Tibet not being an independent country doesn't mean they don't have philosophical views in Buddhism....
Like I know Tsonkhapass Lamrim Chenmo is pretty popular in China/Taiwan.
Tibet not being an independent country doesn't mean they don't have philosophical views in Buddhism....
ItsRaining wrote: ↑Wed Feb 07, 2018 5:52 amJust wondering, what is it like now? Is Gelug still the predominant philosophical view in Tibet?Malcolm wrote: ↑Tue Feb 06, 2018 9:55 pmYes, I have heard Gelugpas explain away his remarks as being related only to the fact that many Gelugpas in eastern Tibet were all becoming interested in Dzogchen, and he did not like that. He also did not like the so called Rime movement. He regarded it as a threat the Gelug intellectual hegemony in Tibet.Minobu wrote: ↑Tue Feb 06, 2018 9:06 pm
i was unaware of his sectarianism...i read his liberation in the palm of your hand ..and well i never was clued into the gelugpa nygma wars you discuss.
Anyway back to source the question;
No, that people use upaya as a means to justify his remarks.
you said
it's the first i heard and wonder if this is actual or just something "You Feel"
That is an interesting way to put it. I think the Tiantai view parallels that.ItsRaining wrote: ↑Tue Feb 06, 2018 12:32 am The Huayan school gives the explanation to the meaning of "entering the path is fundamentally not different than achieving the goal" in greater detail and it's not that they are the same. They said that since Buddhahood can be said to be comprised of the 52 stages, it is not apart from these stages and without said stages there would be nothing to make up the whole system. Like 1 meter is made of 100cm. So without the small stages the whole cannot exist.
I don't think I know much about Pabhongkha's views. I think I may have come across the name in a history of Tibetan Buddhism and his critical stance sounds vaguely familiar to me.
I asked you twice now a third.Malcolm wrote: ↑Tue Feb 06, 2018 9:55 pmYes, I have heard Gelugpas explain away his remarks as being related only to the fact that many Gelugpas in eastern Tibet were all becoming interested in Dzogchen, and he did not like that. He also did not like the so called Rime movement. He regarded it as a threat the Gelug intellectual hegemony in Tibet.Minobu wrote: ↑Tue Feb 06, 2018 9:06 pmi was unaware of his sectarianism...i read his liberation in the palm of your hand ..and well i never was clued into the gelugpa nygma wars you discuss.
Anyway back to source the question;
No, that people use upaya as a means to justify his remarks.
you saidit's the first i heard and wonder if this is actual or just something "You Feel"
it's like ad hominem heaven here towards Nichiren shonin.Malcolm wrote: ↑Wed Feb 07, 2018 6:11 pm
Oh, come on. Of course he had a sectarian perspective, he was raised and educated in the Tendai tradition. It is pretty hard to read Risshōankokuron and not be surprised by the bile Nichiren expresses towards Honen's Jodo Shu.
He would have been appalled at Tibetan Buddhism.
Malcolm, with respect, I have reason to doubt you have a broad based understanding of the controversies that were current at the time. Nichiren's criticism actually can be read in the context of other critiques of Honen coming not only from Tendai circles, but other sects such as Shingon and Kegon, as well. Honen didn't intentionally establish a sect either.Malcolm wrote: ↑Wed Feb 07, 2018 6:11 pm
Oh, come on. Of course he had a sectarian perspective, he was raised and educated in the Tendai tradition. It is pretty hard to read Risshōankokuron and not be surprised by the bile Nichiren expresses towards Honen's Jodo Shu.
He would have been appalled at Tibetan Buddhism.
Close your eyes. Take deep breaths. Relax.Minobu wrote: ↑Wed Feb 07, 2018 6:16 pmI asked you twice now a third.Malcolm wrote: ↑Tue Feb 06, 2018 9:55 pmYes, I have heard Gelugpas explain away his remarks as being related only to the fact that many Gelugpas in eastern Tibet were all becoming interested in Dzogchen, and he did not like that. He also did not like the so called Rime movement. He regarded it as a threat the Gelug intellectual hegemony in Tibet.Minobu wrote: ↑Tue Feb 06, 2018 9:06 pm
i was unaware of his sectarianism...i read his liberation in the palm of your hand ..and well i never was clued into the gelugpa nygma wars you discuss.
Anyway back to source the question;
No, that people use upaya as a means to justify his remarks.
you said
it's the first i heard and wonder if this is actual or just something "You Feel"
Where do you get where you claim pabongka was using upaya as the reason for the criticisms .
i asked for source for i fear some would think you just shot that fake news out to bolster your stance in the discussion with "Q".
we don't want that do we?
Do you really think that comment will have the effect you nominally intend?
First of all, you have no idea how much Buddhist history I have studied, including Japanese Buddhist history.
I am not required to report to you where and when I have had this or that conversation with Gelug apologists for Pabhongkha. It is sufficient that I have had them and now report them to you.Minobu wrote: ↑Wed Feb 07, 2018 6:16 pmI asked you twice now a third.Malcolm wrote: ↑Tue Feb 06, 2018 9:55 pmYes, I have heard Gelugpas explain away his remarks as being related only to the fact that many Gelugpas in eastern Tibet were all becoming interested in Dzogchen, and he did not like that. He also did not like the so called Rime movement. He regarded it as a threat the Gelug intellectual hegemony in Tibet.Minobu wrote: ↑Tue Feb 06, 2018 9:06 pm
i was unaware of his sectarianism...i read his liberation in the palm of your hand ..and well i never was clued into the gelugpa nygma wars you discuss.
Anyway back to source the question;
No, that people use upaya as a means to justify his remarks.
you said
it's the first i heard and wonder if this is actual or just something "You Feel"
Where do you get where you claim pabongka was using upaya as the reason for the criticisms .
i asked for source for i fear some would think you just shot that fake news out to bolster your stance in the discussion with "Q".
actually i took it at face value, like Malcolm is not going to answer it
Frankly I'm having a hard time understanding what you want out of Malcolm.Minobu wrote: ↑Wed Feb 07, 2018 8:17 pmactually i took it at face value, like Malcolm is not going to answer it
As pointed out to me off site, he just did that and used the opportunity in discussion with "Q" to bolster his sectarian war with gelupas..
i still am hoping for malcolm's sake thats all bullshit and he can give us a definitive source to the fact Pabongka was using upaya in his criticizes , which also are claimed by the other side of the sectarian war.
it is also weird how that sectarian war ended up in this thread.
shameful...it's not what Buddha wanted of us.
ahhh the games....i do not play games...marting wrote: ↑Wed Feb 07, 2018 8:31 pmPersonally I'm having a hard time understanding what you want out of Malcolm.Minobu wrote: ↑Wed Feb 07, 2018 8:17 pmactually i took it at face value, like Malcolm is not going to answer it
As pointed out to me off site, he just did that and used the opportunity in discussion with "Q" to bolster his sectarian war with gelupas..
i still am hoping for malcolm's sake thats all bullshit and he can give us a definitive source to the fact Pabongka was using upaya in his criticizes , which also are claimed by the other side of the sectarian war.
it is also weird how that sectarian war ended up in this thread.
shameful...it's not what Buddha wanted of us.
I did not refer to the writing as bile, I said he, Nichiren, expressed bile towards Honen in his writing. Get it straight, cowboy.
so it is to be about semantics then...let the games begin...
well i dunno cowgirl, if you say he expressed bile in one of his major writings , than is that not saying there is bile in his writing or the writing contains bile , or is bile...or that expressing is the same as writing in this instance...after all we are talking about a piece of writing..
I was reporting the views of others, for the third time.
You'll have to pardon me. Your obtuse exchanges on Ekayana understood in East Asia going on in other sub-forums at present, a pretty important topic in Japanese Buddhism, give me reason to suspect your studies are limited.Malcolm wrote: ↑Wed Feb 07, 2018 8:09 pmFirst of all, you have no idea how much Buddhist history I have studied, including Japanese Buddhist history.
Second of all, sectarianism is sectarianism. It is not problematical at all to observe it in Kamakura Buddhism. Dogen was also sectarian, pretty firmly so. It's par for the course for people who are invested in their own ideology or someone else's to be sectarian.
So let's not be naive and pretend that sectarianism isn't rife in Buddhism, everywhere.