General forum on the teachings of all schools of Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism. Topics specific to one school are best posted in the appropriate sub-forum.
Yes and no - 'Arya Sangha' does refer to those who have realized emptiness/selflessness and have thus overcome ignorance and are therefore considered Noble (Arya) beings but this can be lay people too not just monastics. Anyone can generate dharmic insights and attain liberation or enlightenment.
Hello Tilopa,
I just noticed my error as I was too caught up in typing. You are right, Arya-Sangha refers to the attainments of individuals who have realized stages of Arhatship.
remm wrote:
Advaita Hinduism was known for their powerful practices in tantra which heavily influenced Tibetan Buddhism during this time.
I'd love to know, in specific terms, how you suppose Tibetan Buddhism was "heavily influenced" by Advaita Hinduism. Edit*: on second thought, I don't want to hijack this thread. I'd just like to state that this is incorrect and will naturally be borne out for anyone who sincerely studies Buddhist tantra with a qualified guru.
remm wrote:
I agree. The notion of Arya-Samgha, I'm pretty sure meant the stream of Noble beings which consisted solely of stream-enterers, once-returners, non-returners, and arhats, and the stages in between. I guess it is wise to say 'majority' of the upasaka and upasikas are thereby not part of the samgha.
Even when we look back in the early texts we'll find that the Buddha himself talks about the Samgha being the assembly of monks and nuns. It's only until recent that we've expanded this notion into including laypeople.
It's correct that arhats (as well as pratyekabuddhas) are part of the arya sangha, but you've forgotten to include arya bodhisattvas (first bhumi on up).
I'd love to know, in specific terms, how you suppose Tibetan Buddhism was "heavily influenced" by Advaita Hinduism.
You can do a chronological research on the history of Tibetan Buddhism. I'm not making any of this up and they are not coming from my own presuppositions. I'm currently taking a course at my University which discusses the influence of Hinduism in Tibetan Buddhism. I can refer to a few texts if you like.
It's correct that arhats (as well as pratyekabuddhas) are part of the arya sangha, but you've forgotten to include arya bodhisattvas (first bhumi on up).
When I mentioned Arhats earlier, I didn't just mean just the Hinayana Arhats, but Mahayana Arhats as well. And Arya-Bodhisattva refers to eighth stage above.
remm wrote:
You can do a chronological research on the history of Tibetan Buddhism. I'm not making any of this up and they are not coming from my own presuppositions. I'm currently taking a course at my University which discusses the influence of Hinduism in Tibetan Buddhism. I can refer to a few texts if you like.
I'm sure you aren't making this stuff up or presupposing. But whatever your university professor has told you in this regard is simply mistaken. There are some superficial similarities between Hindu tantra and Buddhist tantra, undoubtedly because both arose in India, in Indian culture, but the root texts of each tradition are distinct from one another, the methods are different and are based on different philosophies and principles, the systems have different stated goals and fruitions. It'd be interesting to see where your professor is getting these ideas from, though. Is he/she someone who received empowerment, transmission, and practical instructions from an authentic lama and who entered into training in anuttarayoga tantra and has maintained that practice to this day? Or is the professor someone who is simply on the outside looking in? Feel free to PM me.
remm wrote:
When I mentioned Arhats earlier, I didn't just mean just the Hinayana Arhats, but Mahayana Arhats as well.
Ah OK. It's worth clarifying, though, because most people are only familiar with the Shravakayana usage of the term arhat.
remm wrote:
And Arya-Bodhisattva refers to eighth stage above.
Sorry, this is incorrect. Upon first directly realizing emptiness, one is on the first bodhisattva bhumi and an arya bodhisattva. What you're thinking of is an arya bodhisattva on the three "pure" stages - the 8th, 9th, and tenth bhumis - when certain obscurations have been completely purified, unlike bodhisattvas below those stages.
'm sure you aren't making this stuff up or presupposing. But whatever your university professor has told you in this regard is simply mistaken. There are some superficial similarities between Hindu tantra and Buddhist tantra, undoubtedly because both arose in India, in Indian culture, but the root texts of each tradition are distinct from one another, the methods are different and are based on different philosophies and principles, the systems have different stated goals and fruitions. It'd be interesting to see where your professor is getting these ideas from, though. Is he/she someone who received empowerment, transmission, and practical instructions for an authentic lama and who entered into training in anuttarayoga tantra and has maintained that practice to this day? Or is the professor someone who is simply on the outside looking in? Feel free to PM me.
I knew you would say this. Actually, we did look into this. Of course the philosophy, principles of the two traditions differ. But, Advaita did have an impact on Tibetan Buddhism. I'll find out which texts of Advaita played a role in influencing Tibetan Buddhism. I'll PM you about this when I find out more from my professors.
I don't know if you are familiar with Dr. Kawamura, but he is a very famous Buddhist scholar who did a lot of work in this area, as well as HHDL's translator. Even he has to admit that Hinduism did play a role in influencing Tibetan Buddhism. HHDL's translator visited my University not too long ago and this question was raised and he of course acknowledge the influence of the Shivaites towards Vajrayana. It's something that is fairly accepted amongst Buddhist scholars. Not like it's a bad thing anyway. But, I'll definitely look into this a lot further.
Sorry, this is incorrect. Upon first directly realizing emptiness, one is on the first bodhisattva bhumi and an arya bodhisattva. What you're thinking of is an arya bodhisattva on the three "pure" stages - the 8th, 9th, and tenth bhumis - when certain obscurations have been completely purified, unlike bodhisattvas below those stages.
Thank you, I was mixing up Arya with Avaivarttika Bodhisattvas. It's 5:10am and my lack of sleep is not doing me just.
.."Vajrayana is an exception to what I, and now Ven. Huifeng, have said. In Vajrayana, at least in Nyingma, there is the historical convention of speaking of a red sangha - monks and nuns - and a white sangha - lay anuttarayoga tantrik initiates. But Vajrayana is a completely different animal and operates on a unique model."
this thread is in the general section and is not in a specific section addressing one particular aspect of Buddhist thought.
If you set the groundwork or rules by which we play only one conclusion is available....yours,
The initial poster may in certain obsure terms be identifying to what school and to what form of buddhism he is referencing. In plain terms it is not stated and the placement of the thread in the general contexst of Mahayana reaffirms that lack of definition.
So Yes that statement is true.....but samgha can be taken by many probably most to equate with sanga and sanga in general terms in Tibetan buddhism though yes a vajrayana context......is inclusive of both ordained and not.
So I stand by point. This post is wrongly placed and is generating confusion and misinterpretation.
And why I stated....in part. In the overall context of this thread that is not true. Tibetan buddhism firmly affirms sanga as so inclusive and yes I do agree that in a vajrayanan context.
So what?
Traditionally....in Tibetan Buddhism the tradition is affirmatively for a combination of the two. We define tradition to be as one wants it to be seen only in a certain way...sure.
To elaborate...if one quaries Buddhism one finds two general schools of Buddhist thought to generally exist....Theravadan and Mayahanana. This is in a scholorly manner a misread as we know Theravadan refers to but one remaining school of Buddhism. In a more specific sense it is also known that Vajrayana is a furthur elaboration of Mayahana. Most Tibetan Buddhists consider themselves Mayahanan practicing Vajrayana, or a form of Mayahana. Apart from Mayahana or apart even from the foundational vehicle...no. Other Buddhist faiths may consider Mayahanan seperate from Vajrayana and not connected in any fashion. In a scholorly manner that may be a technically correct deliniation. This however is not how a Tibetan buddhist considers such a thing in general terms.
So if things are presented in a unclear fashion and manner they will be unclear. From the start is indicated the result. This thread should not be in a general Mahayanan section but in a school specific site.Otherwise is it objectional and we end up having discussions such as these. Someone stateing essentially Mayahanan is not Tibetan Buddhism. It may be in the same context as samgha the specific term may specifrically refer to one thing but more generally mean sanga to most peoples.
So it is confusing. I remain with point. I stated in part with intent to qualify. When peoples start stateing things such as authorizations being provided it must be school specific always. Defining it by general catagory such as Mahayana does not suffice. It some context vajrayanan as opposed to strict mahayanan consideration may be appliable. All the replies speak to the confusion. It is based upon the general context provided.
To prove point....look at the board index...it is not Mayahana buddhism and then tibetan or vajrayana buddhism....it is first Mayahana then tibetan then east asian.
It is mayahanan buddhism,and included within one finds many tibetan threads. It is generally taken to mean that by many as inclusive.
"This order considers that progress can be achieved more rapidly during a single month of self-transformation through terrifying conditions in rough terrain and in "the abode of harmful forces" than through meditating for a period of three years in towns and monasteries"....Takpo Tashi Namgyal.
Ron, it's very simple and clear: aside from in the Vajrayana (and even then it may only be a Nyingma thing to speak of a red sangha and a white sangha), the term sangha scripturally and traditionally refers strictly to monks and nuns. I don't understand why this is so important to you, though. It's just a word. One can be a very diligent practitioner and attain the same enlightenment as the Buddha whether one is a member of the sangha or not. See, for instance, the Licchavi layman Vimalakirti, who the Buddha himself said was his equal and who even the bodhisattva Manjushri and others were timid to approach.
In any case, I'm still quite accustomed to using "sangha" in the modern, egalitarian way to refer to fellow practicing Buddhists of all stripes.
Also from this forum: http://www.thetaobums.com/index.php?/to ... ge__st__20" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; "It is the other way around. The Upanishads and Advaita came WAY after the Buddha (500 BC). In fact Advaita was developed WAY after Nagarjuna as well (200 CE). Here are some exerpts from the book The Essential Vedanta by Eliot Deutsch & Rohit Dalvi 2004.
"....much of Sankara's metaphysics, especialy his analysis of the world as maya, was taken from Buddhist sources. In any event a close relationship between the Mahayana schools and Vedanta did exist with the latter borrowing some dialectical techniques, if not specific doctrines, of the former." pg. 126
"Gaudapada rather clearly draws from Buddhist philosophical sources for many of his arguments and distinctions and even for the forms and imagery in which these arguments were cast." pg. 157
Gaudapada was the guru of Sankara's guru, so this shows that ripping of Buddhism, is a long tradition."
PN....I remain with point. You state the term sanga has a traditional and scriptual basia....I don't claim error in that and explain how in this context the term sanga or samgha are not appropriate. You do not counter my counter but only restate claim....that is not a viable defense of point.
You claim a personal basis for my contention.....that really is irrelevent, I personally could care less about any term and do not consider myself necessarily buddhist. What I do personally care about is the idea a poster may claim authority of buddhist view over another as the putting of this thread in the general mahayana area(yes I am well aware of Vajrayana) and claiming authority attest.
These statements to my opinion are homophobically based. I have no intention to refute or qestion any ones personal belief but as one is claiming authority and this is posted in a general area I will refute on a logical basis. I expounded at length and with much time and effort on another of this posters threads and found such summarily deleted despite very many participants in the discussion. So I hazard such will happen again... nevertheless such authority over others opinions on such cannot stand unchallenged.
No argument by PN or any other has passed logical scrutiny to allow this thread to be considered a viable statement in its present context. So thusly challenge stated....not found refuted(PN's comments)...I proceed. This authority does not exist if fact I claim now a equal authority; not based on scripture, sutra nor jakata tale but on logic. Suchly is based my spiritual which is no lesser than that here presented though statements and context claim such as greater.
Many children are committing suicide on the basis of homophobia currently in the us. On this basis and as mentioned I proceed, thought perhaps with not the best nor most effective of displayal with this argument, I a mere layperson of little understanding will take this challenge and proceed ....homophobia is logically contraindicated....and see where it will take me.
To furthur identify I personally, since the personal is invariably introduced in the western inferior method of debate...have no dog in this fight. I formally was hetrosexual but claim no homosexual nor hetrosexual bias as both are irrelevent, and neither has logical basis. I in fact will first introduce such statement into discussion....this thing of homo or hetro has no basis...not a whit.
Participate who will....I will defeat you.
To start...
These statements are untrue and and logical basis claimed is faulted...."People who are born with both sex's (hermaphrodite) are not eligible
People who are born sexless are not eligible
Additionally any confusion regarding sexual orientation. Gay'ism, Lesbian'ism, Bi-sexual'ism, Sexual Mutilation / Transgender'ism/ Transexual'ism should be cleared up beforehand."
It is said...
"Likewise,since it is a group of fingers,
The hand itself is not a single entity.
And so it is with fingers, made of joints;
And joints themselves consist of many parts.
These parts themselves will break down into atoms,
And atoms will divide according to direction.
These fragments, too will also fall to nothing.
Thus atoms are like empty space--they have no real existence.
All form, therefore is like a dream,
And who will be attached to it, who thus investigates?
The body in this way, has no existence;
What is male, therefore, and what is female?"
What then is the object of desire, this object so entranced?. Is it finger breast procreation organ so involved, is it mind it is perception of finger breast procreation organ so involved.... Yes, I claim the latter.
It is mind only that one is having sex with, and no other.
Show me a finger, show me a breast, show me a procreation organ, noncomposite.
And then that found... show me how such cannot be part of me who perceives such things.
How indeed I may not be parted and part indeed be found that is part of all that is here consdiered.
How may I then see feel touch or hear this thing and then claim this thing not I?
On what basis then do I claim singularity?
And thusly can claim seperate identity and thing found not in myself but in other?
And then this thing on basis then arbitrarily based state...
this other thing this samgha.....it must not contain this or that.
On what is claim such claim made?
Is samgha then not as samgha is a person made?
And if person made is composite made on what basis then is compostie of person made not samgha made?
To what extent will we then follow this thing....will actions then be basis or thought or form?
Will then all who are of differing form or opinion or belief on such basis then be found to be noninclusive?
And then if such is done on what basis is thought or forrm or opinion found to be in this manner...exactly alike?
Are my thought my feeling then as are yours or anothers.
On basis then of similiarity we then do determine samgha
On what basis then is such founded?
Is such basis valid then in this world of parted form or constituancy which but reflects in parted nature if form and body all.
On what basis then is this samgha on specific preference in this matter considered in this fashion?
And if monk or nun so considered...is it not true of sexual interest there is none?.
On what basis then this determination if monk or nun then claimed intend?
Do monk and nun then find object of desire present and real and able to incite desire by themeselves and of themselves?.Then what object this will so by itself inspire such things? Never do I find a object in this realm though called desire, a object that in itself can so provide such things.
No I find quite surely one thing....it is mind itself that desires and none other. It is mind itself that sees what it sees in itself not other.
So show me these things these obejects from which desire arises in this realm of all desire....I fail to find them.
Show me a nonparted person.
Show me a nonparted perception>
Show me this sanga of similiarity exact nature found.
Show me this sanga of exact similiar form found
Show me this sanga of exact similiar thought found
Show me all these things....and your claims I will find true.
Tilll then they are homophobia and nothing more....I await your reply.
I have already established basis for challenge to the initial poster on statement of authority and reject any claim of authority in this matter yet presented and considered by other as viable. It is not...proven in the context of this board and this discussion forum. That is proven.... no viable counter has been presented by logical rule as evidenced by the prior discussion and lack of viable counter.
I reject on the general basis now stated.... the consideration of samgha or sanha as being any rule of physical characteristic nor prior preference stated in the matter of sex. The initial claim of untruth and basis in logical fault is present and elaborated upon.I await counter.
"This order considers that progress can be achieved more rapidly during a single month of self-transformation through terrifying conditions in rough terrain and in "the abode of harmful forces" than through meditating for a period of three years in towns and monasteries"....Takpo Tashi Namgyal.
To elaborate just a bit on the term sangha in tibetan buddhism(this is but equal in this consideration to other schools but not lesser)...
To quote the Tibetan book of the dead viking edition, which features Nyingma translation in majority...
"In the classical Buddhist usage, the term refers mainly to the spiritual communities of ordained practitioners, both monks and nuns (Skt bhiksu/binksuni). The actual sangha, when viewed as an object of refuge in the context of the three precious jewels , is a highly realized, 'supreme assembly' of those who have gained a direct insight into the true nature of reality, emptiness, i.e. those who have attained the path of insight."
My words:
Hence we have the colloquial or currently employed useage and perceived definition of sangha which represents here on this board. To state this is hence just a westernization would be a misstatement. To hence classify one such as chokgyur Lingpa who did indeed leave the monestary to find and reveal many torma, and was the holder of 6 differing lineage transmissions and went on to father a family and his great great grandchild Tulky Urgyen Rinpoche who himself fathered six sons and was personal representative and teacher of the karmapa of the day(whose father was subject to attempted forced abduction to a monestary by virtue of being a recognizd Tulku) as not considered members of the sangha of Tibetan Buddhism would be a technical truism but a actual falsehood.
To whit to quote Blazing Splendor...Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche's autobiographical recount of his life...Chapter 2 Rangiung Yeshe Publications 2005 edition....Page 9...
"Now at that time there were two sanghas, consisting of the congregation of ordained monks, recognized by their shaven heads and Dharma robes, and the congregation of ngakpas, tantric practitioners distinguished by their long braideed hair, white skirts and striped shawls.
Ngakpa is a practitioner of Vajrayana who keeps long hair, wears a different robe than monks and can be married.
I can elaborate at length to Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche's standing in Tibetan Buddhism and his ability by such standing to make statements of qualification as such illustrated if so requested.
So thusly I entertain and do establish the validity of the ground of this challenge. Sangha by Tibetan Buddhist culture is defined thusly and is not a current western invention. Anything but current.... in Tibet is the case. Such a varaince to sangha has existed from virtually the inception of Buddhism in Tibet and is connected to its closely associated sister religion of Bon and the abscription of Bon and Bon practice in part into Tibetan buddhism(abeit in a noninherantly existant fashion). The presence of ordained who conducted themselves as ngakpa in some fashions(to include one DL) and ngakpa who conducted themselves as monks seemingly furthuring lineage transmission and establishing monestaries, furthur blur this distinction. Include the incipient of Buddhism into Tibet in many of its known current forms... Padmesambhava and a mode of operation which speaks not of monasticism as we know it.... and we have that line completely eroded.
The term samgha is often associated in a general contextual format to equilivize to sangha and thusly this is established and entertained as the basis from which challenge may be raised.
Which is why I entertain the issue of sangha and samgha. Not to deviate from point nor to personal preference but to establish ground from which challenge to statement may be extended.
As a aside..... Ngakpa have a lot to do with the establishment of monasteries, are closely interwined with the monastic in many forms but a incorrect inferal may be found I'd surmise in some current literature which infers they do not comprise a sangha or membership in a sangha. But such literature would be biased, from the monastic side of things. In common historic Tibet they were as much a part of sangha and conisdered such as were monastic. Hence Naropa hence the inverse Gampopa. It was a balance of two in Tibet. Hence we have per example Chod a inceptive spiritual practice of Ngakpa being adhered to and considered in some literature and in a western context solely a monastic practice. Whereas its inception and practice were for a time almost exculsive, seemingly, a Ngakpa practice. How a whole spiritual practice could evolve with its beginings considered of buddhist spiritual and yogic origin and not be sangha participation...defies logic.
"This order considers that progress can be achieved more rapidly during a single month of self-transformation through terrifying conditions in rough terrain and in "the abode of harmful forces" than through meditating for a period of three years in towns and monasteries"....Takpo Tashi Namgyal.
Umm, have you not seen the several times when I acknowledged that inner tantric initiates (ngakpas) are considered the "white sangha"??? So that white sangha would include great lamas like Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche, Chogyur Lingpa, and others you've mentioned. I myself belong to that tradition of "white skirts and striped shawls" (though only in having received the wangs, lungs, and tri's and the vows, but not in terms of having the realization that is the true mark of a ngakpa), and all three of the Nyingma terma traditions I mainly practice stem from great realized ngakpas, so you're not explaining anything new to me.
As I stated several posts ago, this idea of the white sangha of lay ngakpas is only relevant to Tibetan Vajrayana Buddhism. Even then, it may even only be relevant to the Nyingma tradition, because I'm not quite sure if the Sakya, Kagyu, and Gelug even use that convention of "white sangha." Maybe they do. All I know is that the convention of red and white sanghas originates in a declaration made by King Trisong Deutsen during the Nyingma period. But the vast majority of Buddhist traditions are not Tibetan and are strictly sutric traditions, such as the Theravada and exoteric Mahayana, and we're not in the Tibetan Buddhism section, so I chose not to mention the "white sangha" initially. If you'd like to know what source it is in all these sutric traditions that spells out that the sangha is the community of monks, nuns (and aryas), it is the vinayas of those traditions that spell that out. You have heard of the vinaya, no?
I have established how the tradition in Tibet in no manner shape nor form is inclusive of only monastic.
Your basic premesis is based on a foundation of school of monk determineing what constitutes sangha.
That is true only to the extent it is accepted by the total, the entire community at large. If a sangha of buddhist thought did arise which recognizes no monastic as member such would be considered valid if it fits the perameters of buddhism with lineage transmission et al.
"the term sangha scripturally and traditionally refers strictly to monks and nuns"....so your statement by this statement, (and this is really pretty easy to understand).... is contradicted and refuted.... Now at that time there were two sanghas, consisting of the congregation of ordained monks, recognized by their shaven heads and Dharma robes, and the congregation of ngakpas, tantric practitioners distinguished by their long braideed hair, white skirts and striped shawls. "Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche"
See...(geeze louise).....two sanghas....2 sanghas....sanghas....2. 1 plus 1...sanghas....3-1....sanghas
1 plus 3 minus 2....two sanghas.
There were two sanghas present in hitoric tibet, your babbleing on about red and white sangha is really off point and is only a(inceptional) monastic attempt to define the real into the constraints of determination they arbitrarily assume to protect institution. To whit in a historical context we find actual attempt by monastic to abduct and kidnap recognized Tulku's. Another attempt by such institution to validate their inclusion of only sangha to be monastic. Saying essentially it is we monastic who determine who and what constitutes sangha and it is us monatic who can qualify and reference sangha in our community....Well yeah if only monastics are asked that that it the answer.
I have already established how Vajrayana is inclusive in this section of the board....We do find many threads of similiar vajrayana inception present. This is a actuality..check the thread content. Mala bardo these are tibetan vajrayana context items to name just two.
That is already established yet you presumedly refuse to allow that vajrayana can be considered validly as mayahana. In general terms(which is the catagory of this particular board)....it certainly is considered so. Ask any tibetan what school of buddhism they abscribe to and mayahanan will be the response, vajrayana a qualifiation added to that basic.
So sorry there old boy....your finished done. Your baked and done. Your argument is over, fininshed fi'ne.
It's over. You may take your toys now and go home.
I still await reply on the bigger issue of homophobia. Of course there will be no response, as those that hold such views generally do not respond to challenge.
But challenge as the recent suicides by US children attest is called for.
So I still await reply. Not your reply PR.
PR....just walk away....you loose, sorry but you do. Compare yourself to Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche your opinion to exceed his and you do not.....but you will find none will hold that view....yoiu equal to him in this authority to determine exactly what constituted sangha in tradition in tibet.
You've been pushed into a impossible place, by debate. Accept it or not....you are there. That is a tactic of debate(one of many) I have employed to push a opponant into a impossible place of defense. It becomes readily apparent to all (excepting perhaps the opponant) such is not defendable. I gave youi plenty of rope to nuance this thing.... you instead chose to stand firm and not bend....really it was easy to prove that was a impossible position to hold. Everyone knows of ngakpa role in sangha in Tibet.....yes by tradition.
You embarass yourself....just walk away.
In this item you are done. I'm certain you are a fine person with a quality of education and understanding in these things I can only think of, and not approximate. It is only that I have manuevered you to this spot. You knowledge far exceeds mine in all respect in these issues. I am a layperson with little understanidng or knowledge...but debate I do engage and study a bit. A dull tool in the shed then am I but not without cutting blade.
"This order considers that progress can be achieved more rapidly during a single month of self-transformation through terrifying conditions in rough terrain and in "the abode of harmful forces" than through meditating for a period of three years in towns and monasteries"....Takpo Tashi Namgyal.
Holy crap, Ron. Seriously, are you even READING my posts? You keep repeating my own point to me as if it's yours.
Let me try one last time, AND PLEASE READ THIS VERY CAREFULLY FROM BEGINNING TO END because it should clear this matter up for you:
I have already established that WITHIN TIBETAN VAJRAYANA, there is a white sangha of lay yogis (to which I myself belong). I have further established that this IS A PHENOMENON UNIQUE TO TIBETAN VAJRAYANA.
Yes, IN TIBETAN VAJRAYANA, particularly in the Nyingma tradition that I myself practice, THERE IS A LAY SANGHA. The receipt of TANTRIC EMPOWERMENT and VOWS is what makes one part of that sangha.
EVERYWHERE ELSE, where they do not practice anuttarayoga tantra or have tantric vows, they practice SUTRA and follow the VINAYA, not anuttarayoga tantras.
Where do we get terminology such as the word sangha? We get it from the VINAYA, originally established by the BUDDHA.
What spells out the vows of monks, nuns, and lay Buddhists? The VINAYA.
Who does the VINAYA say belongs to the "sangha?" Monks and nuns and aryas.
Does it really matter whether non-arya lay people are considered "sangha" or not in NON-VAJRAYANA traditions? It doesn't affect their ability to achieve liberation one bit.
So to recapitulate this: if you're a layperson who practices highest yoga tantra in a Tibetan lineage, you have anuttarayoga tantric vows and are therefore considered by that tradition to be part of the sangha. If you are a layperson who does NOT practice highest yoga tantra in a Tibetan lineage, then like the majority of Buddhist laypeople the authority you turn to is the VINAYA, which states you are a Buddhist practitioner, but you are not part of the sangha.
Also, since you keep bringing up the great master Tulku Urgyen for some reason, he would be considered by BOTH the Vinaya AND the anuttarayoga tantric tradition of Tibet to be part of the sangha. Why? Because he was considered an ARYA, so he's in the sangha according to the Vinaya; and he was an inner tantric practitioner, so he's in according to that system as well. So it's all sorted out. How you ever imagined I was questioning his or other masters' realization, I have no clue.
Why did I not mention the white sangha initially, and only the red sangha of monks and nuns? Because we are in the general Mahayana section, not the Vajrayana section. So my statement was entirely correct in a general Mahayana context.
Last edited by Pema Rigdzin on Wed Oct 20, 2010 3:13 am, edited 1 time in total.
Individual wrote:The two of you shouldn't argue like that. Try listening to eachother.
When there is a breakdown in communication, repeating yourself and raising your voice doesn't help.
And there is no competition over the truth. If somebody says the truth, it doesn't matter whether they present it as something they own exclusively.
Individual,
I know writing in capital letters, etc is usually considered "flaming" online, but in this case my intention was just to highlight certain things that Ron seemed to be missing in my other posts, and a few things I tried to re-state in a clearer way.
Individual wrote:The two of you shouldn't argue like that. Try listening to eachother.
When there is a breakdown in communication, repeating yourself and raising your voice doesn't help.
And there is no competition over the truth. If somebody says the truth, it doesn't matter whether they present it as something they own exclusively.
Individual,
I know writing in capital letters, etc is usually considered "flaming" online, but in this case my intention was just to highlight certain things that Ron seemed to be missing in my other posts, and a few things I tried to re-state in a clearer way.
Hi Pema,
Trust me, when it comes to certain people, you just keep quiet. You know you're right, and that is really all that matters. Plus, when people read your posts, evidently they'll know what you're talking about. The person who tries to write an essay as if it was for their PhD paper may "seem" to know a lot, but probably has no idea what they're talking about and can't humble themselves down to others in order to learn--plus worldly knowledge that isn't backed up with wisdom can hardly be of any benefit to themselves or others (hence my signature).
And also, it's not even about winning a debate and I can't understand why anyone would think in such a way. But clearly you've made your point very well in this topic, and anyone in the right mind who is reading this would realize that you certainly know what you're talking about. It's all good. Just keep quiet, and carry on.
P.S. Ron, no offence, but telling a person they've lost a debate against you by saying: "you've lost, you're done for, just walk away" doesn't establish anything besides making yourself look like the loser of the debate. If you want to carry out a debate and win, you do it with arguments that flow and are sound. What you've stated above to Pema absolutely made NO sense, it was a bunch of repetitive nonsense. Just remember though, before you write an essay to me, I mean no offence. That is all.
Last edited by remm on Wed Oct 20, 2010 7:09 am, edited 4 times in total.
