolm's opinion schisms began already in Buddha's lifetime. But most scholars do agree that sectarian divides do come very early in Buddhist History!

Dominant opinion, in my experience, among those who study EBTs, is that there was a largely unschismed sangha by the time of Ashoka, but this is in light of my previous discussions to the conversation. "Early Buddhist Schisms" are not on doctrinal grounds.

[Caoimhghín]

"Early Buddhist Schisms" are not on doctrinal grounds.

I think this is the crux of the two perspectives. This fact leaves nebulous the "doctrinal" oneness of Early Buddhism, to a certain extend.

Contributors at SuttaCentral would have such different opinions on this thread. It is interesting to see what different communities say on this issue, given how "political" it is.

[Nyedrag Yeshe]

If you have time and follow the whole thread, you'll see Malcolm and David discussing on this issue! In Malcolm's opinion schisms began already in Buddha's lifetime. But most scholars do agree that sectarian divides do come very early in Buddhist History!

Dominant opinion, in my experience, among those who study EBTs, is that there was a largely unschismed sangha by the time of Ashoka, but this is in light of my previous discussions to the conversation. "Early Buddhist Schisms" are not on doctrinal grounds.

Yes, considering the same Theravada scholars that you pointed out in another thread. Obviously, they would insist that the differences within the Sangha were mostly about Vinaya!

[Thomas Amundsen]

"Early Buddhist Schisms" are not on doctrinal grounds.

I think this is the crux of the two perspectives. This fact leaves nebulous the "doctrinal" oneness of Early Buddhism, to a certain extend.

Contributors at SuttaCentral would have such different opinions on this thread. It is interesting to see what different communities say on this issue, given how "political" it is.

Well it's interesting. I thought the Mahayana narrative wasn't really that these other sutras existed in the human realm during the early period. I was under the impression that most Mahayana teachings (definitely tantras, but also most sutras) were taught by Shakyamuni in other realms. Or the ones that were taught in Jambudvipa were not preserved by humans and had to later be recovered from the other realms. Then these teachings entered the human realm at a later time. This would imply that the Mahayana narrative is not contradictory to the Theravada narrative. Am I mistaken?