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 » Wed Jun 08, 2011 12:56 pm

gregkavarnos wrote:
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?


IF they can't recite posadha together [they can't], then what makes you think they can transmit vows together, and whose would they transmit? The reduced rule set of Theravada, or the expanded rule set of the other two?
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: 10187
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Buddhist fundamentalists?

Postby Sherab Dorje » Wed Jun 08, 2011 1:02 pm

Namdrol wrote:IF they can't recite posadha together [they can't], then what makes you think they can transmit vows together, and whose would they transmit? The reduced rule set of Theravada, or the expanded rule set of the other two?
Why can't they recite the posadha together? Language differences?

I imagine they would have to transmit the reduced set since all three would hold all the vows (again I imagine) contained in the smallest set.
: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: 7899
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Buddhist fundamentalists?

Postby Malcolm » Wed Jun 08, 2011 1:30 pm

gregkavarnos wrote:
Namdrol wrote:IF they can't recite posadha together [they can't], then what makes you think they can transmit vows together, and whose would they transmit? The reduced rule set of Theravada, or the expanded rule set of the other two?
Why can't they recite the posadha together? Language differences?

I imagine they would have to transmit the reduced set since all three would hold all the vows (again I imagine) contained in the smallest set.
:namaste:


They can't recite posadha together because the vows are given in different orders, and in the case of the Theravada vows, there are 30 o so less vows.

So what you are basically suggesting is that we scrap Mulasarvastivada and Dharmaguptaka. But if you do that, you will scrap the nuns vows in Dharmaguptaka, since they died out in the other two orders (and the reason for their dying out is a gender issue). If you want nuns vows in Thervavada and Tibetan Buddhism, either Theravada and Mulasarvastivada needs to be scrapped, or, things remain at the status quo i.e. nuns who want a valid ordination get that from the Dharmaguptaka lineage.

Someone mentioned that monks form Tibetan Buddhism and Theravada were present at these nuns ordinations -- yes, they were, but not as members of the required quorum. They were present as guests and observers.

Then there is the additional gender issue of the 80 odd extra vows nuns must keep in addition to the monks vows. This is unfair. But will these be scrapped? No. Should they be scrapped, no.

Are all monastic sanghas going to collapse in the next 500 years? Definitely.

Should we be sad? No.

Will there still be Buddhist practice even though the monastic sangha is no more? Yes.

N
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: 10187
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Buddhist fundamentalists?

Postby Sherab Dorje » Wed Jun 08, 2011 1:46 pm

Namdrol wrote:They can't recite posadha together because the vows are given in different orders...
This is hardly a problem, I mean will the vows lose their significance if they are recited in a different order (like if they changed the order so they could recite it together)?

...and in the case of the Theravada vows, there are 30 o so less vows.
So I guess they could only ordained based on the smaller set of vows.

So what you are basically suggesting is that we scrap Mulasarvastivada and Dharmaguptaka...
I ain't suggesting nothing, I am just trying to understand the issue and like I said here:
gregkavarnos wrote: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.

The rest is a projection of what you believe I believe (plus a bit of rhetoric).

By the way, how did you arrive at the 500 year figure for the collapse of the monastic sangha?
: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: 7899
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Buddhist fundamentalists?

Postby Malcolm » Wed Jun 08, 2011 1:53 pm

gregkavarnos wrote:
Namdrol wrote:They can't recite posadha together because the vows are given in different orders...
This is hardly a problem, I mean will the vows lose their significance if they are recited in a different order (like if they changed the order so they could recite it together)?



The vows are significant as a whole, they cannot be traded out like playing cards, for one's convenience. This is why for example, Atisha was never able to recite posadha vows with monks in Tibet.


...and in the case of the Theravada vows, there are 30 o so less vows.
So I guess they could only ordained based on the smaller set of vows.


So you are suggesting we scrap the monastic vows of Tibetan Buddhism.


By the way, how did you arrive at the 500 year figure for the collapse of the monastic sangha?
:namaste:


Educated guess.

N
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: 10187
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Buddhist fundamentalists?

Postby Sherab Dorje » Wed Jun 08, 2011 1:56 pm

Namdrol wrote:So you are suggesting we scrap the monastic vows of Tibetan Buddhism.
You gonna stop with the projections at some point in time or what?
I repeat( for the third time): I ain't suggesting nothing, I'm just trying to understand the issue.
:namaste:
PS What is the nature of the 30 extra vows for monks? Is it like a whole section (a unit of extra vows) or are they spread amongst the other "categories" of vows. I have read the Theravadra vows but have not seen the lists of vows from the other lineages.
"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: 7899
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Buddhist fundamentalists?

Postby Malcolm » Wed Jun 08, 2011 2:03 pm

gregkavarnos wrote:
Namdrol wrote:So you are suggesting we scrap the monastic vows of Tibetan Buddhism.
You gonna stop with the projections at some point in time or what?
I repeat( for the third time): I ain't suggesting nothing, I'm just trying to understand the issue.
:namaste:
PS What is the nature of the 30 extra vows for monks? Is it like a whole section (a unit of extra vows) or are they spread amongst the other "categories" of vows. I have read the Theravadra vows but have not seen the lists of vows from the other lineages.



If you say "adopt reduced set of vows" this is the same as suggesting we scrap the monastic tradition of Tibetan Buddhism.
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: 10187
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Buddhist fundamentalists?

Postby Sherab Dorje » Wed Jun 08, 2011 2:17 pm

Namdrol wrote:If you say "adopt reduced set of vows" this is the same as suggesting we scrap the monastic tradition of Tibetan Buddhism.
Dear Namdrol,
1. During this whole discussion I have been talking within the context of the hypothetical situation I formulated way back here posting.php?mode=quote&f=66&p=43512#pr43488
2. If you don't want to help me understand that's fine, but there is no reason to generate hostility/conflict where none exists.
: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: 7899
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Buddhist fundamentalists?

Postby Malcolm » Wed Jun 08, 2011 2:23 pm

gregkavarnos wrote:
Namdrol wrote:If you say "adopt reduced set of vows" this is the same as suggesting we scrap the monastic tradition of Tibetan Buddhism.
Dear Namdrol,
1. During this whole discussion I have been talking within the context of the hypothetical situation I formulated way back here posting.php?mode=quote&f=66&p=43512#pr43488
2. If you don't want to help me understand that's fine, but there is no reason to generate hostility/conflict where none exists.
:namaste:



The key point is this: the Mūlasatvastivadas, the Theravadins and the Dharmaguptakas all have their own Vinaya tradition. They are not interchangeable, though some wish it were so.

Traditionally, each vinaya tradition came from one of Buddha's arhat disciples. So for example, Mulasarvastivada came from Rahula; Thervada from Upali, and so on.

Each vinaya has its own oral tradition and explanations of the vows, as well as procedures for ordination. They are not interchangeable.
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: 10187
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Buddhist fundamentalists?

Postby Astus » Wed Jun 08, 2011 2:56 pm

Namdrol wrote:The key point is this: the Mūlasatvastivadas, the Theravadins and the Dharmaguptakas all have their own Vinaya tradition. They are not interchangeable, though some wish it were so.

Traditionally, each vinaya tradition came from one of Buddha's arhat disciples. So for example, Mulasarvastivada came from Rahula; Thervada from Upali, and so on.

Each vinaya has its own oral tradition and explanations of the vows, as well as procedures for ordination. They are not interchangeable.


That can be said supposing that there is something more to those precepts besides what is actually written down. But there isn't.
"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 » Wed Jun 08, 2011 3:02 pm

Astus wrote:
Namdrol wrote:The key point is this: the Mūlasatvastivadas, the Theravadins and the Dharmaguptakas all have their own Vinaya tradition. They are not interchangeable, though some wish it were so.

Traditionally, each vinaya tradition came from one of Buddha's arhat disciples. So for example, Mulasarvastivada came from Rahula; Thervada from Upali, and so on.

Each vinaya has its own oral tradition and explanations of the vows, as well as procedures for ordination. They are not interchangeable.


That can be said supposing that there is something more to those precepts besides what is actually written down. But there isn't.



Astus:

Based on this statement, and your confusion about Dzogchen in the other thread, one thing is clear: you do not understand the concept of transmission. You cannot get transmission from a book.

N
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: 10187
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Buddhist fundamentalists?

Postby Astus » Wed Jun 08, 2011 3:22 pm

Namdrol wrote:Based on this statement, and your confusion about Dzogchen in the other thread, one thing is clear: you do not understand the concept of transmission. You cannot get transmission from a book.


Indeed. I was thinking about starting a separate topic on transmission.
"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 PadmaVonSamba » Wed Jun 08, 2011 4:04 pm

Namdrol wrote:
If you say "....." this is the same as suggesting ....."


I deleted the specifics.
Practicing right speech can also mean not putting words into the mouth of someone else. If you disagree with what someone asserts, don't argue about comparisons and analogies that you yourself assume. Take time to understand what the other person is really saying and refer to that, or explain why you disagree.
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: Buddhist fundamentalists?

Postby Malcolm » Wed Jun 08, 2011 4:05 pm

PadmaVonSamba wrote:
Namdrol wrote:
If you say "....." this is the same as suggesting ....."


I deleted the specifics.
Practicing right speech can also mean not putting words into the mouth of someone else. If you disagree with what someone asserts, don't argue about comparisons and analogies that you yourself assume. Take time to understand what the other person is really saying and refer to that, or explain why you disagree.



Pretty useless post.
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: 10187
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Buddhist fundamentalists?

Postby Dechen Norbu » Wed Jun 08, 2011 5:12 pm

There are consequences that result from affirming a certain proposition.
Pointing them is not ad hominem.
Namdrol says that "adopting a reduced set of vows" is the same as suggesting "scraping the monastic tradition of Tibetan Buddhism".
Him being right or wrong is besides the point. He finds that affirming the first is the same as affirming the second. It's his probably informed opinion and he is entitled to it. He is not saying that Greg ill willingly means to scrap the monastic tradition of TB, but that his proposition is equivalent to doing just that. That is not even a moral judgment, let alone ad hominem argumentation.
Some people seem to be oversensitive these days and need to grow up (this is ad hominem, but not directed at anyone in particular :smile: ). When their opinions are countered they immediately assume it's a personal attack, for goodness sake! This makes debate nearly absurd since one spends most of the time worrying about threading so lightly to avoid offending overly nurtured egos that feel attacked by pretty much anything that isn't in accordance with their wishes.
User avatar
Dechen Norbu
 
Posts: 2798
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 6:50 pm

Re: Buddhist fundamentalists?

Postby Sherab Dorje » Wed Jun 08, 2011 5:44 pm

Dechen Norbu wrote:...He is not saying that Greg ill willingly means to scrap the monastic tradition of TB, but that his proposition is equivalent to doing just that.
Except that I didn't make a proposition but a suposition and I had to blatantly state three times that I was not trying to do anything more than understand the situation. So really there was a fair quantity of projection happening, and anyway since when were you Namdrols lawyer DN? :tongue:
:namaste:
PS Lets not derail the thread any further.
"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: 7899
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Buddhist fundamentalists?

Postby Malcolm » Wed Jun 08, 2011 5:50 pm

gregkavarnos wrote:
Dechen Norbu wrote:...He is not saying that Greg ill willingly means to scrap the monastic tradition of TB, but that his proposition is equivalent to doing just that.
Except that I didn't make a proposition but a suposition and I had to blatantly state three times that I was not trying to do anything more than understand the situation. So really there was a fair quantity of projection happening, and anyway since when were you Namdrols lawyer DN? :tongue:
:namaste:
PS Lets not derail the thread any further.



Greg:

There was not projection, it is a way of showing you the consequences of your suggestion.
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: 10187
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Buddhist fundamentalists?

Postby PadmaVonSamba » Wed Jun 08, 2011 5:52 pm

Namdrol wrote:
PadmaVonSamba wrote:
Namdrol wrote:
If you say "....." this is the same as suggesting ....."


I deleted the specifics.
Practicing right speech can also mean not putting words into the mouth of someone else. If you disagree with what someone asserts, don't argue about comparisons and analogies that you yourself assume. Take time to understand what the other person is really saying and refer to that, or explain why you disagree.



Pretty useless post.



Everything is useless if you don't learn from it.
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: Buddhist fundamentalists?

Postby Malcolm » Wed Jun 08, 2011 5:56 pm

PadmaVonSamba wrote:
Everything is useless if you don't learn from it.



Yes, so you must take your own advice.
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: 10187
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Buddhist fundamentalists?

Postby pueraeternus » Wed Jun 08, 2011 6:00 pm

Namdrol wrote:The key point is this: the Mūlasatvastivadas, the Theravadins and the Dharmaguptakas all have their own Vinaya tradition. They are not interchangeable, though some wish it were so.

Traditionally, each vinaya tradition came from one of Buddha's arhat disciples. So for example, Mulasarvastivada came from Rahula; Thervada from Upali, and so on.

Each vinaya has its own oral tradition and explanations of the vows, as well as procedures for ordination. They are not interchangeable.


Just a thought: in all the sutric accounts of the Buddha's parinirvana, he said the sangha is free to remove the minor rules if they so wish after his death. This would mean he gave the permission to alter the vinaya. Would this be a valid reason to recreate the Theravadin and Mulsarvastivadin bhikshuni lineage by altering the existing bhikshu vinaya vows of the respective sects?
When I set out to lead humanity along my Golden Path I promised a lesson their bones would remember. I know a profound pattern humans deny with words even while their actions affirm it. They say they seek security and quiet, conditions they call peace. Even as they speak, they create seeds of turmoil and violence.

- Leto II, the God Emperor
User avatar
pueraeternus
 
Posts: 690
Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2010 3:10 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Open Dharma

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Alfredo, smcj and 13 guests

>