Defining Buddhism - Theravada/Mahayana/Varayana

[adinatha]

Sure. But we are also discussing hermeneutics. A function of prajñā. Also tangentially related to the development of path knowledge (mārgākārajñatā).

If it's not connected to the lineage of ultimate realization, it's useless for the path.

It's all connected. Just not in a linear or literal sense.

It is not that general. There must be a guru disciple lineage, which is linear.

Mahāyāna Dharma is dynamic and multifaceted. There's simply no need for privileging the constraints of a literal interpretation of visionary narrative.

Sure.

[Sonam Wangchug]

To those who deny buddha teaching mahayana/vajrayana .

There are presumably many masters, from the past, and to the present, that maintain that Buddha shakyamuni taught all three yana's. Various of the tibetan masters were known to be enlightened, and if they said buddha taught it, and you claim that he didn't do you then deny the omniscience and enlightenment of all, who said he did?

Since many of the guru's teach this, and likely some of your own guru's, perhaps it is intellectual arrogance, to basically posit ones guru's are wrong.

Namdrol you are trained in Sakya, and you are quoting the position of sakya, and as HH the sakya trizin says

"There is a common misconception among many non-Buddhists (and even among certain Buddhists) that the Tantras are late and corrupt additions to the Buddha's Teachings. This is false. The Tantras are genuine teachings of the Lord Buddha, and they occupy a paramount position withtin the overall flamework of Buddhist doctrine. "

If HH, and undoubtedly many others guru's say your position is wrong, how can you continue?

[Jnana]

It is not that general. There must be a guru disciple lineage, which is linear.

Yes, but even here there are non-linear examples of short lineage.

[adinatha]

It is not that general. There must be a guru disciple lineage, which is linear.

Yes, but even here there are non-linear examples of short lineage.

Every guru had a guru. In the Dzogchen case, the situation is different b/c rainbow masters have specials samaya.

[Malcolm]

If HH, and undoubtedly many others guru's say your position is wrong, how can you continue?

You really have not paid attention to what I actually have said, have you?

[Enochian]

To those who deny buddha teaching mahayana/vajrayana .

There are presumably many masters, from the past, and to the present, that maintain that Buddha shakyamuni taught all three yana's. Various of the tibetan masters were known to be enlightened, and if they said buddha taught it, and you claim that he didn't do you then deny the omniscience and enlightenment of all, who said he did?

Since many of the guru's teach this, and likely some of your own guru's, perhaps it is intellectual arrogance, to basically posit ones guru's are wrong.

Namdrol you are trained in Sakya, and you are quoting the position of sakya, and as HH the sakya trizin says

"There is a common misconception among many non-Buddhists (and even among certain Buddhists) that the Tantras are late and corrupt additions to the Buddha's Teachings. This is false. The Tantras are genuine teachings of the Lord Buddha, and they occupy a paramount position withtin the overall flamework of Buddhist doctrine. "

If HH, and undoubtedly many others guru's say your position is wrong, how can you continue?

You haven't read anything Namdrol wrote. Or you not adept at the English language.

[Sonam Wangchug]

You are saying The historical buddha did not teach them, at that time out of his mouth.

I am not saying he did or he didn't.

My point is that it seems the standard position of tibetan masters is that he did.. therefore to those who said he did if you are saying he did not you are denying their omniscience?

I think your position is that they are in line with the dharma therefore, the teachings of the buddha, however there are still great masters who claim buddha did utter the words aren't there?

But anyways, this seems like a debate that's been going on a long time.. and people are still going on, without an agreed upon consensus.

To those who deny buddha teaching mahayana/vajrayana .

There are presumably many masters, from the past, and to the present, that maintain that Buddha shakyamuni taught all three yana's. Various of the tibetan masters were known to be enlightened, and if they said buddha taught it, and you claim that he didn't do you then deny the omniscience and enlightenment of all, who said he did?

Since many of the guru's teach this, and likely some of your own guru's, perhaps it is intellectual arrogance, to basically posit ones guru's are wrong.

Namdrol you are trained in Sakya, and you are quoting the position of sakya, and as HH the sakya trizin says

"There is a common misconception among many non-Buddhists (and even among certain Buddhists) that the Tantras are late and corrupt additions to the Buddha's Teachings. This is false. The Tantras are genuine teachings of the Lord Buddha, and they occupy a paramount position withtin the overall flamework of Buddhist doctrine. "

If HH, and undoubtedly many others guru's say your position is wrong, how can you continue?

You haven't read anything Namdrol wrote. Or you not adept at the English language.

It's clear I did read what Namdrol wrote, so is just your attempt to tell me i'm not adept at the English language? If your going to post a rude response like this, it's better to look at your own mind.

[Enochian]

It's clear I did read what Namdrol wrote, so is just your attempt to tell me i'm not adept at the English language? If your going to post a rude response like this, it's better to look at your own mind.

You don't think chastising a Sakya Loppon is rude?

Wow

You are clueless.

[Enochian]

You are saying The historical buddha did not teach them, at that time out of his mouth.

I am not saying he did or he didn't.

My point is that it seems the standard position of tibetan masters is that he did..

That is in no way the standard position.

[adinatha]

But anyways, this seems like a debate that's been going on a long time.. and people are still going on, without an agreed upon consensus.

If there were a consensus it would not be Buddhism.

[Malcolm]

You are saying The historical buddha did not teach them, at that time out of his mouth.

Correct. And there is no valid reason to presume that he did apart from someone's opinion.

[Malcolm]

My point is that it seems the standard position of tibetan masters is that he did.. therefore to those who said he did if you are saying he did not you are denying their omniscience?

Never met an omniscient master yet. Omniscience is overrated.

[PadmaVonSamba]

Tell me, why does it matter if what we call 'dharma" was actually taught by Sakyamuni or not?

I am not saying it doesn't matter--and i am not saying it does.
If you think it does, then i want to know the reason why.

This might seem like a pretty dumb question if you have a quick answer.
But then, ask "why is the reason (given by your answer) important?
And then, why is the reason in that answer important?

I would really like some good answers to this.

[PMTF]

hello PVS

'Dharma' is universal to Indian religions. Sakyamuni taught his unique dharma or Buddhadharma. My answer to your question is it is basic factualness, truthfulness and good manners to acknowledge Sakyamuni, through his own efforts & lucidity, discovered Buddhadharma. For example, if someone asks you to explain 'truth' to them and you do; and then they ask you: "Where did you learn that?", if you reply: "I learned that through by own spiritual endeavours" then that would kind of be not telling the whole story. It is sort of lying or bending the truth. For most of us, if not all of us, even if we have practised & awakened, the path, way or method was pointed out to us.

Is my reasoning reasonable or unreasonable?

[Jnana]

It is not that general. There must be a guru disciple lineage, which is linear.

Yes, but even here there are non-linear examples of short lineage.

Every guru had a guru. In the Dzogchen case, the situation is different b/c rainbow masters have specials samaya.

The point is that there's no need to maintain that vajrayāna was literally transmitted through Gautama.

[muni]

Tell me, why does it matter if what we call 'dharma" was actually taught by Sakyamuni or not?

I am not saying it doesn't matter--and i am not saying it does.
If you think it does, then i want to know the reason why.

This might seem like a pretty dumb question if you have a quick answer.
But then, ask "why is the reason (given by your answer) important?
And then, why is the reason in that answer important?

I would really like some good answers to this.

My coarse mind cannot see clear in the meaning of words/practices, is colored by ideas. And then sure that understanding needs no any and no any research at all, as adding opinions or deleting opinions.. is nothing more than my own shit, my own defilement. Scratching in the earth to find the sky.

"Buddha" is not like "Jesus", the true only son of God. If only one was awakenen, than all are sleeping heads running behind.

Teachers are there to help.

In case of doubt maybe by Buddhism is spreading in the west, north, south...and many back grounds, we can investigate respectfully or are helped here by those discussions and give us certainty and others as well.

Possible it can be very good to dig through, to undo all our doubts, and to see the game of ownership of truth.

[adinatha]

Yes, but even here there are non-linear examples of short lineage.

Every guru had a guru. In the Dzogchen case, the situation is different b/c rainbow masters have specials samaya.

The point is that there's no need to maintain that vajrayāna was literally transmitted through Gautama.

I talked to my teacher about this. He explained Chakrasamvara was taught by Buddha Shakyamuni in that Pitha in Pakistan to bodhisattvas. Bodhisattvas see Shakyamuni in Sambogakaya form. Only "Buddha to Buddha" can see Dharmakaya Buddha Vajradhara. Tilopa went to this place where the teaching is kept to this day by dakinis. Tilopa was Buddha level so he could see pure nature of mind, time and space had no limitation, and received the teaching directly from Dharmakaya Buddha Vajradhara, who is Shakyamuni.

[Astus]

This argument on that the Mahayana sutras and tantras were taught by the Buddha because the omniscient lama says so is very much like "The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it." That isn't an argument at all.

[muni]

This argument on that the Mahayana sutras and tantras were taught by the Buddha because the omniscient lama says so is very much like "The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it." That isn't an argument at all.

I believe it =dream.

no Lama can "give wisdom", only point a finger.

[Adamantine]

Every guru had a guru. In the Dzogchen case, the situation is different b/c rainbow masters have specials samaya.

The point is that there's no need to maintain that vajrayāna was literally transmitted through Gautama.

I talked to my teacher about this. He explained Chakrasamvara was taught by Buddha Shakyamuni in that Pitha in Pakistan to bodhisattvas. Bodhisattvas see Shakyamuni in Sambogakaya form. Only "Buddha to Buddha" can see Dharmakaya Buddha Vajradhara. Tilopa went to this place where the teaching is kept to this day by dakinis. Tilopa was Buddha level so he could see pure nature of mind, time and space had no limitation, and received the teaching directly from Dharmakaya Buddha Vajradhara, who is Shakyamuni.

Why would a Buddha need to receive teachings from a Buddha? Since Buddha's are beyond space and time limits why is there even an attempt to think about them in linear ways relating to lineage, and/or narratives about transmission?

"What do you think Subhuti, can the Tathagata be seen by means of possession of attributes?" Subhuti replied, "No, indeed, Bhagavan, the Tathagata cannot be seen by means of the possession of attributes. And why not? Bhagavan, what the Thatagata says is the possession of attributes is no possession of attributes."
Thus having been said, the Buddha told the venerable Subhuti, "Since the possession of attributes is an illusion, Subhuti, and no possession of attributes is no illusion, by means of attributes that are no attributes the Tathagata can, indeed, be seen."

One commentary on this passage from the Diamond Sutra by Tung-li says, :

The Buddha's three bodies are like a reflection on sunlit water. The incarnated body is the reflection. The reward body is the sunlight. And the real body is the water. Here, the Buddha tells Subhuti that if he wants to see the water, he needs to look past the reflection and the sunlight.

In the context of this debate, I'd go further with the metaphor and point out that at whatever vantage point an individual approaches the lake, the reflection of the sun will appear. To try to pin down the exact position of the sun's reflection on the body of water is like chasing a rainbow.