http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=11042" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
justin.hudgins wrote: Why should it?
Because we're not Tibetan and the cultural paradigm is completely different.
justin.hudgins wrote: Why should it?
I don't see what a practical emphasis on treasure teachings or early canon has to do with ethnicity.Huseng wrote:justin.hudgins wrote: Why should it?
Because we're not Tibetan and the cultural paradigm is completely different.
I said nothing about ethnicity. I said cultural paradigm.justin.hudgins wrote:I don't see what a practical emphasis on treasure teachings or early canon has to do with ethnicity.Huseng wrote:justin.hudgins wrote: Why should it?
Because we're not Tibetan and the cultural paradigm is completely different.
Ethnicity, cultural paradigm, whatever. In this case I think they amount to the same thing.Huseng wrote: I said nothing about ethnicity. I said cultural paradigm.
Inevitably people ask, "Okay, so where did these treasure teachings come from?" It does require faith, especially from a rationalist perspective, to believe such treasure teachings were left behind by past masters and that they truly are what Tibetans say they are. I'm not saying that to dismiss them. Not at all. I'm just saying our cultural paradigm sees things quite differently.
For instance, in the East Asian Buddhist sphere the scriptures that are now said by scholars to have been penned in China hold a lot less weight than they used to. The questions and doubts surrounding the origins of Mahāyāna sūtras from India are likewise in need of proper reply. There is a decided preference for referring to the teachings of the "historical Buddha" Śākyamuni in much western discourse on Buddhism. Deferring to Mahāyāna sūtras or even tantras somehow doesn't cut it in the wider discussion on Buddhism in general.
So, revealed or hidden treasure texts from Tibet require a kind of faith that might work for some people, though for a lot of people, especially those with a decided inclination towards rationalism and the western academic perspective on the textual evolution of Buddhism, things might inevitably have to change as western Buddhist traditions in the real sense evolve.
If something is attributed to Śākyamuni and this is denied by specialist scholars who write the books on the subject, the issue must be addressed on a basis other than just faith and deference to orthodox authorities.Yudron wrote:Great topic, Husung... I suggest a new thread on it.
The origins of the tantras that are definitely from India are believed to be from much more fantastical origins than termas--so I don't know how a scientific rationalist is going to be comforted by going back to the original source material. Plus written documents from 1200 or more years ago inevitably have lots of scribal errors, like the Bible does.
Your words. Not mine.justin.hudgins wrote: Ethnicity, cultural paradigm, whatever. In this case I think they amount to the same thing.
I don't even think it will be a widely conscious change. It will just naturally evolve and change on its own. What is regarded with special weight in one time place and culture inevitably changes.If people want something that coincides with their rational and western academic perspective they're free to practice any of the traditions that don't put a heavy emphasis on revealed texts. I don't think the answer is to change the tradition to satisfy people with that inclination.
It isn't so much about appeasing a given worldview, but evolving to accommodate new circumstances and environments. Rebirth is not been disproved by anyone and plenty of evidence even in the western academic sphere supports the theory.So what? I don't think any tradition should change to appease a given worldview, especially since I think a big point of Dharma is to challenge our default worldviews.
Doesn't scriptural authority fall under "indirect logic"?Konchog1 wrote:I predict a "scripture only" orthodoxy movement for Theravada westerners and a logic driven Nalanda type Buddhism for Tibetan Buddhist westerners. E.g. instead of "this guru/lineage founder/sutra says this; therefore it is correct" it will be "this is correct because of a, b, and c; therefore this guru/lineage founder/sutra is correct. Thus, we should have faith in them."
I completely agree.Konchog1 wrote:I predict a "scripture only" orthodoxy movement for Theravada westerners and a logic driven Nalanda type Buddhism for Tibetan Buddhist westerners. E.g. instead of "this guru/lineage founder/sutra says this; therefore it is correct" it will be "this is correct because of a, b, and c; therefore this guru/lineage founder/sutra is correct. Thus, we should have faith in them."
I can see only benefit in both views.
As long as we practice more and materialism/new age interpretations don't increase in influence, everything will be fine.
Knowing via a valid testimony (śabda-pramana) is a valid means of knowledge.justin.hudgins wrote:Doesn't scriptural authority fall under "indirect logic"?Konchog1 wrote:I predict a "scripture only" orthodoxy movement for Theravada westerners and a logic driven Nalanda type Buddhism for Tibetan Buddhist westerners. E.g. instead of "this guru/lineage founder/sutra says this; therefore it is correct" it will be "this is correct because of a, b, and c; therefore this guru/lineage founder/sutra is correct. Thus, we should have faith in them."
Yup, sure are. Wasn't trying to make it seem otherwise.Huseng wrote:Your words. Not mine.justin.hudgins wrote: Ethnicity, cultural paradigm, whatever. In this case I think they amount to the same thing.
Sure, any tradition is going to evolve over time, that's inevitable. I guess I just hope it doesn't evolve the way that it appears to me you foresee it evolving. I likely reacted to what I thought you were saying and not what you were actually saying, so apologies if that's the case.Huseng wrote:I don't even think it will be a widely conscious change. It will just naturally evolve and change on its own. What is regarded with special weight in one time place and culture inevitably changes.justin.hudgins wrote:If people want something that coincides with their rational and western academic perspective they're free to practice any of the traditions that don't put a heavy emphasis on revealed texts. I don't think the answer is to change the tradition to satisfy people with that inclination.
Tibetan Buddhism, I think, tends to attract a lot of intellectuals in the west, most of whom unless they consciously reject their own western roots, will be inclined towards rationalist analysis of texts.
That doesn't mean treasure texts must be rejected, but simply that the traditional explanations regarding their genesis might have to be revised given contemporary scholarship. The same goes for Mahāyāna texts.
My point about rebirth is that to the average American, telling them they could be reborn as an animal goes over about as well as telling them some dude pulled a scroll out of a rock with his bare hands. (I specify American here because I'd rather not make generalizations about "Westerners")Huseng wrote:It isn't so much about appeasing a given worldview, but evolving to accommodate new circumstances and environments. Rebirth is not been disproved by anyone and plenty of evidence even in the western academic sphere supports the theory.justin.hudgins wrote:So what? I don't think any tradition should change to appease a given worldview, especially since I think a big point of Dharma is to challenge our default worldviews.
My point really is that without evolution and adaptation a tradition is sunk. Of course it can go overboard on its own with reforms, though a kind of middle way is most appropriate.
Is every terma attributed to Padmasambhava going to be accepted as his literal spoken word?justin.hudgins wrote: However, I do want to ask, what about the stories of the revelation of terma needs to be changed in light of contemporary scholarship, in your opinion?
This is why understanding logic and the use of logic is essential to the western Buddhist project. Plenty of Greek and Roman philosophers thought rebirth was quite logical and discussed the matter. Instead of relying on faith, we should rely on other means such as logic and inference based on evidence (for instance the contemporary research on children recollecting past lives by such scholars as Tucker and Stevenson).My point about rebirth is that to the average American, telling them they could be reborn as an animal goes over about as well as telling them some dude pulled a scroll out of a rock with his bare hands. (I specify American here because I'd rather not make generalizations about "Westerners")
As a Westerner that accepts at least some of the more "superstitious" aspects of my chosen tradition as well as at least having a strong interest in the academic side of things, I don't see the need to sterilize the tradition because of Western academia.
Not to nitpick, but these are very distinct from each other and it is important that we recognize the difference.justin.hudgins wrote:Ethnicity, cultural paradigm, whatever. In this case I think they amount to the same thing.Huseng wrote: I said nothing about ethnicity. I said cultural paradigm.
I agree with this and I can already kind of see these different approaches evolving. Theravadin westerners, in my experience, do tend to stress the textual authority of the Pali Canon (sometimes in a manner reminiscent of fundamentalist Christians stressing the inerrancy of the Bible....sigh... ).Konchog1 wrote:I predict a "scripture only" orthodoxy movement for Theravada westerners and a logic driven Nalanda type Buddhism for Tibetan Buddhist westerners. E.g. instead of "this guru/lineage founder/sutra says this; therefore it is correct" it will be "this is correct because of a, b, and c; therefore this guru/lineage founder/sutra is correct. Thus, we should have faith in them."
I can see only benefit in both views.
As long as we practice more and materialism/new age interpretations don't increase in influence, everything will be fine.
Western-educated practitioners are even today attempting different methods to reconcile what we know about treasure teachings from Western-based analysis and the early canon. Taking two of the more prominent posters here, I think Jnana (Geoff) and Malcolm represent two different approaches, with Jnana tending more towards a shared early canon being ultimately definitive while Malcolm tends towards the Dzogchen tantras.Consequently, something has to give. I think there is a middle way between both sides, which leans towards the transmundane and metaphysics, though I don't know how many people really appreciate this as of yet. In my mind a treasure text is to be treasured given its contents and saddharma, though at the same time recognizing the reality behind their origins requires a step away from orthodoxy, does it not?
Agreed. But might it be hasty to dismiss all miracles just because some are impossible?Sherlock wrote:Padmasambhava literally being born from a lotus and Virupa stopping the sun are complete physical impossibilities and any Westerner who truly believes in the literal truth of these events will go through a cognitive dissonance at some level -- in any case believing in the literal truth of these events, Mt Meru cosmology or Kalacakra cosmology are not the main point of the teachings. I'm sure both Geoff and Malcolm agree on this.
One knows what is true and false, superior and inferior when one practices those teachings.Sherlock wrote:Where they differ is with regards to the claims of Mahayana and Vajrayana superiority over the vehicles that preceded them. Textual citations don't serve to convince anyone who doubts the provenance of those texts (which is in any case a good thing IMO since that is a plain appeal to authority) so more focus on the actual arguments made will be necessary. Where one stands on the definitivity of Mahayana and later treasure teachings will depend on whether one finds those arguments convincing.
I agree, but that goes into the experiential, which can lead individuals to different conclusions. Geoff is a Vajrayana practitioner who does not believe in what he believes is just polemics against the "lower" vehicles while Malcolm's experience lead him to hold Dzogchen teachings to be definitive.Konchog1 wrote:One knows what is true and false, superior and inferior when one practices those teachings.
Different mental dispositions/Karma perhaps?Sherlock wrote:I agree, but that goes into the experiential, which can lead individuals to different conclusions. Geoff is a Vajrayana practitioner who does not believe in what he believes is just polemics against the "lower" vehicles while Malcolm's experience lead him to hold Dzogchen teachings to be definitive.
Agreed again.Sherlock wrote:As for "miracles", it would be callous to dismiss all of them without investigation, but I don't think too much importance should be given to them.