Well, far beyond my pay grade, then.

Well, far beyond my pay grade, then.
No, Dzogchen is fully Buddhist. The Bonpos borrowed it from the Buddhists, like so much else. That said, Bonpo Dzogchen is just fine.
Dzogchen is a Mahāyāna system. Within Mahāyāna it belongs to uncommon Mahāyāna secret mantra. Within uncommon secret mantra, it belongs to the inner tantras.if you are going to negate buddhist realities and say dzogchen goes further....
ahh i get this as Buddhism moved geographically it was met with all sorts.
You teach that sutra is legend/myth and so on.
ok deleted a long diatribe.....But anyone who wishes to follow Dzogchen teachings must have a guru. There is no other way.
No, there is no Bonpo thought in Dzogchen. It is a pure system of Buddhadharma.Minobu wrote: ↑Fri Dec 15, 2017 5:28 pm
ahh i get this as Buddhism moved geographically it was met with all sorts.
i thought Dzogchen was a Bon thing basically at it's roots..and for some Mahayanists they saw fit to incor[porate it into buddhism .
so there is no Bon thought in Dzogchen it is pure Buddhist thought?
More or less, this it the way things are. They have their own myths and legends of course, but for all purposes modern Bon is indistinguishable from Buddhism.So there is no Bon thought in Dzogchen...just the Bonpos discarding Bon and turning total Buddhist?
Of course not. Garab Dorje, (Vajrahe/Vajraprahe) arose much later in the time. His teaching in India was in a very small circle, and was controversial even in India, but for reasons that are completely Buddhist. The controversy over Dzogchen in India had to with with whether or not it was necessary to engage in many of the visualization practices we find in Vajrayāna. The Dzogchen position is that it is not necessary.I cannot find this emanation of Lord Sakyamuni Buddha Vajrahe and the beginnings of Dzogchen .
I respect all images of the Buddha and bodhisattvas as nirmanakāyas, and all words and letters of the sūtrasand tantras as sambhogakāyas. But these teachings cannot be pointed out by books and words because Dzogchen is the teaching of the Dharmakāya. That said, mostly what I do is spend my day translating commentaries on Dzogchen tantras. Ironic, no?what are your thoughts on making the Gohonzon and the deities and Buddhas and Bodhisattvas depicted on Gohonzon as your guru ?
No, you are following a Buddhadharma path based on your karma and inclinations, just as I am.it seems to be working for me ...am i in some sort of delusional retrograde ...
I got a very nice vibe from you in that post...cannot articulate it but this side of you is so nice....
Didn't we all?Sādhaka wrote: ↑Thu Dec 14, 2017 8:48 pmIn a commentary on the Heart Sutra, the Dalai Lama implies that they all met there via dream practice or like what some would call astral projection.Malcolm wrote: ↑Thu Dec 14, 2017 6:10 pmI once speculated that Mahāyāna Sūtras were visionary revelations, but not records of actual historical events.
However, clinging to the events described in the Lotus Sūtra, or any other Mahāyāna Sūtra, opens up an uncomfortable can of worms for those who literally believe in the text of the sūtra in question.
For example, have you ever seen Vulture's Peak where the Buddha is said to have taught this sūtra?
How are 12,000 arhat bhikṣus supposed to fit there? Let alone, 2,000 extra, 6,000 nuns, and 80,000 bodhisattvas? Were they all levitating in space around the mountain?
The place still looks the same to meSunWuKong wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2017 8:38 amDidn't we all?Sādhaka wrote: ↑Thu Dec 14, 2017 8:48 pmIn a commentary on the Heart Sutra, the Dalai Lama implies that they all met there via dream practice or like what some would call astral projection.Malcolm wrote: ↑Thu Dec 14, 2017 6:10 pm
I once speculated that Mahāyāna Sūtras were visionary revelations, but not records of actual historical events.
However, clinging to the events described in the Lotus Sūtra, or any other Mahāyāna Sūtra, opens up an uncomfortable can of worms for those who literally believe in the text of the sūtra in question.
For example, have you ever seen Vulture's Peak where the Buddha is said to have taught this sūtra?
How are 12,000 arhat bhikṣus supposed to fit there? Let alone, 2,000 extra, 6,000 nuns, and 80,000 bodhisattvas? Were they all levitating in space around the mountain?
Please help me understand. Are you saying that plants, animals, and some objects are Enlightened?illarraza wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2017 2:34 pmA .Twenty Important Principles
B. Above post: Nichiren validates the Lotus Sutra and the Lotus Sutra validates Nichien (one is able to realize the very text)
C. Seeds without peer (1000 out of 1000 people who hear Myo Ho Ren Ge Kyo even once will attain Buddha-hood
D: Such wonderful doctrines as Bodhi for Sravakas; Pratyekka Buddhas; and Icchantikas; the infinite lifespan of the Buddha;and 3000 Worlds in a Moment of Existence (The Buddha simultaneously posseses Pure and Perfect Enlightenment but delusions, albeit in a latent state.
E. The Enlightenment of animals and even plants i.e.: Gohonzon/statues
I don't know what Illaraza would say, but this is Tiantai doctrine, especially after Zhanran.
The insentient buddhanature trope. Interesting article on the development of this idea in Tien tai here:
That's actually kind of short on explanation.Malcolm wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2017 6:46 pmThe insentient buddhanature trope. Interesting article on the development of this idea in Tien tai here:
http://www.buddhism.org/?p=988
I don't think so Queequeg, this, somoku jobutsu is one of my favourite aspects of Tendai and dear to me:Queequeg wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2017 6:35 pmIRC, insentient having Buddha-Nature has to do with the apparent multiplicity of how the environment can appear to beings - to deluded beings, the world appears defiled; to enlightened beings, it is a pure Buddha-verse (to borrow Thurman's terminology). It doesn't mean that insentient beings have mind in the same way as sentients. Though, at the limits of words, the distinction between sentient and insentient tends toward incoherence (to borrow Ziporyn's terminology).
Original Enlightenmentp. 29"From Saicho's time on, Tendai scholars would argue the position that grasses and trees can indeed of themselves arouse the aspiration for enlightenment (bohdicitta, bodaishin), cultivate practice, and achieve enlightenment. Annen in particular devoted great attention to this issue."
Ibid.Kukai saw plants and trees as participating ontologically in the five great elements that compose the Dharma body and that " therefore, without change in their essence, they may without objection be referred to as 'Buddha.""
I don't think Kukai and Tendai are talking the same thing here. Characterizing the mountains, seas, clouds, etc. as the preaching of the Dharmakaya is not really the same thing as claiming they are a "Buddha" ala somoku jobutsu, as Stone appears to imply in the quote above.rory wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2017 4:22 amI don't think so Queequeg, this, somoku jobutsu is one of my favourite aspects of Tendai and dear to me:Original Enlightenmentp. 29"From Saicho's time on, Tendai scholars would argue the position that grasses and trees can indeed of themselves arouse the aspiration for enlightenment (bohdicitta, bodaishin), cultivate practice, and achieve enlightenment. Annen in particular devoted great attention to this issue."
And here is another Japanese Vajrayana-Avatamsaka pov:Ibid.Kukai saw plants and trees as participating ontologically in the five great elements that compose the Dharma body and that " therefore, without change in their essence, they may without objection be referred to as 'Buddha.""
Now I'm off to chant at my altar, without sincere practice all this talk means nothing:)!
gassho
Rory
rory wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2017 4:22 amAnd here is another Japanese Vajrayana-Avatamsaka pov:Ibid.Kukai saw plants and trees as participating ontologically in the five great elements that compose the Dharma body and that " therefore, without change in their essence, they may without objection be referred to as 'Buddha.""
They aren't talking about the same thing the Tendai explanation is quite different from Kukai, I posted the Kukai as it seemed closer to what Queequeg was saying. And thought it would be interesting to discuss. The footnote for the Kukai quote is Hizo ki Kobo Daishi zenshu 2:37 I need to read Japanese!jake wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2017 12:37 pmI don't think Kukai and Tendai are talking the same thing here. Characterizing the mountains, seas, clouds, etc. as the preaching of the Dharmakaya is not really the same thing as claiming they are a "Buddha" ala somoku jobutsu, as Stone appears to imply in the quote above.
interesting read though, thanks!
jake wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2017 12:37 pmI don't think Kukai and Tendai are talking the same thing here. Characterizing the mountains, seas, clouds, etc. as the preaching of the Dharmakaya is not really the same thing as claiming they are a "Buddha" ala somoku jobutsu, as Stone appears to imply in the quote above.rory wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2017 4:22 amI don't think so Queequeg, this, somoku jobutsu is one of my favourite aspects of Tendai and dear to me:Original Enlightenmentp. 29"From Saicho's time on, Tendai scholars would argue the position that grasses and trees can indeed of themselves arouse the aspiration for enlightenment (bohdicitta, bodaishin), cultivate practice, and achieve enlightenment. Annen in particular devoted great attention to this issue."
And here is another Japanese Vajrayana-Avatamsaka pov:Ibid.Kukai saw plants and trees as participating ontologically in the five great elements that compose the Dharma body and that " therefore, without change in their essence, they may without objection be referred to as 'Buddha.""
Now I'm off to chant at my altar, without sincere practice all this talk means nothing:)!
gassho
Rory
I am struggling a bit to follow this thread. Terms are being used interchangeably that I don't think really should be, tathagatagarbha, hongaku shiso, buddha-nature, etc.
Interesting read though, thanks!
The Chinese, rather than complicating the recension, here, is almost absolutely word-for-word corresponding:Malcolm wrote: ↑Sat Dec 23, 2017 12:20 amjake wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2017 12:37 pmI don't think Kukai and Tendai are talking the same thing here. Characterizing the mountains, seas, clouds, etc. as the preaching of the Dharmakaya is not really the same thing as claiming they are a "Buddha" ala somoku jobutsu, as Stone appears to imply in the quote above.rory wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2017 4:22 amI don't think so Queequeg, this, somoku jobutsu is one of my favourite aspects of Tendai and dear to me:
Original Enlightenmentp. 29
And here is another Japanese Vajrayana-Avatamsaka pov: Ibid.
Now I'm off to chant at my altar, without sincere practice all this talk means nothing:)!
gassho
Rory
I am struggling a bit to follow this thread. Terms are being used interchangeably that I don't think really should be, tathagatagarbha, hongaku shiso, buddha-nature, etc.
Interesting read though, thanks!
Buddhasvabhāva and tathāgatagarbha are definitely synonyms and are used that way many times in the Nirvana Sūtra:
Son of a good family, the so-called self is the tathāgatagarbha. The buddhasvabhāva that exists in all sentient is the meaning of "self." The meaning of "self" is obscured by the afflictions (saṃkleśa) from time without beginning, therefore, it is not seen by sentient beings.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests