Defining Buddhism - Theravada/Mahayana/Varayana

[adinatha]

But tell me adinatha, do you have anything against what Namdrol said, regarding giving credit to a text for its content instead of its authorship?
Edit: I mean, is it important for you that the tantras or mahayana sutras were actually spoken by Gautama? If so, why? This is not any sort of trick question. I just want to understand your POV.

My POV is that opinions about this sort of things are pointless, because the truth or falsity is never going to make itself known. Gautama very well could have uttered every word of the tantras. No one will ever be able to say otherwise definitively. Every tantra could have been a total lie. We will just never know. I agree with Namdrol that the content, whether it works is what counts. Also my belief is that making scholarly opinions about what is authentically taught by the Buddha and not creates problems for people. It can harms someone's faith. That's bad. It's one thing to show someone the truth, even if it hurts. But it's entirely another to present scholarly opinions disguised as facts. I will stomp on that every time, because it's misleading.

[adinatha]

All this theorizing about what was really said or not by the Buddha is totally specious bullshit.

I'm guessing that you probably have little interest in inter-tradition Buddhist dialogue; more comfortable in your self-confirming thought-world. That's fine. I consider the responses you're offering here to be deficient, irrational, regressive, and rigid. But if you have no interest in this subject why are you intent on posting in this thread? What should you care about contemporary text-critical analysis and related matters? Continue down your rabbit hole.

Your opinions have yet to touch the main point, that your opinions are just opinions with no factual foundation. You are in the rabbit hole of your opinions. Yes, let's have an inter-tradition dialogue. Where are the facts? I'm still waiting.

[adinatha]

This is where the wheat gets separated from the chaff. Some will feel inspired by Buddhadharma while others won't. Some will feel inspired to a certain point while others won't be able to overcome some deluded (from a Buddhist perspective) intellectual positions. This is what defines the capacity of the practitioner. What you choose to put to the test by means of dedicated practice.

It's a pluralistic world. I sometimes find myself engaged with practitioners from various traditions. Parroting worn out vajrayāna catchphrases is completely unskillful in such contexts. A more integrated hermeneutic is needed. It's all about communication, relationship, and practice.

I can understand that. But you can't try to please everyone by going for the lowest common denominator. I deal strictly with factual evidence. Mere supposition and guesswork is the fountain of bullshit. My worst nightmare is that my world becomes a world of pseudo-intellectual bullshitters masquerading as yogis. Facts are like Manjushri's sword. The most common fact is that there is no fact supporting anything the whole school of thought relies upon. When that is the case, chop chop.

[muni]

Academici looking down to simple practicioners? Not new like in Indian hi(story) as well. The expression about: beautiful birds proudly talking in their cage while little birds fly free, free of any beliefs or ideas "about".

For samsaras' rightnenesses, or debats' deepening insight and welfare of all, that's the question. Like some metaphors are also words, as expression of genuine practice, not historical right scripts..


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPgh02VwZAI

[Tilopa]

My worst nightmare is that my world becomes a world of pseudo-intellectual bullshitters masquerading as yogis.

In that case it might be better not to spend too much time here at Dharma Wheel.

[Jnana]

My POV is that opinions about this sort of things are pointless, because the truth or falsity is never going to make itself known. Gautama very well could have uttered every word of the tantras. No one will ever be able to say otherwise definitively.

The criteria that your extreme demands would require for "proof" cannot be satisfied. That doesn't mean that reasoned analysis cannot proceed coherently for others. You've simply set an unreasonable, false standard. As far as I'm concerned, if you think that the śramaṇa who initiated the dispensation in the 5th century BCE also taught the anuttarayoga tantras then either you are using faulty hermeneutics or you're intent upon living in a mythological worldview.

Also my belief is that making scholarly opinions about what is authentically taught by the Buddha and not creates problems for people. It can harms someone's faith. That's bad.

What's harmful in this day and age is being unable to successfully move between rational and trans-rational levels of understanding; instead regressing to pre-rational worldviews. This isn't a very functional place to be in the 21st century.

I will stomp on that every time, because it's misleading.

Your methods are very similar to those employed by the climate change deniers.

[Adamantine]

My worst nightmare is that my world becomes a world of pseudo-intellectual bullshitters masquerading as yogis.

In that case it might be better not spend too much time here at Dharma Wheel.

[Jnana]

I deal strictly with factual evidence.

You're either bullshitting yourself or trying to bullshit everyone else.

[Jnana]

The conversation turned sour because some people here were trying to discredit
Vajrayana view and practice regarding karmamudra, which is
a very important element of Vajrayana. In this pluralistic world, doing that was
very unskillful.

Vajrayāna practitioners should be able to take a hit without trying to bitchslap everyone in retaliation. It's the indestructible, adamantine vehicle after all.

[Sönam]

I'm just coming in that thread, and as often I did'nt read all pages (just 2-3 last ones) ...

What is important in the DharmaBuddha is the efficiency of the proposed method, and because there is no chance/hazard the method you receive (proposed to you) is the one that fit you ... and if it works for you it's fine, wether it comes from Sakyamuni, Garab Dorje, or an extraterrestrial.
The only proof you will have will be the success of the method applied ... there could not be other proof. As for the debate, and because you are ready to debate, it's to rely on spontaneity of tathagatagarbha ...

but maybe I'm out of the discussion
Sönam

[Astus]

Looking for evidence? Should try some reading first.

A history of Indian Buddhism: from Śākyamuni to early Mahāyāna by Akira Hirakawa, Paul Groner
Introduction to the History of Indian Buddhism by Eugène Burnouf, Katia Buffetrille, Donald S. Lopez
Indian Buddhism by A. K. Warder
Figments and fragments of Mahāyāna Buddhism in India: more collected papers by Gregory Schopen
Bones, stones, and Buddhist monks: collected papers on the archaeology, epigraphy, and texts of monastic Buddhism in India by Gregory Schopen
Bodhisattvas of the forest and the formation of the Mahāyāna: a study and translation of the Rāṣṭrapālaparipr̥cchā-sūtra by Daniel Boucher
Indian esoteric Buddhism: a social history of the Tantric movement by Ronald M. Davidson

[muni]

My worst nightmare is that my world becomes a world of pseudo-intellectual bullshitters masquerading as yogis.

In that case it might be better not to spend too much time here at Dharma Wheel.

one can only watch minds' movie or being dragged in it.

[Astus]

The idea that the proof lies simply in personal testing is a bit risky. Followers of every other religion have loads of testimonies how God, gods, angels, saints, etc. helped the faithful in myriad ways. Also, as the Buddha explained in different texts, like the Brahmajala Sutta, followers of other doctrines base their views on what they have experienced.

[muni]

The idea that the proof lies simply in personal testing is a bit risky. Followers of every other religion have loads of testimonies how God, gods, angels, saints, etc. helped the faithful in myriad ways. Also, as the Buddha explained in different texts, like the Brahmajala Sutta, followers of other doctrines base their views on what they have experienced.

No practice without guidance of "those who understand", or without teachings.

[Astus]

No practice without guidance of "those who understand", or without teachings.

Thus the reason for investigating what the correct teaching is, that may include historical validity too.

[muni]

No practice without guidance of "those who understand", or without teachings.

Thus the reason for investigating what the correct teaching is, that may include historical validity too.

There is nothing wrong in it, Astus, as long as we get not lost in it and turn the medicine of the many teachings in poison by clinging. We can only see this clear in own mind. My two cents.

About practice His Holiness the Dalai Lama said ones: " A rabbit can sit so peaceful, two front paws nicely together, only that little nose is moving. Like sitting in deep samadhi. But then another one is coming on its' ground. So teachings' importance.

[fragrant herbs]

Janana, thank you so much for all of your posts, for the history lesson and the proofs, plus the list of books. I now know what direction I need to go in.

[Adamantine]

The conversation turned sour because some people here were trying to discredit
Vajrayana view and practice regarding karmamudra, which is
a very important element of Vajrayana. In this pluralistic world, doing that was
very unskillful.

Vajrayāna practitioners should be able to take a hit without trying to bitchslap everyone in retaliation. It's the indestructible, adamantine vehicle after all.

You're right, some of the reactions haven't been skillful either..
But that doesn't change the unskillfulness that set this
all in motion, and that makes your point on the matter
a bit ironic.

Hopefully on this Saga Dawa Duchen people can
try to be more skillful all-around: at least for a day people?
What do you think? More kindness, less cursing?
Right speech also applies to typing ya know!

[Malcolm]

Also my belief is that making scholarly opinions about what is authentically taught by the Buddha and not creates problems for people. It can harms someone's faith. That's bad. It's one thing to show someone the truth, even if it hurts. But it's entirely another to present scholarly opinions disguised as facts. I will stomp on that every time, because it's misleading.

Then you should be stomping down on all four lineages presentation of history of Buddhist tantra since all of them are in conflict, use different indian sources or engage in pure speculation, etc.

N

[Malcolm]

The most common fact is that there is no fact supporting anything the whole school of thought relies upon. When that is the case, chop chop.

Right. Therefore, the idea that Shakyamuni Buddha taught the tantras is best treated as a legend, with no more objective truth value than the Theravadin legend that he taught Abhidhamma in the heavens.

N