"...but the science of Buddhism will never change."

Moderator: Tibetan Buddhism moderators

Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."

Postby ConradTree » Tue Dec 31, 2013 12:33 am

Tsongkhapafan wrote:It's fine, you can follow whatever system you want, but when you start denigrating Nagarjuna whose teachings are in accordance with the ultimate view of Buddha in order to follow something that was not taught by Buddha at all, something has gone astray.



The Mahasiddhas and tertons are also Buddhas.

Tilopa, Naropa, Khenpo Pelzang etc. are samyaksambuddhas.
ConradTree
 
Posts: 303
Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2013 6:33 pm

Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."

Postby Sherab » Tue Dec 31, 2013 12:36 am

dharmagoat wrote:
Sherab wrote:
dharmagoat wrote:An infinite number of durationless moments does.

0+0+0+0+0+0+....... to infinity = 0
A durationless moment (i.e. time = 0) is just like that. You can string together an infinity of infinity of durationless moments and you will still come up with a durationless moment.

It works in calculus.

Yah, I suppose that would work with mind and matter if you take them as continuous functions.
User avatar
Sherab
 
Posts: 765
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am

Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."

Postby Norwegian » Tue Dec 31, 2013 12:37 am

What has gone astray, is your understanding Tsongkhapafan, which is sorely lacking. Not only that, but your reading comprehension is lacking as well:

"From the point of view of individually ascribed names, there are numerous traditions, such as those of the simultaneously arising as merged, the amulet box, possessing five, the six spheres of equal taste, the four syllables, the pacifier, the object to be cut off, dzogchen, the discursive madhyamaka view, and so on. Nevertheless, when scrutinized by a yogi, learned in scripture and logic and experienced (in meditation), their definitive meanings are all seen to come to the same intended point."

From the page you yourself just linked.

Please rid yourself of your narrowmindedness and secterianism, and be more open minded. Study more. You may learn something.
Norwegian
 
Posts: 336
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 7:36 pm

Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."

Postby Pero » Tue Dec 31, 2013 12:43 am

Tsongkhapafan wrote:They seek to clarify what Buddha taught - but Buddha did not teach Dzogchen at all.

He did not teach Tantra either so where does that leave you? :D
Although many individuals in this age appear to be merely indulging their worldly desires, one does not have the capacity to judge them, so it is best to train in pure vision.
- Shabkar
Pero
 
Posts: 1841
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2010 8:54 pm

Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."

Postby IdleChater » Tue Dec 31, 2013 12:50 am

ConradTree wrote:
Tsongkhapafan wrote:It's fine, you can follow whatever system you want, but when you start denigrating Nagarjuna whose teachings are in accordance with the ultimate view of Buddha in order to follow something that was not taught by Buddha at all, something has gone astray.



The Mahasiddhas and tertons are also Buddhas.

Tilopa, Naropa, Khenpo Pelzang etc. are samyaksambuddhas.


But Tilopa received teaching (Mahamudra) from Vajradhara. If Tilo achieved Buddhahood as a result, he couldn't be a samyaksambuddha, could he?

It would follow the same for Naropa who was Tilopa's lineage heir.

Right?

Chogyam Trungpa was a terton, or so they say, but I doubt he was a samyaksambuddha.
IdleChater
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Fri Dec 27, 2013 4:08 am

Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."

Postby conebeckham » Tue Dec 31, 2013 12:51 am

NOW we're getting somewhere! :twothumbsup: (in reference to Pero's comment about Buddha teaching tantra...)
May any merit generated by on-line discussion
Be dedicated to the Ultimate Benefit of All Sentient Beings.
User avatar
conebeckham
 
Posts: 2693
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:49 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA, USA

Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."

Postby Tsongkhapafan » Tue Dec 31, 2013 12:54 am

Norwegian wrote:What has gone astray, is your understanding Tsongkhapafan, which is sorely lacking. Not only that, but your reading comprehension is lacking as well:

"From the point of view of individually ascribed names, there are numerous traditions, such as those of the simultaneously arising as merged, the amulet box, possessing five, the six spheres of equal taste, the four syllables, the pacifier, the object to be cut off, dzogchen, the discursive madhyamaka view, and so on. Nevertheless, when scrutinized by a yogi, learned in scripture and logic and experienced (in meditation), their definitive meanings are all seen to come to the same intended point."

From the page you yourself just linked.

Please rid yourself of your narrowmindedness and secterianism, and be more open minded. Study more. You may learn something.


Thank you for pointing that out, I did make a mistake and didn't notice that reference, I scanned the document too hastily.
User avatar
Tsongkhapafan
 
Posts: 229
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 9:36 am

Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."

Postby conebeckham » Tue Dec 31, 2013 12:55 am

"Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony!" :rolling:
May any merit generated by on-line discussion
Be dedicated to the Ultimate Benefit of All Sentient Beings.
User avatar
conebeckham
 
Posts: 2693
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:49 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA, USA

Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."

Postby Tsongkhapafan » Tue Dec 31, 2013 12:55 am

Pero wrote:
Tsongkhapafan wrote:They seek to clarify what Buddha taught - but Buddha did not teach Dzogchen at all.

He did not teach Tantra either so where does that leave you? :D


Buddha Vajradhara, the enjoyment body aspect of Buddha Shakyamuni, taught Tantra.
User avatar
Tsongkhapafan
 
Posts: 229
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 9:36 am

Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."

Postby conebeckham » Tue Dec 31, 2013 12:56 am

Wait, I thought Heruka Cakrasamvara appeared and taught tantra......?!?!? :shrug:
May any merit generated by on-line discussion
Be dedicated to the Ultimate Benefit of All Sentient Beings.
User avatar
conebeckham
 
Posts: 2693
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:49 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA, USA

Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."

Postby ConradTree » Tue Dec 31, 2013 12:57 am

IdleChater wrote:
ConradTree wrote:
Tsongkhapafan wrote:It's fine, you can follow whatever system you want, but when you start denigrating Nagarjuna whose teachings are in accordance with the ultimate view of Buddha in order to follow something that was not taught by Buddha at all, something has gone astray.



The Mahasiddhas and tertons are also Buddhas.

Tilopa, Naropa, Khenpo Pelzang etc. are samyaksambuddhas.


But Tilopa received teaching (Mahamudra) from Vajradhara. If Tilo achieved Buddhahood as a result, he couldn't be a samyaksambuddha, could he?

It would follow the same for Naropa who was Tilopa's lineage heir.

Right?

Chogyam Trungpa was a terton, or so they say, but I doubt he was a samyaksambuddha.



Samyaksambuddha just means you achieved full realization.

You are correct in that not all tertons are samyaksambuddhas.

By the way Tilopa had various human gurus. But that is off topic.
ConradTree
 
Posts: 303
Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2013 6:33 pm

Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."

Postby Tsongkhapafan » Tue Dec 31, 2013 12:58 am

conebeckham wrote:Wait, I thought Heruka Cakrasamvara appeared and taught tantra......?!?!? :shrug:


Buddha Vajradhara manifested as Heruka when he taught the Heruka Tantra, as Kalachakra when he taught the Kalachakra Tantra, etc.
User avatar
Tsongkhapafan
 
Posts: 229
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 9:36 am

Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."

Postby ConradTree » Tue Dec 31, 2013 12:59 am

Tsongkhapafan wrote:
Pero wrote:
Tsongkhapafan wrote:They seek to clarify what Buddha taught - but Buddha did not teach Dzogchen at all.

He did not teach Tantra either so where does that leave you? :D


Buddha Vajradhara, the enjoyment body aspect of Buddha Shakyamuni, taught Tantra.



Nope.

The Mahasiddhas taught tantra.

The Mahasiddhas are Buddhas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahasiddha
ConradTree
 
Posts: 303
Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2013 6:33 pm

Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."

Postby conebeckham » Tue Dec 31, 2013 1:01 am

What happened to Heruka after he manifested and taught Sri Cakrasamvara Tantras, TsongKhapaFan?
May any merit generated by on-line discussion
Be dedicated to the Ultimate Benefit of All Sentient Beings.
User avatar
conebeckham
 
Posts: 2693
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:49 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA, USA

Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."

Postby ConradTree » Tue Dec 31, 2013 1:07 am

Tilopa, Naropa, Khenpo Pelzang etc. are as authoratitive as Shakyamuni.

They are full Buddhas.
ConradTree
 
Posts: 303
Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2013 6:33 pm

Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."

Postby Tsongkhapafan » Tue Dec 31, 2013 1:18 am

conebeckham wrote:What happened to Heruka after he manifested and taught Sri Cakrasamvara Tantras, TsongKhapaFan?


I don't know cone, what happened? Definitive Heruka is the nature of all things, so nothing happened to him. He doesn't go anywhere as he is always present in front of faithful practitioners.
User avatar
Tsongkhapafan
 
Posts: 229
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 9:36 am

Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."

Postby Pero » Tue Dec 31, 2013 1:21 am

Tsongkhapafan wrote:
Pero wrote:
Tsongkhapafan wrote:They seek to clarify what Buddha taught - but Buddha did not teach Dzogchen at all.

He did not teach Tantra either so where does that leave you? :D


Buddha Vajradhara, the enjoyment body aspect of Buddha Shakyamuni, taught Tantra.

This is just according to someone's say so, so I find it strange you accept this but not that Vajrasattva taught Garab Dorje.
Although many individuals in this age appear to be merely indulging their worldly desires, one does not have the capacity to judge them, so it is best to train in pure vision.
- Shabkar
Pero
 
Posts: 1841
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2010 8:54 pm

Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."

Postby ConradTree » Tue Dec 31, 2013 1:25 am

Shakyamuni only taught Hinayana.

The Indian Mahasiddhas taught Vajrayana.

The Indian Mahasiddhas are full Buddhas, and are as authorative as Shakyamuni.
ConradTree
 
Posts: 303
Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2013 6:33 pm

Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."

Postby IdleChater » Tue Dec 31, 2013 1:30 am

ConradTree wrote:Samyaksambuddha just means you achieved full realization.



I thought a Samyaksambuddha was:

Samyaksambuddhas (Pali: sammasambuddha) gain Nirvana by their own efforts, and discover the Dhamma without having a teacher to point it out. They then lead others to enlightenment by teaching the Dhamma in a time or world where it has been forgotten or has not been taught before, because a Samyaksambuddha does not depend upon a tradition that stretches back to a previous Samyaksambuddha, but instead discovers the path anew. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhahood


Full realization is an Arhant, right?
IdleChater
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Fri Dec 27, 2013 4:08 am

Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."

Postby ConradTree » Tue Dec 31, 2013 1:31 am

Wikipedia is not correct.

Anyway the point is that Tilopa, Naropa, Saraha, Khenpo Pelzang are full Buddhas and are as authoratative as Shakyamuni.
ConradTree
 
Posts: 303
Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2013 6:33 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Tibetan Buddhism

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: heart, Karma_Yeshe, Majestic-12 [Bot] and 30 guests

>