Defining Buddhism - Theravada/Mahayana/Varayana

No holds barred discussion on the Buddhadharma. Argue about rebirth, karma, commentarial interpretations etc. Be nice to each other.

Re: Defining Buddhism - Theravada/Mahayana/Varayana

Postby adinatha » Thu Jun 16, 2011 1:28 am

Jñāna wrote:
adinatha wrote:
Jñāna wrote: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.
CAW!
User avatar
adinatha
 
Posts: 886
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2011 4:07 am

Re: Defining Buddhism - Theravada/Mahayana/Varayana

Postby Sonam Wangchug » Thu Jun 16, 2011 1:34 am

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?
Sonam Wangchug
 
Posts: 47
Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 8:26 pm

Re: Defining Buddhism - Theravada/Mahayana/Varayana

Postby Jnana » Thu Jun 16, 2011 1:35 am

adinatha wrote: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.
Jnana
 
Posts: 1106
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 12:58 pm

Re: Defining Buddhism - Theravada/Mahayana/Varayana

Postby adinatha » Thu Jun 16, 2011 1:40 am

Jñāna wrote:
adinatha wrote: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.
CAW!
User avatar
adinatha
 
Posts: 886
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2011 4:07 am

Re: Defining Buddhism - Theravada/Mahayana/Varayana

Postby Malcolm » Thu Jun 16, 2011 2:17 am

Sonam Wangchug wrote:
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?
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

" The one who teaches the benefits of peace,
he is said to be a ṛṣī; the others are the opposite of him."

-- Uttaratantra
Malcolm
 
Posts: 10169
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Defining Buddhism - Theravada/Mahayana/Varayana

Postby Enochian » Thu Jun 16, 2011 2:31 am

Sonam Wangchug wrote: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.
There is an ever-present freedom from grasping the mind.

Mind being defined as the thing always on the Three Times.
Enochian
 
Posts: 364
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 8:19 pm

Re: Defining Buddhism - Theravada/Mahayana/Varayana

Postby Sonam Wangchug » Thu Jun 16, 2011 2:50 am

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.
Enochian wrote:
Sonam Wangchug wrote: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.
Sonam Wangchug
 
Posts: 47
Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 8:26 pm

Re: Defining Buddhism - Theravada/Mahayana/Varayana

Postby Enochian » Thu Jun 16, 2011 2:59 am

Sonam Wangchug wrote: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.
There is an ever-present freedom from grasping the mind.

Mind being defined as the thing always on the Three Times.
Enochian
 
Posts: 364
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 8:19 pm

Re: Defining Buddhism - Theravada/Mahayana/Varayana

Postby Enochian » Thu Jun 16, 2011 3:10 am

Sonam Wangchug wrote: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. :rolling:
There is an ever-present freedom from grasping the mind.

Mind being defined as the thing always on the Three Times.
Enochian
 
Posts: 364
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 8:19 pm

Re: Defining Buddhism - Theravada/Mahayana/Varayana

Postby adinatha » Thu Jun 16, 2011 3:13 am

Sonam Wangchug wrote: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.
CAW!
User avatar
adinatha
 
Posts: 886
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2011 4:07 am

Re: Defining Buddhism - Theravada/Mahayana/Varayana

Postby Malcolm » Thu Jun 16, 2011 3:17 am

Sonam Wangchug wrote: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.
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

" The one who teaches the benefits of peace,
he is said to be a ṛṣī; the others are the opposite of him."

-- Uttaratantra
Malcolm
 
Posts: 10169
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Defining Buddhism - Theravada/Mahayana/Varayana

Postby Malcolm » Thu Jun 16, 2011 3:18 am

Sonam Wangchug wrote: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.
Last edited by Malcolm on Thu Jun 16, 2011 3:31 am, edited 1 time in total.
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

" The one who teaches the benefits of peace,
he is said to be a ṛṣī; the others are the opposite of him."

-- Uttaratantra
Malcolm
 
Posts: 10169
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Defining Buddhism - Theravada/Mahayana/Varayana

Postby PadmaVonSamba » Thu Jun 16, 2011 3:25 am

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.
Profile Picture: "The Foaming Monk"
The Chinese characters are Fo (buddha) and Ming (bright). The image is of a student of Buddhism, who, imagining himself to be a monk, and not understanding the true meaning of the words takes the sound of the words literally. Likewise, People on web forums sometime seem to be foaming at the mouth.
Original painting by P.Volker /used by permission.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
 
Posts: 2800
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Defining Buddhism - Theravada/Mahayana/Varayana

Postby PMTF » Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:51 am

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?

:thanks:
User avatar
PMTF
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 9:55 pm

Re: Defining Buddhism - Theravada/Mahayana/Varayana

Postby Jnana » Thu Jun 16, 2011 7:23 am

adinatha wrote:
Jñāna wrote:
adinatha wrote: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.
Jnana
 
Posts: 1106
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 12:58 pm

Re: Defining Buddhism - Theravada/Mahayana/Varayana

Postby muni » Thu Jun 16, 2011 8:07 am

PadmaVonSamba wrote: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.
muni
 
Posts: 2735
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:59 am

Re: Defining Buddhism - Theravada/Mahayana/Varayana

Postby adinatha » Thu Jun 16, 2011 8:19 am

Jñāna wrote:
adinatha wrote:
Jñāna wrote: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.
CAW!
User avatar
adinatha
 
Posts: 886
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2011 4:07 am

Re: Defining Buddhism - Theravada/Mahayana/Varayana

Postby Astus » Thu Jun 16, 2011 9:14 am

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.
"There is no such thing as the real mind. Ridding yourself of delusion: that's the real mind."
(Sheng-yen: Getting the Buddha Mind, p 73)

“Don’t rashly seek the true Buddha;
True Buddha can’t be found.
Does marvelous nature and spirit
Need tempering or refinement?
Mind is this mind carefree;
This face, the face at birth."

(Nanyue Mingzan: Enjoying the Way, tr. Jeff Shore; T51n2076, p461b24-26)
User avatar
Astus
Former staff member
 
Posts: 4126
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Budapest

Re: Defining Buddhism - Theravada/Mahayana/Varayana

Postby muni » Thu Jun 16, 2011 10:01 am

Astus wrote: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.
muni
 
Posts: 2735
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:59 am

Re: Defining Buddhism - Theravada/Mahayana/Varayana

Postby Adamantine » Thu Jun 16, 2011 10:36 am

adinatha wrote:
Jñāna wrote:
adinatha wrote:
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.
Contentment is the ultimate wealth;
Detachment is the final happiness. ~Sri Saraha
User avatar
Adamantine
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 2680
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 7:09 am

PreviousNext

Return to Open Dharma

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Anders, Dan74, gentle_monster, Simon E. and 21 guests

>