The Aro Authenticity Debate.

Locked
User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 28040
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: The Aro Authenticity Debate.

Post by Malcolm » Mon Jan 22, 2018 6:41 pm

A friend following this discussion, who does not have an account, sent me some interesting remarks by Chokyi Nyima Rinpoche:
"Most people who consider themselves Buddhists do not tend to study what the Buddha himself taught, but instead just imitate one another. I don't know why it is but people just love to imitate one another and follow traditions. Nonetheless, it is not enough to just go around copying how other people act and dress, repeating what others say and do, dressing like yogis and dropping the names of lamas.

"However, the Buddha is not the true saviour or protector, the teachings known as the Dharma are, but you are the one who needs to apply them—hence it comes down to you saving yourself.

"Pondering this then, we must ask ourselves what we can actually place our trust in and rely upon. If we follow this line of reasoning we can see that we cannot even fully rely on the precious Buddha. Forget about our teachers, even the Buddha himself cannot completely protect us. All of the volumes of scriptures in the Buddhist canon cannot protect us. Even if we had a congregation of a thousand ordained monks whom we asked, "Please protect me; I am relying on you!" they couldn't do it, for they cannot grant true everlasting protection. So we really need to think about what it is that we can rely upon and trust completely and utterly with all of our body, heart and soul.

"So what is the true refuge, one that is 100% infallible? In the Buddhist teachings it is taught that one should take refuge in the dharmakaya, one's own mind. This statement is quite significant and contains a lot of meaning, so let me repeat it: you should take refuge in the dharmakaya, the nature of your own mind. The nature of your own mind is the only genuine, true protector; it is the only thing that is truly trustworthy and reliable.

"Don’t accept this just because I say so, instead really question and examine whether this is how things are or not. You must look into it personally and decide for yourself whether it is true or not. We all need to get to the point where we have confidence in ourselves, instead of always placing our trust in others, letting ourselves be led by the hand and just following whatever others say and do."
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: 6333
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 10:50 pm

Re: The Aro Authenticity Debate.

Post by dzogchungpa » Mon Jan 22, 2018 6:56 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Mon Jan 22, 2018 6:41 pm
A friend following this discussion, who does not have an account, sent me some interesting remarks by Chokyi Nyima Rinpoche:
"Most people who consider themselves Buddhists do not tend to study what the Buddha himself taught, but instead just imitate one another. I don't know why it is but people just love to imitate one another and follow traditions. Nonetheless, it is not enough to just go around copying how other people act and dress, repeating what others say and do, dressing like yogis and dropping the names of lamas.

"However, the Buddha is not the true saviour or protector, the teachings known as the Dharma are, but you are the one who needs to apply them—hence it comes down to you saving yourself.

"Pondering this then, we must ask ourselves what we can actually place our trust in and rely upon. If we follow this line of reasoning we can see that we cannot even fully rely on the precious Buddha. Forget about our teachers, even the Buddha himself cannot completely protect us. All of the volumes of scriptures in the Buddhist canon cannot protect us. Even if we had a congregation of a thousand ordained monks whom we asked, "Please protect me; I am relying on you!" they couldn't do it, for they cannot grant true everlasting protection. So we really need to think about what it is that we can rely upon and trust completely and utterly with all of our body, heart and soul.

"So what is the true refuge, one that is 100% infallible? In the Buddhist teachings it is taught that one should take refuge in the dharmakaya, one's own mind. This statement is quite significant and contains a lot of meaning, so let me repeat it: you should take refuge in the dharmakaya, the nature of your own mind. The nature of your own mind is the only genuine, true protector; it is the only thing that is truly trustworthy and reliable.

"Don’t accept this just because I say so, instead really question and examine whether this is how things are or not. You must look into it personally and decide for yourself whether it is true or not. We all need to get to the point where we have confidence in ourselves, instead of always placing our trust in others, letting ourselves be led by the hand and just following whatever others say and do."


Well, if a Tibetan master says so, it must be true. :smile:


jk


:good:



The friend wouldn't happen to be that Tweed fellow, would it?
There is not only nothingness because there is always, and always can manifest. - Thinley Norbu Rinpoche

DGA
Former staff member
Posts: 9259
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: The Aro Authenticity Debate.

Post by DGA » 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
PeterC wrote:
Mon Jan 22, 2018 12:29 am


If you practice vajrayana that seems like a wholly unnecessary degree of mental gymnastics
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?

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

Re: The Aro Authenticity Debate.

Post by Harold Musetescu » Mon Jan 22, 2018 9:17 pm

There is a reason why every police department has a "Fraud" unit full of detectives.

There is a reason why every country in the world has laws against "Fraud".

There are "Well Spoken" con artists in this world.

Some want your money and some want to have power over you.

To think that followers of any teaching can some how figure out if their teacher is bona fide is a joke.

Ask the many former students of Sogyal, Michael Roach, Namgyal Rinpoche, Rodney Devinish etc etc etc.

History shows the answer is no.

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 28040
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: The Aro Authenticity Debate.

Post by Malcolm » Mon Jan 22, 2018 9:35 pm

methar wrote:
Mon Jan 22, 2018 9:17 pm

To think that followers of any teaching can some how figure out if their teacher is bona fide is a joke.
If one cannot figure out if teachers are bonafide, how can one figure out if the teaching is bonafide? You have neatly demonstrated how impossible it is to establish anything with appeals to authority since you have basically affirmed no one can decide what is bonafide and what is not.

That is quite a pickle you have gotten yourself into there, Harold.
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
Grigoris
Global Moderator
Posts: 17360
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: The Aro Authenticity Debate.

Post by Grigoris » Mon Jan 22, 2018 10:19 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Mon Jan 22, 2018 6:28 pm
It is pretty simple -- there isn't the slightest bit of empirical evidence that from Mahāyāna onward any of these texts, sūtra and tantras, long oral lineage or short treasure lineage, were indeed spoken by the Buddha and so on.

Based upon this, I really think the standard of accepting and rejecting Buddhist teachings ought to be based not upon their putative origin, but rather, whether or not they are well-spoken.

If someone chooses to believe all the treasures we have received to date, for example, are the words of Padmasambhava, this is just fine. But it is a conscious choice for a Westerner not raised in Tibet in the Nyingma and Kagyu traditions to believe this.

This also presents problems. Many tantras are not "well spoken" if taken literally. But tantras that might be considered mere manuals of sorcery and necromancy are rendered "well-spoken" through a process interpretive extraction of meaning.

Many treasures are very beautifully composed, and correspond well with the meaning of sūtra and tantra as we have them. Many sadhanas we have, in all schools are well-spoken, beautiful compositions, that correspond well to the interpretative pyrotechnics used to extract the meaningful essence from the raw ore of the tantras.

My personal opinion is that Dzogchen tantras are among the most well-spoken of Buddhist texts, which is one of my main reasons for being enthusiastic about them, and which require almost no need for hermeneutic strategies like the six limits and so on commonly employed to extract meaning from tantras generally understood by western scholars to be composed in India.

When confronted with the things that people like Kim Katami say, or Majorie Quinn, and frankly, many other people advertising themselves as teachers these days, their statements and theories appear to me to very crude and not well stated, not in accord with what I personally understand to be well-spoken.

When confronted with novelties like Kalima as a yidam, it is very hard, as far as I am concerned, to justify her inclusion as yidam deity, as the basis of an authentic Buddhist path. So when Christy McNally is bestowing Kāli empowerments, and Michael Roach is writing Jesus Sadhanas, I personally think it is mistaken. But, obviously no one is listening to me. In the end it is left to each of us to be responsible for own path and practice.

Thus, the concern for proving the provenance of a lineage seems to be like chasing a willow wisp, it is something always just out of grasp, and the force we use to try and catch it, just pushes it slightly more beyond our reach.

In conclusion: the only proof anyone is able to offer for the validity of their own lineage is their own faith in it; and the only proof of the invalidity of some other lineage is their lack of faith in it.

This leads us, sadly, right back to the confusion of the Kalamas and the Buddha's reply:


It is proper for you, Kalamas, to doubt, to be uncertain; uncertainty has arisen in you about what is doubtful. Come, Kalamas. Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing; nor upon tradition; nor upon rumor; nor upon what is in a scripture; nor upon surmise; nor upon an axiom; nor upon specious reasoning; nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over; nor upon another's seeming ability; nor upon the consideration, 'The monk is our teacher.' Kalamas, when you yourselves know: 'These things are bad; these things are blamable; these things are censured by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to harm and ill,' abandon them.
Yeah, but that's just your opinion, and since there is no authority (and no ultimate truth) then your opinion is as valid as that of a dribbling moron. Right? Next thing you'll be telling us is that a measure of the validity of a Dharma organisation is if the members are (generally) having fun or not. Oh, wait, you already did that... :roll

Well spoken? Krishnamurti is well spoken and articulate. Guess he is a valid teacher too. Some people think so, so he must be.

You really have to work on this new half-baked theory of yours. It is sadly lacking.
"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
Malcolm
Posts: 28040
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: The Aro Authenticity Debate.

Post by Malcolm » Mon Jan 22, 2018 10:24 pm

Grigoris wrote:
Mon Jan 22, 2018 10:19 pm
You really have to work on this new half-baked theory of yours. It is sadly lacking.
You have certainly offered nothing as an objective standard for how to know what to accept and what to reject. I don't think you are up to the challenge either.

There are plenty of Buddhists who think Krishnamurti is a fine fellow and that his teachings are wonderful, some of them are quite famous as well. Are they wrong?

Is Bon a false teaching? If so, why? If not, why?

The list goes on and on.
Last edited by Malcolm on Mon Jan 22, 2018 10:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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: 6333
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 10:50 pm

Re: The Aro Authenticity Debate.

Post by dzogchungpa » Mon Jan 22, 2018 10:26 pm

Grigoris wrote:
Mon Jan 22, 2018 10:19 pm
Malcolm wrote:
Mon Jan 22, 2018 6:28 pm
It is pretty simple -- there isn't the slightest bit of empirical evidence that from Mahāyāna onward any of these texts, sūtra and tantras, long oral lineage or short treasure lineage, were indeed spoken by the Buddha and so on.

Based upon this, I really think the standard of accepting and rejecting Buddhist teachings ought to be based not upon their putative origin, but rather, whether or not they are well-spoken.

If someone chooses to believe all the treasures we have received to date, for example, are the words of Padmasambhava, this is just fine. But it is a conscious choice for a Westerner not raised in Tibet in the Nyingma and Kagyu traditions to believe this.

This also presents problems. Many tantras are not "well spoken" if taken literally. But tantras that might be considered mere manuals of sorcery and necromancy are rendered "well-spoken" through a process interpretive extraction of meaning.

Many treasures are very beautifully composed, and correspond well with the meaning of sūtra and tantra as we have them. Many sadhanas we have, in all schools are well-spoken, beautiful compositions, that correspond well to the interpretative pyrotechnics used to extract the meaningful essence from the raw ore of the tantras.

My personal opinion is that Dzogchen tantras are among the most well-spoken of Buddhist texts, which is one of my main reasons for being enthusiastic about them, and which require almost no need for hermeneutic strategies like the six limits and so on commonly employed to extract meaning from tantras generally understood by western scholars to be composed in India.

When confronted with the things that people like Kim Katami say, or Majorie Quinn, and frankly, many other people advertising themselves as teachers these days, their statements and theories appear to me to very crude and not well stated, not in accord with what I personally understand to be well-spoken.

When confronted with novelties like Kalima as a yidam, it is very hard, as far as I am concerned, to justify her inclusion as yidam deity, as the basis of an authentic Buddhist path. So when Christy McNally is bestowing Kāli empowerments, and Michael Roach is writing Jesus Sadhanas, I personally think it is mistaken. But, obviously no one is listening to me. In the end it is left to each of us to be responsible for own path and practice.

Thus, the concern for proving the provenance of a lineage seems to be like chasing a willow wisp, it is something always just out of grasp, and the force we use to try and catch it, just pushes it slightly more beyond our reach.

In conclusion: the only proof anyone is able to offer for the validity of their own lineage is their own faith in it; and the only proof of the invalidity of some other lineage is their lack of faith in it.

This leads us, sadly, right back to the confusion of the Kalamas and the Buddha's reply:


It is proper for you, Kalamas, to doubt, to be uncertain; uncertainty has arisen in you about what is doubtful. Come, Kalamas. Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing; nor upon tradition; nor upon rumor; nor upon what is in a scripture; nor upon surmise; nor upon an axiom; nor upon specious reasoning; nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over; nor upon another's seeming ability; nor upon the consideration, 'The monk is our teacher.' Kalamas, when you yourselves know: 'These things are bad; these things are blamable; these things are censured by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to harm and ill,' abandon them.
Yeah, but that's just your opinion, and since there is no authority (and no ultimate truth) then your opinion is as valid as that of a dribbling moron. Right? Next thing you'll be telling us is that a measure of the validity of a Dharma organisation is if the members are (generally) having fun or not. Oh, wait, you already did that... :roll:

Well spoken? Krishnamurti is well spoken and articulate. Guess he is a valid teacher too. Some people think so, so he must be.

You really have to work on this new half-baked theory of yours. It is sadly lacking.


My personal opinion is that this is among the most well-spoken of posts in this thread.
There is not only nothingness because there is always, and always can manifest. - Thinley Norbu Rinpoche

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 28040
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: The Aro Authenticity Debate.

Post by Malcolm » Mon Jan 22, 2018 10:32 pm

Grigoris wrote:
Mon Jan 22, 2018 10:19 pm
Yeah, but that's just your opinion, and since there is no authority (and no ultimate truth) then your opinion is as valid as that of a dribbling moron.
That depends on whether in someone's opinion a dribbling moron's opinion is as valid as mine. I have seen all kinds of evidence that people take the opinions of people I think are really stupid and ill-informed as being much more valid than mine.

Strangely, you seem to have reified ultimate truth and authority as inherently existent things, and not the conventions that they are.

There is no ultimate truth, ultimately. But go ahead and try to find it. Be my guest.
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
Grigoris
Global Moderator
Posts: 17360
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: The Aro Authenticity Debate.

Post by Grigoris » Mon Jan 22, 2018 10:35 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Mon Jan 22, 2018 10:24 pm
You have certainly offered nothing as an objective standard for how to know what to accept and what to reject. I don't think you are up to the challenge either.
Karma Dorje said it already and so did I: If it conforms to the Four Dharma Seals then it is Dharma. Whether well-spoken or not. Fun or not. Brocaded or not.

And, like I said earlier: when it comes to relative truth there is no completely objective standard. Now if you want to throw out the bathtub and the baby, with the bath water, go for it. I will continue to refrain from doing so.
"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
Grigoris
Global Moderator
Posts: 17360
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: The Aro Authenticity Debate.

Post by Grigoris » Mon Jan 22, 2018 10:38 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Mon Jan 22, 2018 10:32 pm
There is no ultimate truth, ultimately. But go ahead and try to find it. Be my guest.
The Dharma is the ultimate truth. That is why we take Refuge in it.
"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
Malcolm
Posts: 28040
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: The Aro Authenticity Debate.

Post by Malcolm » Mon Jan 22, 2018 10:38 pm

Grigoris wrote:
Mon Jan 22, 2018 10:35 pm
Malcolm wrote:
Mon Jan 22, 2018 10:24 pm
You have certainly offered nothing as an objective standard for how to know what to accept and what to reject. I don't think you are up to the challenge either.
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.
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: 28040
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: The Aro Authenticity Debate.

Post by Malcolm » Mon Jan 22, 2018 10:41 pm

Grigoris wrote:
Mon Jan 22, 2018 10:38 pm
Malcolm wrote:
Mon Jan 22, 2018 10:32 pm
There is no ultimate truth, ultimately. But go ahead and try to find it. Be my guest.
The Dharma is the ultimate truth. That is why we take Refuge in it.
We've just covered this. The Dharma is impermanent, and subject to decay and destruction. It is seems funny to call something subject to decay and destruction "ultimate truth."
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
Grigoris
Global Moderator
Posts: 17360
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: The Aro Authenticity Debate.

Post by Grigoris » Mon Jan 22, 2018 11:14 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Mon Jan 22, 2018 10:41 pm
We've just covered this. The Dharma is impermanent, and subject to decay and destruction. It is seems funny to call something subject to decay and destruction "ultimate truth."
No it is not. The conceptualised notion of Dharma is impermanent and subject to decay. If the Dharma was subject to change, then the Dharmakaya would also be conditioned and impermanent. And the Tathagatagarbha. And the gzhi. And the Dharmata. And...
"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
Grigoris
Global Moderator
Posts: 17360
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: The Aro Authenticity Debate.

Post by Grigoris » Mon Jan 22, 2018 11:16 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Mon Jan 22, 2018 10:38 pm
Grigoris wrote:
Mon Jan 22, 2018 10:35 pm
Malcolm wrote:
Mon Jan 22, 2018 10:24 pm
You have certainly offered nothing as an objective standard for how to know what to accept and what to reject. I don't think you are up to the challenge either.
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.
Dude, if Scientology satisfied the Four Dharma Seals, it would also be a valid path leading to Buddhahood.

If Chogyam's terma satisfied the Four Dharma Seals...

Ad nauseum...
"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

DGA
Former staff member
Posts: 9259
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: The Aro Authenticity Debate.

Post by DGA » Mon Jan 22, 2018 11:28 pm

Grigoris wrote:
Mon Jan 22, 2018 10:38 pm
Malcolm wrote:
Mon Jan 22, 2018 10:32 pm
There is no ultimate truth, ultimately. But go ahead and try to find it. Be my guest.
The Dharma is the ultimate truth. That is why we take Refuge in it.
hint:

"there is no ultimate truth, ultimately" is itself a truth claim that presents itself as eternal and absolute.

with that said...

the remarks Chokyi Nyima Rinpoche made as quoted by Malcolm earlier today seem warranted here

Tenma
Posts: 600
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 4:25 am

Re: The Aro Authenticity Debate.

Post by Tenma » Mon Jan 22, 2018 11:31 pm

Wait, if dharma is not truth, then what is Nirvana? If that isn't truth, then what Is? Is truth nonexistent?

User avatar
Karma Dorje
Posts: 1329
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 10:35 pm

Re: The Aro Authenticity Debate.

Post by Karma Dorje » Mon Jan 22, 2018 11:39 pm

Grigoris wrote:
Mon Jan 22, 2018 10:38 pm
Malcolm wrote:
Mon Jan 22, 2018 10:32 pm
There is no ultimate truth, ultimately. But go ahead and try to find it. Be my guest.
The Dharma is the ultimate truth. That is why we take Refuge in it.
Taking refuge in anything depends on faith. Your own faith and discernment, coloured as they are by your mental disposition and habitual patterns, are the final arbiter. How can it be any other way? That faith may be built upon analysis or simple trust but until one decides for oneself that a path is trustworthy, it is not a refuge.

After one has decided for oneself, what more is there to say about the paths that others choose based on their own mental disposition and habitual patterns? After all, our real nature is not something captured by any tradition, Buddhist Dharma included. The path to uncovering it has everything to do with our ignorance and karmic traces. Why should we be surprised that it appears in myriad ways as diverse as the number of sentient beings?
"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
treehuggingoctopus
Posts: 1562
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 6:26 pm
Location: Mudhole? Slimy? My home, this is.

Re: The Aro Authenticity Debate.

Post by treehuggingoctopus » 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
Malcolm wrote:
Mon Jan 22, 2018 10:24 pm
You have certainly offered nothing as an objective standard for how to know what to accept and what to reject. I don't think you are up to the challenge either.
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:
. . . there they saw a rock! But it wasn't a rock . . .

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 28040
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: The Aro Authenticity Debate.

Post by Malcolm » Mon Jan 22, 2018 11:55 pm

Grigoris wrote:
Mon Jan 22, 2018 11:14 pm
Malcolm wrote:
Mon Jan 22, 2018 10:41 pm
We've just covered this. The Dharma is impermanent, and subject to decay and destruction. It is seems funny to call something subject to decay and destruction "ultimate truth."
No it is not. The conceptualised notion of Dharma is impermanent and subject to decay. If the Dharma was subject to change, then the Dharmakaya would also be conditioned and impermanent. And the Tathagatagarbha. And the gzhi. And the Dharmata. And...
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.

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.

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."

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."

If you claim the Dharma is permanent and ultimate, this is tantamount to declaring it is not empty and self.
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

Locked

Return to “Nyingma”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests