Buddhist fundamentalists?

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

Re: Buddhist fundamentalists?

Postby Malcolm » Tue Jun 07, 2011 2:18 pm

Caz wrote:
Namdrol wrote:
PadmaVonSamba wrote:I like how this conversation has turned. If Buddhists won't confront gender issues, who will?



It is not a gender issue. it is a transmission issue. Completely different issues.


So what exactly would be the problem with giving them these vows even if it is a dead transmission ? when one decides to keep morale discipline surely this helps toward mind training... :popcorn:



The vows then are just natural virtues, they do not have the force of continuous practice behind them, and since the lineage is broken, they no longer come from the Buddha.
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: 10202
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Buddhist fundamentalists?

Postby Caz » Tue Jun 07, 2011 3:04 pm

Namdrol wrote:The vows then are just natural virtues, they do not have the force of continuous practice behind them, and since the lineage is broken, they no longer come from the Buddha.


Well if you make and keep vows then they certainly have the force of continous effort behind them.
Still not seeing a problem with the Monks giving these Vows to aspiring nuns couldnt they just close their eyes and pretend they where male ? :jumping:
Abandoning Dharma is, in the final analysis, disparaging the Hinayana because of the Mahayana; favoring the Hinayana on account of the Mahayana; playing off sutra against tantra; playing off the four classes of the tantras against each other; favoring one of the Tibetan schools—the Sakya, Gelug, Kagyu, or Nyingma—and disparaging the rest; and so on. In other words, we abandon Dharma any time we favor our own tenets and disparage the rest.

Liberation in the Palm of your hand~Kyabje Pabongkha Rinpoche.
Caz
 
Posts: 539
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2011 12:49 am

Re: Buddhist fundamentalists?

Postby Malcolm » Tue Jun 07, 2011 3:09 pm

Caz wrote:
Namdrol wrote:The vows then are just natural virtues, they do not have the force of continuous practice behind them, and since the lineage is broken, they no longer come from the Buddha.


Well if you make and keep vows then they certainly have the force of continous effort behind them.



Not without a valid ordination. Without a valid ordination, you don't actually have the vows in question.
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: 10202
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Buddhist fundamentalists?

Postby adinatha » Tue Jun 07, 2011 3:29 pm

Arguing and fighting will always be there. I say make it fun.
CAW!
User avatar
adinatha
 
Posts: 886
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2011 4:07 am

Re: Buddhist fundamentalists?

Postby Caz » Tue Jun 07, 2011 3:33 pm

Namdrol wrote:
Caz wrote:
Namdrol wrote:The vows then are just natural virtues, they do not have the force of continuous practice behind them, and since the lineage is broken, they no longer come from the Buddha.


Well if you make and keep vows then they certainly have the force of continous effort behind them.



Not without a valid ordination. Without a valid ordination, you don't actually have the vows in question.



So if one vows to keep a precept, but however doesnt receive it from the correct place in question then even if it is kept it is not actually existant ? :spy:
Abandoning Dharma is, in the final analysis, disparaging the Hinayana because of the Mahayana; favoring the Hinayana on account of the Mahayana; playing off sutra against tantra; playing off the four classes of the tantras against each other; favoring one of the Tibetan schools—the Sakya, Gelug, Kagyu, or Nyingma—and disparaging the rest; and so on. In other words, we abandon Dharma any time we favor our own tenets and disparage the rest.

Liberation in the Palm of your hand~Kyabje Pabongkha Rinpoche.
Caz
 
Posts: 539
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2011 12:49 am

Re: Buddhist fundamentalists?

Postby Malcolm » Tue Jun 07, 2011 3:35 pm

Caz wrote:So if one vows to keep a precept, but however doesnt receive it from the correct place in question then even if it is kept it is not actually existant ? :spy:


correct
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: 10202
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Buddhist fundamentalists?

Postby Caz » Tue Jun 07, 2011 3:52 pm

Namdrol wrote:
Caz wrote:So if one vows to keep a precept, but however doesnt receive it from the correct place in question then even if it is kept it is not actually existant ? :spy:


correct


Okay Is there a source one can cite where Buddha explains as such ? :thanks:
Abandoning Dharma is, in the final analysis, disparaging the Hinayana because of the Mahayana; favoring the Hinayana on account of the Mahayana; playing off sutra against tantra; playing off the four classes of the tantras against each other; favoring one of the Tibetan schools—the Sakya, Gelug, Kagyu, or Nyingma—and disparaging the rest; and so on. In other words, we abandon Dharma any time we favor our own tenets and disparage the rest.

Liberation in the Palm of your hand~Kyabje Pabongkha Rinpoche.
Caz
 
Posts: 539
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2011 12:49 am

Re: Buddhist fundamentalists?

Postby Malcolm » Tue Jun 07, 2011 3:53 pm

Caz wrote:
Namdrol wrote:
Caz wrote:So if one vows to keep a precept, but however doesnt receive it from the correct place in question then even if it is kept it is not actually existant ? :spy:


correct


Okay Is there a source one can cite where Buddha explains as such ? :thanks:



This is all very clearly explained in Sakya Pandita's analysis of the three vows, etc.
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: 10202
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Buddhist fundamentalists?

Postby Will » Tue Jun 07, 2011 4:01 pm

Namdrol wrote:
Caz wrote:
Namdrol wrote:The vows then are just natural virtues, they do not have the force of continuous practice behind them, and since the lineage is broken, they no longer come from the Buddha.


Well if you make and keep vows then they certainly have the force of continous effort behind them.



Not without a valid ordination. Without a valid ordination, you don't actually have the vows in question.


There is an old technical term, (which I have forgotten) that refers to the bold words of Namdrol. This Force is a real, subtle energy that flows from those who keep the precepts purely to new monastics. If the precepts are broken, then no subtle Force or blessing that first started with our Buddha is available.
Revealing one essence: this means the inherently pure, complete, luminous essence, which is pure of its own nature. -- Fa-tsang
User avatar
Will
 
Posts: 1733
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 4:21 am

Re: Buddhist fundamentalists?

Postby Caz » Tue Jun 07, 2011 4:09 pm

Very Interesting thank you. :namaste:
Abandoning Dharma is, in the final analysis, disparaging the Hinayana because of the Mahayana; favoring the Hinayana on account of the Mahayana; playing off sutra against tantra; playing off the four classes of the tantras against each other; favoring one of the Tibetan schools—the Sakya, Gelug, Kagyu, or Nyingma—and disparaging the rest; and so on. In other words, we abandon Dharma any time we favor our own tenets and disparage the rest.

Liberation in the Palm of your hand~Kyabje Pabongkha Rinpoche.
Caz
 
Posts: 539
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2011 12:49 am

Re: Buddhist fundamentalists?

Postby kirtu » Tue Jun 07, 2011 5:02 pm

Will wrote:There is an old technical term, (which I have forgotten) that refers to the bold words of Namdrol. This Force is a real, subtle energy that flows from those who keep the precepts purely to new monastics. If the precepts are broken, then no subtle Force or blessing that first started with our Buddha is available.


But the vow is only considered physical in the Sravakayana, perhaps only in Theravada (as opposed to Sautranrika and Vaibhashika themselves - otherwise we could look in up in the Abhidarmakosa).

Kirt
Kirt's Tibetan Translation Notes

“All beings are Buddhas, but obscured by incidental stains. When those have been removed, there is Buddhahood.”
Hevajra Tantra
kirtu
Former staff member
 
Posts: 4106
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 5:29 pm
Location: Baltimore, MD

Re: Buddhist fundamentalists?

Postby Astus » Tue Jun 07, 2011 6:12 pm

Considering that there are quite a few Vinayas and pratimokshas it is a bit naive to think that all of them are directly from Shakyamuni himself. Understanding the history of Buddhism can actually facilitate the weakening of sectarianism, like Sects and Sectarianism by Bhikkhu Sujato. This crossing the barriers I think is a major task of 21st century global Buddhism.
"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: Buddhist fundamentalists?

Postby Malcolm » Tue Jun 07, 2011 8:33 pm

Astus wrote:Considering that there are quite a few Vinayas and pratimokshas it is a bit naive to think that all of them are directly from Shakyamuni himself. Understanding the history of Buddhism can actually facilitate the weakening of sectarianism, like Sects and Sectarianism by Bhikkhu Sujato. This crossing the barriers I think is a major task of 21st century global Buddhism.



All the vows come from the Buddha, they are just different transmissions.
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: 10202
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Buddhist fundamentalists?

Postby catmoon » Tue Jun 07, 2011 9:04 pm

I see fundamentalism everywhere in Buddhism, but that's just me really.

In my mind, fundamentalism is equated with the tendency to ignore reason, to be unwilling to entertain ideas that differ from one's own, and to be absolutely sure of ideas for which there is no proof.
Sergeant Schultz knew everything there was to know.
User avatar
catmoon
Former staff member
 
Posts: 2916
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 3:20 am
Location: British Columbia

Re: Buddhist fundamentalists?

Postby Astus » Wed Jun 08, 2011 8:47 am

Namdrol wrote:All the vows come from the Buddha, they are just different transmissions.


Since the vows are different the transmissions are corrupted - although the different pratimokshas are like 95% identical. We could say that since the Dharmaguptaka vows only have a few extra and minor rules compared to Theravada it is no big thing to make Dharmaguptaka a Theravada version. The idea of a transcendent "spirit of transmission", well, I better leave that to abhidharmikas.
"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: Buddhist fundamentalists?

Postby Sherab Dorje » Wed Jun 08, 2011 8:59 am

Geeez, and here was me, dumb ass that I am, thinking that enlightenment is enlightenment until a bunch of academics came along and proved me wrong. Now ordination is not ordination and somebody is gonna come along and say to me that Buddhism is not Buddhism.

Can somebody please remind me again exactly how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

While I agree that there must be some kind of continuity in the ordination lineages isn't it enough to just get three or more precept holders, regardless of lineage, to bestow the vows? What would happen if you got two precept holders from one lineage and one from another lineage together to give you the vows (for lack of three plus from a single lineage)? Would that mean your vows are not valid? I know it's highly hypothetical (or maybe it isn't really) but I am interested in what the answer is.

Thanks!
:namaste:
"When one is not in accord with the true view
Meditation and conduct become delusion,
One will not attain the real result
One will be like a blind man who has no eyes."
Naropa - Summary of the View from The Eight Doha Treasures
User avatar
Sherab Dorje
Former staff member
 
Posts: 7905
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Buddhist fundamentalists?

Postby Astus » Wed Jun 08, 2011 9:26 am

gregkavarnos wrote:Geeez, and here was me, dumb ass that I am, thinking that enlightenment is enlightenment until a bunch of academics came along and proved me wrong. Now ordination is not ordination and somebody is gonna come along and say to me that Buddhism is not Buddhism.

Can somebody please remind me again exactly how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

While I agree that there must be some kind of continuity in the ordination lineages isn't it enough to just get three or more precept holders, regardless of lineage, to bestow the vows? What would happen if you got two precept holders from one lineage and one from another lineage together to give you the vows (for lack of three plus from a single lineage)? Would that mean your vows are not valid? I know it's highly hypothetical (or maybe it isn't really) but I am interested in what the answer is.


It isn't hypothetical since that's what happened at nun ordinations for Theravada and Tibetan groups. You can also see now how Vinaya can be not much different from the Canon Law of the Catholic Church and how fundamentalism - or legalism - is very much present in the debate over ordaining nuns. But I think it's not difficult to find other incidents similar to that.
"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: Buddhist fundamentalists?

Postby Sherab Dorje » Wed Jun 08, 2011 9:36 am

This seems to be another defining characteristic of fundamentalism: giving emphasis to the "Letter of Law" rather than the "Spirit of Law".
:namaste:
"When one is not in accord with the true view
Meditation and conduct become delusion,
One will not attain the real result
One will be like a blind man who has no eyes."
Naropa - Summary of the View from The Eight Doha Treasures
User avatar
Sherab Dorje
Former staff member
 
Posts: 7905
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Buddhist fundamentalists?

Postby Caz » Wed Jun 08, 2011 10:48 am

Ooooh What If a women who was possing as a man took ordination from qaulified preceptors and it was only years later discovered that she was male would this invalidate her years of abiding by morale discipline ? ( That is if you mind the vow to not deceive preceptors ) :jumping:
Abandoning Dharma is, in the final analysis, disparaging the Hinayana because of the Mahayana; favoring the Hinayana on account of the Mahayana; playing off sutra against tantra; playing off the four classes of the tantras against each other; favoring one of the Tibetan schools—the Sakya, Gelug, Kagyu, or Nyingma—and disparaging the rest; and so on. In other words, we abandon Dharma any time we favor our own tenets and disparage the rest.

Liberation in the Palm of your hand~Kyabje Pabongkha Rinpoche.
Caz
 
Posts: 539
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2011 12:49 am

Re: Buddhist fundamentalists?

Postby Malcolm » Wed Jun 08, 2011 12:54 pm

Astus wrote:
Namdrol wrote:All the vows come from the Buddha, they are just different transmissions.


Since the vows are different the transmissions are corrupted...



No, this is merely due to regional differences.
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: 10202
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

PreviousNext

Return to Open Dharma

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MSNbot Media, Simon E. and 8 guests

>