The Aro Authenticity Debate.

User avatar
Mantrik
Posts: 877
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2017 8:55 pm
Contact:

Re: The Aro Authenticity Debate.

Post by Mantrik » Mon Jan 22, 2018 11:59 pm

treehuggingoctopus wrote:
Mon Jan 22, 2018 11:49 pm

:spy: Not saying anything. :spy:
Well spoken, Ramana. ☺️

Doesn't 'well spoken' have a precise meaning? Sounds like it should have 'Ananda' appended and be Sutric. Not that Sutras are any more verifiable, but stylistically ......
http://www.khyung.com

Micchāmi Dukkaḍaṃ (मिच्छामि दुक्कडम्)

User avatar
Grigoris
Global Moderator
Posts: 15933
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: The Aro Authenticity Debate.

Post by Grigoris » Tue Jan 23, 2018 12:07 am

Malcolm wrote:
Mon Jan 22, 2018 11:55 pm
It never states in any sūtra or tantra for that matter, that the Dharma, the teaching of the Buddha, is permanent. Maitreyanatha in fact states just the opposite of your opinion.
I already answered to Maitreyanatha's opinion.
Confusing dharmatā, etc., with the Dharma is confusing something unconditioned with something conditioned. But since one cannot establish the unconditioned since it never existed, it also makes no sense to claim that unconditioned dharmatā is some sort of stable refuge. Unconditioned dharmatā is just a name for the emptiness of conditioned, impermanent phenomena, and without that latter, there is no dharmatā at all, even conventionally.
You are the one that is confusing the designation for the "object" being designated.
Finally, if the Dharma were something permanent, the Buddha would not have spoken of its decline and disappearance, and neither would have Nāgārjuna, Maitreyanatha, and so on in very clear terms. All compounded phenomena are impermanent. The Dharma is compounded. If you imagine the Dharma is permanent you have contravened your own four seals, beginning with the first, "all compounded phenomena are suffering."
They are talking about the expression of the Dharma (which is compounded and conventional, dependent on a teacher and students, on speech or written form and ears and eyes, etc...), not the Dharma itself. The Dharma is eternal. A Buddha appears and teaches it and this teaching is subject to decay. Another Buddha then appears and teaches it... Etc...
The rest as we know as the regularly stated in the sūtras "All compounded phenomena are suffering. All compounded phenomena are empty and lack self. Nirvana is peace."
I am not going to deny that, even if you personally just consider it an opinion. :tongue:
If you claim the Dharma is permanent and ultimate, this is tantamount to declaring it is not empty and self.
Permanent and ultimate, empty and self are all conventional terms and so do not accurately describe the nature of Dharma. Permanent and ultimate are the best way I can describe it conventionally. Timeless would be another word I would use. It's expression though is definitely impermanent, conventional, empty and lacking self nature.
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde

User avatar
Karma Dorje
Posts: 1265
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 10:35 pm

Re: The Aro Authenticity Debate.

Post by Karma Dorje » Tue Jan 23, 2018 12:11 am

Grigoris wrote:
Tue Jan 23, 2018 12:07 am
Permanent and ultimate, empty and self are all conventional terms and so do not accurately describe the nature of Dharma. Permanent and ultimate are the best way I can describe it conventionally. Timeless would be another word I would use. It's expression though is definitely impermanent, conventional, empty and lacking self nature.
Have you heard the Good News of Madhyamaka, Greg? I have a booklet for you.
"Although my view is higher than the sky, My respect for the cause and effect of actions is as fine as grains of flour."
-Padmasambhava

User avatar
Mantrik
Posts: 877
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2017 8:55 pm
Contact:

Re: The Aro Authenticity Debate.

Post by Mantrik » Tue Jan 23, 2018 12:14 am

'All which is well spoken, Maitreya, is spoken by The Buddha. '

Yup. But we still have to decide if we believe those who say they pass on his and other Buddhas' teachings.
http://www.khyung.com

Micchāmi Dukkaḍaṃ (मिच्छामि दुक्कडम्)

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 26653
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: The Aro Authenticity Debate.

Post by Malcolm » Tue Jan 23, 2018 12:24 am

treehuggingoctopus wrote:
Mon Jan 22, 2018 11:49 pm
Malcolm wrote:
Mon Jan 22, 2018 10:38 pm
Grigoris wrote:
Mon Jan 22, 2018 10:35 pm
Karma Dorje said it already and so did I: If it conforms to the Four Dharma Seals then it is Dharma.
So then you accept Advaita Vedanta as a valid path of realization leading to Buddhahood.
:spy: Not saying anything. :spy:
Yeah, so this really proves that people just believe whatever they want, without reference to any authority at all. For example, Greg, who believes the Dharma is some timeless principle, like Plato's forms. This really is my whole point and the reason it is so fruitless to get all up in arms about people like Chogyam, and so on unless it can be proven beyond doubt they are harming sentient beings with anything more than the proliferation of delusion, which we do all the time here too. Then we have teachers who teach a Dharma everyone approves of, guys like Sogyal, who seem unstoppable in their ability to actually harm others with impunity.

Just for reference, the Tathāgata's Inconcievable Secret Sūtra (ārya-tathāgata-acintya-guhya-nirdeśa-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra) states the purpose of four is as follows:

Guhyapati, the Tathagāta has summarized all Dharmas, presenting the summary of Dharmas as four-fold. What are the four? In order to destroy the idea of permanence in bhikṣus and brahmins who advocate eternalism, and the long-lived devas, it is said, "All formations are impermanent." In order destroy the idea of happiness in devas and humans, it is said, "All formations are suffering." In order to destroy the non-Buddhist assertion of self, it is said, "All phenomena lack self." In order to destroy the strong pride of those engaged in conceptuality, it is said, "Nirvana is peace."


There are many places in sūtras and tantras where these four are discussed. But I think this is one of the best presentations because it shows the four summaries very clearly.

M
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


[A]nything at all that is well spoken is the word of the Buddha.

-- Ārya-adhyāśaya-sañcodana-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

-- Samadhirāja Sūtra

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 26653
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: The Aro Authenticity Debate.

Post by Malcolm » Tue Jan 23, 2018 12:38 am

Mantrik wrote:
Mon Jan 22, 2018 11:59 pm
treehuggingoctopus wrote:
Mon Jan 22, 2018 11:49 pm

:spy: Not saying anything. :spy:
Well spoken, Ramana. ☺️

Doesn't 'well spoken' have a precise meaning? Sounds like it should have 'Ananda' appended and be Sutric. Not that Sutras are any more verifiable, but stylistically ......
The phrase has been used to justify accepting statements in non-Buddhist traditions as long as they conform to and do not contradict the Dharma, foe example, encouragements to virtuous and so on. But in the main, it is aimed at Hinayāna monks who criticize Mahāyāna.

People of course know that I think non-Buddhist traditions are not well-spoken in general, but that is just me.
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


[A]nything at all that is well spoken is the word of the Buddha.

-- Ārya-adhyāśaya-sañcodana-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

-- Samadhirāja Sūtra

User avatar
dzogchungpa
Posts: 5842
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 10:50 pm

Re: The Aro Authenticity Debate.

Post by dzogchungpa » Tue Jan 23, 2018 12:45 am

Some of Jax's stuff I see on FB from time to time seems pretty well spoken to me.
... nothing can be found by finding. - Thinley Norbu Rinpoche

User avatar
Quay
Posts: 224
Joined: Mon May 16, 2016 6:07 pm

Re: The Aro Authenticity Debate.

Post by Quay » Tue Jan 23, 2018 1:15 am

Malcolm wrote:
Tue Jan 23, 2018 12:24 am
...For example, Greg, who believes the Dharma is some timeless principle, like Plato's forms....
Is this in anyway related to what I understand to be a Hinayana view on matter and substance, that it reduces ultimately to "partless particles"?

In any case, there are in addition to the Sutras already cited, other texts and teachings which speak about anything being timeless or actually eternal would then be unable to change. Seems to me that would apply to Dharma which at least outwardly has adapted to many cultures and times over the centuries.
"Knowledge is as infinite as the stars in the sky;
There is no end to all the subjects one could study.
It is better to grasp straight away their very essence--
The unchanging fortress of the Dharmakaya."

– Longchenpa.

amanitamusc
Posts: 806
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2010 3:32 am

Re: The Aro Authenticity Debate.

Post by amanitamusc » Tue Jan 23, 2018 1:17 am

dzogchungpa wrote:
Tue Jan 23, 2018 12:45 am
Some of Jax's stuff I see on FB from time to time seems pretty well spoken to me.
Even parrots can be well spoken.

PeterC
Posts: 212
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 12:38 pm

Re: The Aro Authenticity Debate.

Post by PeterC » Tue Jan 23, 2018 1:25 am

DGA wrote:
Mon Jan 22, 2018 7:29 pm
PeterC wrote:
Mon Jan 22, 2018 11:58 am
DGA wrote:
Mon Jan 22, 2018 11:38 am


Can you offer an alternate explanation to Simon’s that is at least as accurate and requires less conceptual elaboration?
For the avoidance of doubt, what question would the explanation be explaining? Simon's response was a bit of a non sequitur to my original post
Here's what Simon claimed.
I don't think that ANY terma from ANY source is genuine by any 'reasonably objective standard'. Which does not mean that I believe that all termas are fake.

And ALL linages are fabricated, which doesn't mean they are not effective.
You characterized this as mental gymnastics for a Vajrayana practitioner.

I'm asking if you hold a different perspective from Simon's, and if so, what that might be.

It seems to me that Simon's position is useful because it is accurate and requires less conceptual elaboration than any alternative I can dream up. Maybe you have one?
Got it. Will PM you on this, to avoiding feeding that particular troll any further.

User avatar
dzogchungpa
Posts: 5842
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 10:50 pm

Re: The Aro Authenticity Debate.

Post by dzogchungpa » Tue Jan 23, 2018 1:30 am

PeterC wrote:
Tue Jan 23, 2018 1:25 am
DGA wrote:
Mon Jan 22, 2018 7:29 pm
PeterC wrote:
Mon Jan 22, 2018 11:58 am


For the avoidance of doubt, what question would the explanation be explaining? Simon's response was a bit of a non sequitur to my original post
Here's what Simon claimed.
I don't think that ANY terma from ANY source is genuine by any 'reasonably objective standard'. Which does not mean that I believe that all termas are fake.

And ALL linages are fabricated, which doesn't mean they are not effective.
You characterized this as mental gymnastics for a Vajrayana practitioner.

I'm asking if you hold a different perspective from Simon's, and if so, what that might be.

It seems to me that Simon's position is useful because it is accurate and requires less conceptual elaboration than any alternative I can dream up. Maybe you have one?
Got it. Will PM you on this, to avoiding feeding that particular troll any further.


Dude, you're not fooling anyone. We know you don't have the balls to debate him. :wink:
... nothing can be found by finding. - Thinley Norbu Rinpoche

User avatar
practitioner
Posts: 148
Joined: Wed May 09, 2012 5:48 pm

Re: The Aro Authenticity Debate.

Post by practitioner » Tue Jan 23, 2018 2:45 am

dzogchungpa wrote:
Tue Jan 23, 2018 12:45 am
Some of Jax's stuff I see on FB from time to time seems pretty well spoken to me.
I've been reading this thread wondering when he would come up. I'm curious if he now gets the same benefit of the doubt as the Aro folks?
One should do nothing other than benefit sentient beings either directly or indirectly - Shantideva

User avatar
dzogchungpa
Posts: 5842
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 10:50 pm

Re: The Aro Authenticity Debate.

Post by dzogchungpa » Tue Jan 23, 2018 3:13 am

practitioner wrote:
Tue Jan 23, 2018 2:45 am
dzogchungpa wrote:
Tue Jan 23, 2018 12:45 am
Some of Jax's stuff I see on FB from time to time seems pretty well spoken to me.
I've been reading this thread wondering when he would come up. I'm curious if he now gets the same benefit of the doubt as the Aro folks?

You know, that is a good question. As somebody or other once said:
When we harbor suspicions about all these fruiting bodies sprouting from invisible rhizomes in the field of Buddhism, the first point is "who the frack are they kidding." But if in the end they harm no one, do not sexually harass, emotionally or financially abuse their students, well, in reality, who are we to criticize them?
... nothing can be found by finding. - Thinley Norbu Rinpoche

Harold Musetescu
Posts: 76
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 2:43 pm

Re: The Aro Authenticity Debate.

Post by Harold Musetescu » Tue Jan 23, 2018 3:23 am

What ever happened to "THE ARO AUTHENTICITY DEBATE".

:offtopic: :offtopic: :offtopic: :offtopic: :offtopic: :offtopic: :offtopic: :offtopic: :offtopic: :offtopic: :offtopic: :offtopic: :offtopic: :offtopic: :offtopic: :offtopic: :offtopic: :offtopic: :offtopic:

:focus: :focus: :focus: :focus: :focus: :focus: :focus: :focus: :focus: :focus:

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 26653
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: The Aro Authenticity Debate.

Post by Malcolm » Tue Jan 23, 2018 3:28 am

dzogchungpa wrote:
Tue Jan 23, 2018 12:45 am
Some of Jax's stuff I see on FB from time to time seems pretty well spoken to me.
There is no accounting for taste.
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


[A]nything at all that is well spoken is the word of the Buddha.

-- Ārya-adhyāśaya-sañcodana-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

-- Samadhirāja Sūtra

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 26653
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: The Aro Authenticity Debate.

Post by Malcolm » Tue Jan 23, 2018 3:32 am

Quay wrote:
Tue Jan 23, 2018 1:15 am
Malcolm wrote:
Tue Jan 23, 2018 12:24 am
...For example, Greg, who believes the Dharma is some timeless principle, like Plato's forms....
Is this in anyway related to what I understand to be a Hinayana view on matter and substance, that it reduces ultimately to "partless particles"?

In any case, there are in addition to the Sutras already cited, other texts and teachings which speak about anything being timeless or actually eternal would then be unable to change. Seems to me that would apply to Dharma which at least outwardly has adapted to many cultures and times over the centuries.
The so-called four-fold summary of the Dharma does not actually define what is Buddhist and what is not for the very simple reason that the Vatsiputriya school, aka, Pudgalavadins, fail the test of the third summary — they asserted an inexpressible self or person that is neither the same as nor different than the aggregates.

But of course, they are still a Buddhist school.

Perhaps a useful topic for another thread.
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


[A]nything at all that is well spoken is the word of the Buddha.

-- Ārya-adhyāśaya-sañcodana-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

-- Samadhirāja Sūtra

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 26653
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: The Aro Authenticity Debate.

Post by Malcolm » Tue Jan 23, 2018 3:40 am

practitioner wrote:
Tue Jan 23, 2018 2:45 am
dzogchungpa wrote:
Tue Jan 23, 2018 12:45 am
Some of Jax's stuff I see on FB from time to time seems pretty well spoken to me.
I've been reading this thread wondering when he would come up. I'm curious if he now gets the same benefit of the doubt as the Aro folks?
Just because I cast complete and total doubt on this fantasy that there is some kind of authority which tells us which groups and teachers are good and which are not should not be construed in any way as my approval of anyone. I think there are a lot of people out there in the spiritual marketplace selling defective wares in all kinds of ways. The most we can say is "Caveat Emptor," and not much more.
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


[A]nything at all that is well spoken is the word of the Buddha.

-- Ārya-adhyāśaya-sañcodana-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

-- Samadhirāja Sūtra

DGA
Former staff member
Posts: 9182
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: The Aro Authenticity Debate.

Post by DGA » Tue Jan 23, 2018 3:44 am

Malcolm wrote:
Tue Jan 23, 2018 3:40 am
practitioner wrote:
Tue Jan 23, 2018 2:45 am
dzogchungpa wrote:
Tue Jan 23, 2018 12:45 am
Some of Jax's stuff I see on FB from time to time seems pretty well spoken to me.
I've been reading this thread wondering when he would come up. I'm curious if he now gets the same benefit of the doubt as the Aro folks?
Just because I cast complete and total doubt on this fantasy that there is some kind of authority which tells us which groups and teachers are good and which are not should not be construed in any way as my approval of anyone. I think there are a lot of people out there in the spiritual marketplace selling defective wares in all kinds of ways. The most we can say is "Caveat Emptor," and not much more.
Sure, that may be all that can be said about people, but not necessarily about specific claims that are made by those people. You've been critical of Adyashanti's teaching, for example, not because you don't trust his authority, but because you find his teaching unconvincing.

I'm more interested in discussing what various teachings say and mean, rather than the different narratives that those teachings are wrapped up in, including narratives about contemporary teachers.

DGA
Former staff member
Posts: 9182
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: The Aro Authenticity Debate.

Post by DGA » Tue Jan 23, 2018 3:47 am

dzogchungpa wrote:
Tue Jan 23, 2018 1:30 am
PeterC wrote:
Tue Jan 23, 2018 1:25 am

Got it. Will PM you on this, to avoiding feeding that particular troll any further.


Dude, you're not fooling anyone. We know you don't have the balls to debate him. :wink:
I don't want a debate, and I don't want to talk about Another Man's Sac.

DGA
Former staff member
Posts: 9182
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: The Aro Authenticity Debate.

Post by DGA » Tue Jan 23, 2018 3:50 am

Malcolm wrote:
Tue Jan 23, 2018 3:32 am
Quay wrote:
Tue Jan 23, 2018 1:15 am
Malcolm wrote:
Tue Jan 23, 2018 12:24 am
...For example, Greg, who believes the Dharma is some timeless principle, like Plato's forms....
Is this in anyway related to what I understand to be a Hinayana view on matter and substance, that it reduces ultimately to "partless particles"?

In any case, there are in addition to the Sutras already cited, other texts and teachings which speak about anything being timeless or actually eternal would then be unable to change. Seems to me that would apply to Dharma which at least outwardly has adapted to many cultures and times over the centuries.
The so-called four-fold summary of the Dharma does not actually define what is Buddhist and what is not for the very simple reason that the Vatsiputriya school, aka, Pudgalavadins, fail the test of the third summary — they asserted an inexpressible self or person that is neither the same as nor different than the aggregates.

But of course, they are still a Buddhist school.

Perhaps a useful topic for another thread.
challenge accepted

viewtopic.php?f=66&t=27686

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests