Why don't you ask DPR about it? See if we old folks might make some sense after all.Chaz wrote: Preservation is certainly a function, but a "central" claim? Sorry man, but I just can't go there with ya.
/magnus
Why don't you ask DPR about it? See if we old folks might make some sense after all.Chaz wrote: Preservation is certainly a function, but a "central" claim? Sorry man, but I just can't go there with ya.
Thanks! I'll check those out.Yeshe D. wrote: For example:
Boucher, Daniel. Bodhisattvas of the Forest and the Formation of the Mahāyāna: A Study and Translation of the Rāṣṭrapālaparipṛcchā-sūtra. University of Hawaii Press, 2008.
Nattier, Jan. A Few Good Men: The Bodhisattva Path According to the Inquiry of Ugra (Ugraparipṛcchā). University of Hawaii Press, 2005.
Ray, Reginald A. Buddhist Saints in India: A Study in Buddhist Values and Orientations. Oxford University Press, 1999.
Silk, Jonathan. The Origin and Early History of the Mahāratnakūṭa Tradition of Mahāyāna Buddhism With A Study of the Ratnarāśisūtra and Related Materials. Doctoral Dissertation, 1994.
But these siddha communities are totally lost in religious mythology; they have no written history (at least none I am aware of) until much later. Scholarly attempts to reconstruct the siddha communities seem speculative at best.By "siddha communities" I mean the vajrayāna siddhas of the second half of the first century CE, not the śramaṇa community initiated by Gautama Buddha ~1000 years earlier.Well the siddha tradition is a source of controversy. There is no real history of the siddha tradition for example. We just know that Shakyamuni Buddha originally embraced the siddha life so it was likely long established prior to him (i.e. it wasn't a recent development during his time).The siddha communities also developed to meet the needs of different people at a different time.
So your point is that Buddha wrote them himself? Seriously, one oral tradition might be of the same value as an other oral tradition, who can say what tradition covers the complete truth.Yeshe D. wrote:The basis of what he taught has been preserved in the Pāḷi Nikāyas and the Sanskrit Āgamas. The basic dharma that was inspired by him is all there.heart wrote:So you know exactly what the Buddha taught and to who he taught it exactly how?
Yes, Karl is mos def da man!justsit wrote:Yes, for sure.
Karl is brilliant, personable, witty, humble...and tall. Very tall.
No, that's not my point. Clearly he didn't. But these ancient collections do preserve the basic message and practice injunctions that were initiated by him and the earliest monastic disciples.heart wrote:So your point is that Buddha wrote them himself?Yeshe D. wrote:The basis of what he taught has been preserved in the Pāḷi Nikāyas and the Sanskrit Āgamas. The basic dharma that was inspired by him is all there.heart wrote:So you know exactly what the Buddha taught and to who he taught it exactly how?
It's not a question of value. I consider the Mahāyāna (including the vajrayāna) to be valuable, otherwise I wouldn't practice these teachings. But my faith in the value of these teachings doesn't necessitate believing that they were taught by the śramaṇa Gautama Buddha. Nor does it necessitate believing that any of these Mahāyāna lineages have been preserved continuously by awakened human beings in this world.heart wrote:Seriously, one oral tradition might be of the same value as an other oral tradition, who can say what tradition covers the complete truth.
Well, next time I "see" him, I just might.heart wrote:Why don't you ask DPR about it? See if we old folks might make some sense after all.Chaz wrote: Preservation is certainly a function, but a "central" claim? Sorry man, but I just can't go there with ya.
/magnus
Karl is German. My guess is that he was probably born there?... Certainly a good and knowledgeable teacher.Chaz wrote:It seems like American-born male Buddhist teachers are oftentimes "tall" - Karl is one.
Yeshe D. wrote:Karl is German. My guess is that he was probably born there?... Certainly a good and knowledgeable teacher.Chaz wrote:It seems like American-born male Buddhist teachers are oftentimes "tall" - Karl is one.
Well, understanding the heart of Buddhism is a very important subject no matter what you think. Once you grasp the importance of the transmission of wisdom you will also understand that what Buddhism is "preserving" is that the proof is in the pudding. You have to first realize it, then change the way you communicate it. Not the other way around.Chaz wrote:Well, next time I "see" him, I just might.heart wrote:Why don't you ask DPR about it? See if we old folks might make some sense after all.Chaz wrote: Preservation is certainly a function, but a "central" claim? Sorry man, but I just can't go there with ya.
/magnus
The only thing is I don't get to see and speak with DPR very often, and this "central claim" thing just isn't that important. If I'm gonna take up my guru's time, I'm not going to waste it on a question like that. I'm going to ask questions that would hopefully provide something worthwhile - like advice that will benefit my practice.
And as far as "old" goes, I'm not exactly a spring chicken myself.
Who here has suggested otherwise?heart wrote:You have to first realize it, then change the way you communicate it. Not the other way around.
All Buddhist genuine lineages preserve the basic message no matter how fantastic it might seem. The Tibetan civilization is the ultimate proof of that since they preserved all the three yanas without twisting, mixing or distorting their message. They did this because the believed that the Buddhas teachings where sweet in the beginning, sweet in the middle ad sweet in the end. There is no point preserving something that don't have the power to liberate beings.Yeshe D. wrote: It's not a question of value. I consider the Mahāyāna (including the vajrayāna) to be valuable, otherwise I wouldn't practice these teachings. But my faith in the value of these teachings doesn't necessitate believing that they were taught by the śramaṇa Gautama Buddha. Nor does it necessitate believing that any of these Mahāyāna lineages have been preserved continuously by awakened human beings in this world.
Well this whole thread is about Westerners knowing, rather than realizing, the true meaning of Buddhism a lot better than the Asian teachers.Yeshe D. wrote:Who here has suggested otherwise?heart wrote:You have to first realize it, then change the way you communicate it. Not the other way around.
You must be joking. This thread is about about a book (that you haven't read) and it's author (Check the OP). An author who just happens to be one the greatest teachers of his generation. It should also be noted that this teacher/author is "asian". He's an ethnic Tibetan, born in India. AND I can't think of a single one of his students who think they know more about the "true meaning of Buddhism" than Rinpoche does. I would dare to say he probably knows more about it than you do. And I can guarantee that his realizations are far beyond anyone on this board. Period.heart wrote:Well this whole thread is about Westerners knowing, rather than realizing, the true meaning of Buddhism a lot better than the Asian teachers.Yeshe D. wrote:Who here has suggested otherwise?heart wrote:You have to first realize it, then change the way you communicate it. Not the other way around.
/magnus
Sure, and in reply to you and other posters in this thread let me quote Thinley Norbu Rinpoche.Chaz wrote: You must be joking. This thread is about about a book (that you haven't read) and it's author (Check the OP). An author who just happens to be one the greatest teachers of his generation. It should also be noted that this teacher/author is "asian". He's an ethnic Tibetan, born in India. AND I can't think of a single one of his students who think they know more about the "true meaning of Buddhism" than Rinpoche does. I would dare to say he probably knows more about it than you do. And I can guarantee that his realizations are far beyond anyone on this board. Period.
As already mentioned previously in this post, it isn't about "Asian" versus "Western."heart wrote:Well this whole thread is about Westerners knowing, rather than realizing, the true meaning of Buddhism a lot better than the Asian teachers.
Traditional versus Academic suits you better?Yeshe D. wrote:As already mentioned previously in this post, it isn't about "Asian" versus "Western."heart wrote:Well this whole thread is about Westerners knowing, rather than realizing, the true meaning of Buddhism a lot better than the Asian teachers.
I, personally, couldn't care less what Thinley Norbu Rinpoche has to say as far as this thread is concerned.heart wrote:Chaz wrote: and in reply to you and other posters in this thread let me quote Thinley Norbu Rinpoche.
Why do you find it so offensive?Chaz wrote:I, personally, couldn't care less what Thinley Norbu Rinpoche has to say as far as this thread is concerned.heart wrote:Chaz wrote: and in reply to you and other posters in this thread let me quote Thinley Norbu Rinpoche.
I am DEEPLY offended. DEEPLY!!! The implication of racism is misplaced and wrong.
I also think it rather cowardly to think that your fellow Buddhists are racists and THEN hide behind Thinley Norbu Rinpoche to assert that in a public forum. You'd be better served to simply come out and demonstrate the courage of your convictions and just call us a bunch of racists leaving Thinley Norbu Rinpoche out of it.
The additional implied implication the the Dzogchen Ponlop Rinpoche somehow falls under that same pathetic umbrella of racism is beyond offensive.
I think you should be ashamed of yourself.
I also think an apology is in order.