original buddhism

A forum for those wishing to discuss Buddhist history and teachings in the Western academic manner, referencing appropriate sources.
Crazywisdom
Posts: 1038
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:48 pm

Re: original buddhism

Post by Crazywisdom » Wed Jul 12, 2017 4:48 pm

Lucas Oliveira wrote:
Nyedrag Yeshe wrote:
And as said above, Malcolm is an Acharya, or a specialist not only in TB, but also general Mahayana or Vajrayana. He has the authority to speak for himself!
The Dogma of the Buddhist Master’s Infallibility: A Reappraisal of “Buddhist Modernism”

What is, in fact, undeniably “modern” in the case of both teachers, is that they make extensive use of the marketing tools offered by industrialized societies: they publish books that cater to the public’s needs and interests, they talk about peace of mind and self-improvement, and reinterpret the Dharma in psychological terms. Their communications strategies are unmistakably modern. But is the use of “crazy wisdom” as a traditional upaya—a teaching method specifically adapted to the target audience—or the authoritative constraint, allowing for the creation of an entirely new Western dogma, according to which the Buddhist teacher is always right no matter what he does? This question remains open.

https://www.buddhistdoor.net/features/t ... -modernism



:namaste:
Not according to the Kalachakra. Wyat has developed is a sort of priest class who limit access to source material. Once that is opened up via translations it should become obvious what the standards are and what the path is and isn't and what makes a guru good or not.
Delete my account

User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 2898
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 4:23 pm
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada
Contact:

Re: original buddhism

Post by DNS » Wed Jul 12, 2017 4:49 pm

Nyedrag Yeshe wrote:
David N. Snyder wrote:Not too much unity, just like in other religions, but overall fairly tolerant of each other. There have been no major wars between schools of Buddhism whereas in other religions different sects have gone to war. The varying schools of Buddhism can be seen as different paths for the diversity of temperaments and preferences of practitioners. In regard to tolerance, it is quite common for monks of one tradition to be allowed to stay at the temples of other traditions while traveling and vice versa.
I think you missed lessons on both Tibetan and Japanese Buddhism history lessons my friend!
Not at all, mi amigo. As I mentioned, no 'major wars' as of course there were some skirmishes and lots of sectarian fighting, but nothing on the level of the Inquisition, Crusades, Islamic conquests, etc.

All religions have their sectarian fighting; I read that even the very pacifistic Jains had some bitter fighting between the Svetambara sect and the Digambara sect.

User avatar
Nyedrag Yeshe
Posts: 401
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2016 3:06 am
Location: Brazil

Re: original buddhism

Post by Nyedrag Yeshe » Wed Jul 12, 2017 5:39 pm

David N. Snyder wrote:
Nyedrag Yeshe wrote:
David N. Snyder wrote:Not too much unity, just like in other religions, but overall fairly tolerant of each other. There have been no major wars between schools of Buddhism whereas in other religions different sects have gone to war. The varying schools of Buddhism can be seen as different paths for the diversity of temperaments and preferences of practitioners. In regard to tolerance, it is quite common for monks of one tradition to be allowed to stay at the temples of other traditions while traveling and vice versa.
I think you missed lessons on both Tibetan and Japanese Buddhism history lessons my friend!
Not at all, mi amigo. As I mentioned, no 'major wars' as of course there were some skirmishes and lots of sectarian fighting, but nothing on the level of the Inquisition, Crusades, Islamic conquests, etc.

All religions have their sectarian fighting; I read that even the very pacifistic Jains had some bitter fighting between the Svetambara sect and the Digambara sect.
Sorry, we speak Portuguese, not Spanish!The Portuguese pronoun is 'meu', or so 'meu amigo'. Don't try to speak with Brazilians in Spanish! Many Brazilians strongly disapprove trying to imply we speak Spanish when speaking Portuguese is part of our identity. Many, kinda expect and loathe this attitude coming from North Americans. And trust me, this is offensive!

I understand, maybe not in the same scale. But sectarian disputes and persecution could be quite violent in both countries. With armed conflicts, destroying of temples, images, and texts. People even would flee to neighboring countries

The reputed founder of Bhutan, Ngawang Namgyal fled to Bhutan from Tibet, fleeing persecution from Karma Kagyu Lamas. Some Gelug monks ordered the systematic destruction of Nyingma monasteries and Guru Rinpoche images, Dzogchen texts!

Hieizan and Kofukuji monks threatened and led both Honen and Nichiren to exile, and threatened them with death!

I think I don't need to even mention some Burmese monks, of the monks of Bodu Bala Sena!
“Whatever has to happen, let it happen!”
“Whatever the situation is, it’s fine!”
“I really don’t need anything!
~Tsangpa Gyare Yeshe Dorje (1161-1211)
ओं पद्मोष्णीष विमले हूँ फट । ओं हनुफशभरहृदय स्वाहा॥
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔ ཀརྨ་པ་མཁྱེན་ནོ།

User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 2898
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 4:23 pm
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada
Contact:

Re: original buddhism

Post by DNS » Wed Jul 12, 2017 6:35 pm

Nyedrag Yeshe wrote: Sorry, we speak Portuguese, not Spanish!
Yes, of course I know that. :lol: Here in Las Vegas, we all speak Spanglish, a mixture of Spanish and English, so I sometimes write in Spanglish (even when speaking to Gringos).

(Las Vegas is about 35% Hispanic, nearly everyone is bilingual.)

User avatar
Dharmic
Posts: 75
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2017 11:36 am

Re: original buddhism

Post by Dharmic » Wed Jul 12, 2017 6:46 pm

Nyedrag Yeshe wrote: In India, these disputes were more verbal and bansed on doctrine and iterpretation.

In both Tibet and Japan, this went on to a both political and belligerent level! In some cases even whole armies of monks were formed in order so surpress a new sect!
Hi,

You are right, building of armies, attacking etc. did not occur in India.

( On a side note, Theravādin texts mention that twice ( between ~ 215 CE - 237 CE and 277 CE - 304 CE ) Mahāyāna Sūtras were burnt, it was suppressed, monks were branded heretics and dishonored but this happened in Sri Lanka. )

:anjali:
May the supreme Bodhicitta
That has not arisen, arise and grow;
And may that which has arisen not diminish
But increase more and more.

Crazywisdom
Posts: 1038
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:48 pm

Re: original buddhism

Post by Crazywisdom » Wed Jul 12, 2017 6:58 pm

Nyedrag Yeshe wrote:
David N. Snyder wrote:
Nyedrag Yeshe wrote: I think you missed lessons on both Tibetan and Japanese Buddhism history lessons my friend!
Not at all, mi amigo. As I mentioned, no 'major wars' as of course there were some skirmishes and lots of sectarian fighting, but nothing on the level of the Inquisition, Crusades, Islamic conquests, etc.

All religions have their sectarian fighting; I read that even the very pacifistic Jains had some bitter fighting between the Svetambara sect and the Digambara sect.
Sorry, we speak Portuguese, not Spanish!The Portuguese pronoun is 'meu', or so 'meu amigo'. Don't try to speak with Brazilians in Spanish! Many Brazilians strongly disapprove trying to imply we speak Spanish when speaking Portuguese is part of our identity. Many, kinda expect and loathe this attitude coming from North Americans. And trust me, this is offensive!

I understand, maybe not in the same scale. But sectarian disputes and persecution could be quite violent in both countries. With armed conflicts, destroying of temples, images, and texts. People even would flee to neighboring countries

The reputed founder of Bhutan, Ngawang Namgyal fled to Bhutan from Tibet, fleeing persecution from Karma Kagyu Lamas. Some Gelug monks ordered the systematic destruction of Nyingma monasteries and Guru Rinpoche images, Dzogchen texts!

Hieizan and Kofukuji monks threatened and led both Honen and Nichiren to exile, and threatened them with death!

I think I don't need to even mention some Burmese monks, of the monks of Bodu Bala Sena!
The only thing my Brazilian roommate taught me to say was bunda linda.
Delete my account

Crazywisdom
Posts: 1038
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:48 pm

Re: original buddhism

Post by Crazywisdom » Wed Jul 12, 2017 7:00 pm

David N. Snyder wrote:
Nyedrag Yeshe wrote: Sorry, we speak Portuguese, not Spanish!
Yes, of course I know that. :lol: Here in Las Vegas, we all speak Spanglish, a mixture of Spanish and English, so I sometimes write in Spanglish (even when speaking to Gringos).

(Las Vegas is about 35% Hispanic, nearly everyone is bilingual.)
So you should be saying Latino by now, gringo de mierda.
Delete my account

User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 2898
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 4:23 pm
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada
Contact:

Re: original buddhism

Post by DNS » Wed Jul 12, 2017 7:04 pm

Crazywisdom wrote: So you should be saying Latino by now, gringo de mierda.
:shock: Okay! Mucho calor aquí. :tongue:

:focus:

User avatar
Nyedrag Yeshe
Posts: 401
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2016 3:06 am
Location: Brazil

Re: original buddhism

Post by Nyedrag Yeshe » Wed Jul 12, 2017 7:16 pm

Crazywisdom wrote:
David N. Snyder wrote:
Nyedrag Yeshe wrote: Sorry, we speak Portuguese, not Spanish!
Yes, of course I know that. :lol: Here in Las Vegas, we all speak Spanglish, a mixture of Spanish and English, so I sometimes write in Spanglish (even when speaking to Gringos).

(Las Vegas is about 35% Hispanic, nearly everyone is bilingual.)
So you should be saying Latino by now, gringo de mierda.
:toilet:
“Whatever has to happen, let it happen!”
“Whatever the situation is, it’s fine!”
“I really don’t need anything!
~Tsangpa Gyare Yeshe Dorje (1161-1211)
ओं पद्मोष्णीष विमले हूँ फट । ओं हनुफशभरहृदय स्वाहा॥
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔ ཀརྨ་པ་མཁྱེན་ནོ།

Crazywisdom
Posts: 1038
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:48 pm

Re: original buddhism

Post by Crazywisdom » Wed Jul 12, 2017 7:16 pm

David N. Snyder wrote:
Crazywisdom wrote: So you should be saying Latino by now, gringo de mierda.
:shock: Okay! Mucho calor aquí. :tongue:

:focus:
te perdono
Delete my account

User avatar
Nyedrag Yeshe
Posts: 401
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2016 3:06 am
Location: Brazil

Re: original buddhism

Post by Nyedrag Yeshe » Wed Jul 12, 2017 7:18 pm

Dharmic wrote:
Nyedrag Yeshe wrote: In India, these disputes were more verbal and bansed on doctrine and iterpretation.

In both Tibet and Japan, this went on to a both political and belligerent level! In some cases even whole armies of monks were formed in order so surpress a new sect!
Hi,

You are right, building of armies, attacking etc. did not occur in India.

( On a side note, Theravādin texts mention that twice ( between ~ 215 CE - 237 CE and 277 CE - 304 CE ) Mahāyāna Sūtras were burnt, it was suppressed, monks were branded heretics and dishonored but this happened in Sri Lanka. )

:anjali:
Yes! I forgot about the whole Abhayagiri issue! :reading:
“Whatever has to happen, let it happen!”
“Whatever the situation is, it’s fine!”
“I really don’t need anything!
~Tsangpa Gyare Yeshe Dorje (1161-1211)
ओं पद्मोष्णीष विमले हूँ फट । ओं हनुफशभरहृदय स्वाहा॥
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔ ཀརྨ་པ་མཁྱེན་ནོ།

User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 2898
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 4:23 pm
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada
Contact:

Re: original buddhism

Post by DNS » Wed Jul 12, 2017 7:20 pm

Crazywisdom wrote: te perdono
Te perdono tambien. :tongue:

Crazywisdom
Posts: 1038
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:48 pm

Re: original buddhism

Post by Crazywisdom » Wed Jul 12, 2017 7:40 pm

David N. Snyder wrote:
Crazywisdom wrote: te perdono
Te perdono tambien. :tongue:
Hahah
Delete my account

User avatar
Nyedrag Yeshe
Posts: 401
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2016 3:06 am
Location: Brazil

Re: original buddhism

Post by Nyedrag Yeshe » Wed Jul 12, 2017 7:42 pm

David N. Snyder wrote:
Nyedrag Yeshe wrote: Sorry, we speak Portuguese, not Spanish!
Yes, of course I know that. :lol: Here in Las Vegas, we all speak Spanglish, a mixture of Spanish and English, so I sometimes write in Spanglish (even when speaking to Gringos).

(Las Vegas is about 35% Hispanic, nearly everyone is bilingual.)
Well..... I've been warned, gringo!!! :namaste: :lol:
“Whatever has to happen, let it happen!”
“Whatever the situation is, it’s fine!”
“I really don’t need anything!
~Tsangpa Gyare Yeshe Dorje (1161-1211)
ओं पद्मोष्णीष विमले हूँ फट । ओं हनुफशभरहृदय स्वाहा॥
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔ ཀརྨ་པ་མཁྱེན་ནོ།

Seeker12
Posts: 93
Joined: Mon May 08, 2017 5:54 pm

Re: original buddhism

Post by Seeker12 » Wed Jul 12, 2017 8:15 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Seeker12 wrote:
The bottom line is that it seems to me that all Buddhist teachings can fit under the 4 noble truths, but not all Buddhist teachings can fit under DO.
Give me an example of a "Buddhist" teaching that does not fit under DO, and I will show you it is a non-Buddhist teaching.
I am writing this to follow up on the previous conversation about DO vs the 4NT, as I looked into it a bit and felt that I found something worth sharing.

In a previous post, I had mentioned that - depending on how this is being framed - I could potentially start to see what you meant by saying that DO encompasses everything, perhaps. And my argument, perhaps, was that the 4NT encompasses everything within Buddhism.

The following is an excerpt from the Khenjuk, translated by EPK, in the section on dependent origination. In short, I think that either view is probably valid, but you can read it yourself and come to your own conclusions. It's from Gateway to Knowledge, Vol 1, P 59-60. Anything that is in [brackets] is my addition for clarification for anyone reading, in case it's necessary.

I will say that - based on my readings of some of your comments - it appears to me that you consider the 4NT and the 8FP to be solely within the sphere of the "hinayana", which seems very rigid to me, an improper understanding of the 4NT and the 8FP, and at odds with basically everything that I have read/heard and understood. I see no reason that these do not apply to the entire scope of things, understood properly, as I think is at least partially illustrated in the excerpt.

Here's the excerpt:

---

"When these interdependent links, in progressive order, are condensed, the five karmas and disturbing emotions are included under the truth of origin [NT2] and the remaining seven fall under the truth of suffering [NT1].

In terms of reverse order, having relinquished ignorance through the wisdom that realizes the nature of the truths, the reversal of the five that are karmas and disturbing emotions is the truth of path [NT4]. Likewise, the ceasing of the seven bases of suffering is the truth of cessation [NT3]. Thus they are the nature of the twelvefold points of truth.

In that way, dependent origination ranks as an essential and profound teaching among the treasuries of the Buddha's Words. The one who perceives dependent origination with the eyes of discriminating knowledge will come to see the dharmas possessing the natures of the eightfold noble path, and with the wisdom gaze which comprehends all objects of knowledge will perceive the dharmakaya of Buddhahood. Thus it has been taught."

User avatar
monktastic
Posts: 463
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2012 3:48 am
Location: NYC

Re: original buddhism

Post by monktastic » Wed Jul 12, 2017 11:53 pm

monktastic wrote:
aflatun wrote:Forgive me for butting in friends.

Malcolm could you clarify something for me?

I see you mention emptiness free from extremes, not just emptiness of the individual. So does that mean for you, Hinayana, not having such a doctrine of emptiness free of extremes (according to most), does not have this essential distinguishing feature, and hence lacks the essence of Buddhism?

Does that make it on par with Hinduism, etc?

(Not picking a Theravada vs. Mahayana fight here, I promise :) )
I have the same question.
Karl Brunnholzl wrote:One of the difficult features of the prajñāpāramitā sūtras is that they contrast with the earlier more foundational Buddhist teachings. The prajñāpāramitā sūtras seem to dump all the hallmarks and holy cows of foundational Buddhism, such as the five skandhas, the twelve links of dependent origination, the four noble truths, nirvāṇa, and so on. They all go down the drain, so to speak. In early Buddhism, at some point, there developed a tendency toward an overly scholastic and reifying approach to the teachings. Scholars put everything that the Buddha said in categories with many subcategories and all kinds of conceptual interrelations. They constructed this huge closet with a lot of drawers and subdrawers, and everything had to fit somewhere. Their understanding was that reality is made up of many different things, all of which exist truly and ultimately. This ultra-realistic approach with its lists of “dharmas,” or phenomena, is called abhidharma. It is this abhidharma tradition with all of its classifications and subclassifications and a strong tendency to solidify everything that is one of the main targets of the deconstructive approach of the prajñāpāramitā sūtras. Thus, the prajñāpāramitā sūtras are counteracting the tendency to overly reify the Buddha’s teachings through putting everything into neat categories and thinking that this is how the world actually exists.
Brunnholzl, Karl. The Heart Attack Sutra: A New Commentary on the Heart Sutra (pp. 37-38). Shambhala. Kindle Edition.
Okay, got a different answer reading an Abhidhammic scholar (Y Karunadasa):
Thus “empty” and “non-self’ become mutually convertible expressions: what is empty is non-self, and likewise, what is non-self is empty. Therefore, from the Theravāda perspective we are at full liberty to restate the well-known statement, sabbe dhammā anattā (all dhammas are non-self), which is common to both early Buddhism and the Theravāda Abhidhamma, as sabbe dhammā sunnā (all dhammas are empty).

It is of course true that each dhamma, both mental and material, is defined as “own-nature” {sabhāva) However, what we need to remember here is that this so called “own-nature” arises and exists in dependence on a multiplicity of impermanent conditions. As the Pāli commentaries clarify this, strictly speaking, a dhamma is not “that which bears its own-nature”, but “what is being borne by its own conditions”. In this connection it is also observed that “own-nature” (sabhāva) does not mean “own-sway” (vasavattitā).^' It will thus be seen that although the term sabhāva is used is a synonym for dhamma, it is interpreted in such a way that it means the very absence of sabhāva in any sense that implies a substantial mode of being. In other words, none of the dhammas is a self-entity (atta) or anything pertaining to a self-entity {attaniyena). It is in this sense that we need to understand why the dhammas are “empty” {sunna).

...

One question that arises here is whether in denying the ultimate reality of the person, the Theravādins have overstressed the reality of the dhammas. Does the description of dhammas as saccikattha (exist in a true sense) and paramattha (exist in an ultimate sense) means that they are real and discrete entities existing in their own right? Has the Abhidhamma veered towards an absolutist interpretation of the dhamma theory? This question is important because an affirmative answer is found in some contemporary scholarly writings. This is particularly so in those writings which seek to extol the merits of the Madhyamaka at the expense of the Abhidhamma.

Such a conclusion, it appears to us, is not tenable. For if the dhammas are described as real and ultimate, this means, not that they partake of the nature of absolute entities, but that they are not further reducible to any other reality, to some kind of substance which underlies them. That is to say, there is no “behind the scenes” substance from which they emerge and to which they finally return. This means, in effect, that the dhammas represent the final limits of the Abhidhammic analysis of empirical existence. “Without having been the dhammas come into being (ahutvā sambhonti), and having been they disappear [without any residue] Ģiutvā pativenti).” As one Pāli commentary says, “existence in an ultimate sense” (paramatthato vijjamānatā) means “the fact of been arisen due to conditions” (paccaya-sambhutata). How could one say that what exists due to conditions exists in an absolutist sense?
(Apologies for any errors resulting from cutting-and-pasting a PDF).
https://www.academia.edu/8061789/The_Th ... Karunadasa_
This undistracted state of ordinary mind
Is the meditation.
One will understand it in due course.

--Gampopa

User avatar
tiagolps
Posts: 767
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 8:41 pm
Location: Portugal

Re: original buddhism

Post by tiagolps » Wed Jul 12, 2017 11:56 pm

Tanta violência :tongue:
Homage to you, blissful, virtuous and peaceful,
Enjoy the domain of the tranquil nirvana.
Fully possessing the om and the soha,
You overcome even the greatest of evils.

_______________________________________________
"Buddhahood really is like an infection and it goes from one person to another. You can fight it off, but it's a pity if you do that..."
-Rigdzin Shikpo

Anonymous X
Posts: 813
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2017 11:43 am
Location: Bangkok

Re: original buddhism

Post by Anonymous X » Thu Jul 13, 2017 6:59 am

Tuybachau wrote:
Malcolm wrote:The one thing that Hinayāna and common Mahāyāna do share however is that they are both paths of renunciation.
- 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).

Tuybachau
Posts: 46
Joined: Sun Sep 20, 2015 4:32 am

Re: original buddhism

Post by Tuybachau » Sun Jul 16, 2017 3:30 pm

Virgo wrote:
Tuybachau wrote:
- You have little/no knowledge about and no practice of Mahayana but do have much to claim about it.
- There is no such thing as "common Mahayana" but there are bodhisattvas who know and practice Mahayana and there are those who do not know and do not practice Mahayana.
- Prajnaparamita sutras teach the Mahayana path, Bodhisattva path. They are translated and taught and recited widely in Mahayana schools. Those who wish to tread this path should know this:
You realize you are speaking to an Acharya, right?

Kevin
- Do not be ignorant. Rely on the dharma not the individual. 
- Read the sutras first.

Tuybachau
Posts: 46
Joined: Sun Sep 20, 2015 4:32 am

Re: original buddhism

Post by Tuybachau » Sun Jul 16, 2017 3:33 pm

Anonymous X wrote:
Tuybachau wrote:
Malcolm wrote:The one thing that Hinayāna and common Mahāyāna do share however is that they are both paths of renunciation.
- 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.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: mechashivaz, Tanaduk, udawa and 15 guests