Renunciation Impossible?

[Adamantine]

academic gibberish. why are you quoting it?

It fits well the situation. Those arguing for a decline also posit their form of Buddhism as appropriate for this rotten age. So it is more a rhetorical device than anything else, as it has been used as such for a long time now in Buddhism.

Please use examples of "those arguing for a decline". Even the framework you derive from this nonsense is not accurate: who is arguing with who? This doesn't reflect the examples I am familiar with. . In general the predictions end with the Dharma completely disappearing from the world system, not one superior system of Dharma conquering all. -- If realized masters such as Guru Rinpoche made predictions and left terma for example as appropriate teachings and practice for our present time, you can look at this in the cynical view of a non-practitioner with their own subjective spin for the purposes of sounding smart and keeping a cohesive and aloof thesis- or you can faithfully look with the view of a realized being whose only motivation is to benefit beings of the three times, informed by wisdom awareness. How is the former useful for Dharma, and why would one have faith in that view other than that it may reflect one's own predilection for cynical (or pseudo-optimistic) materialism?

[Jnana]

If realized masters such as Guru Rinpoche made predictions and left terma for example as appropriate teachings and practice for our present time, you can look at this in the cynical view of a non-practitioner with their own subjective spin for the purposes of sounding smart and keeping a cohesive and aloof thesis- or you can faithfully look with the view of a realized being whose only motivation is to benefit beings of the three times, informed by wisdom awareness.

Sorry, but your two alternatives are both quite ridiculous.

How is the former useful for Dharma, and why would one have faith in that view other than that it may reflect one's own predilection for cynical (or pseudo-optimistic) materialism?

Fallacious conclusion.

[Adamantine]

Sorry, but your two alternatives are both quite ridiculous.

Then show how they are "ridiculous"; saying it is so doesn't make it so. You're actually proposing that achieving Buddhahood is ridiculous on a Buddhist forum? That masters such as Padmasambhava did not have extraordinary siddhis? But that self-serving mundane academics can know the minds of masters from hundreds of years ago? I guess you ascribe extraordinary perception to the academics, so that must be your religion.

Fallacious conclusion.

Well I say your labeling it a fallacious conclusion is a fallacious conclusion. Shall we see how long we can keep this going?

[Jnana]

Sorry, but your two alternatives are both quite ridiculous.

Then show how they are "ridiculous"; saying it is so doesn't make it so.

Calling Hubbard's opinion "academic gibberish" doesn't make it so either.

If you want to take ancient Indian cosmology or visionary narrative as literal truth that's your choice. But it's quite inaccurate to suggest that everyone who disagrees with your choice is some species of cynical non-practicing materialist. There are more than two alternatives available here.

You're actually proposing that achieving Buddhahood is ridiculous on a Buddhist forum? That masters such as Padmasambhava did not have extraordinary siddhis? But that self-serving mundane academics can know the minds of masters from hundreds of years ago? I guess you ascribe extraordinary perception to the academics, so that must be your religion.

None of this warrants any reply. If you choose to paint everyone who disagrees with you as some form of caricature, then that's your problem. Don't expect me to take it seriously.

[Adamantine]

If you want to take ancient Indian cosmology or visionary narrative as literal truth that's your choice.

I didn't think we were discussing either ancient Indian cosmology or visionary narrative. I thought the discussion was about the future predictions that realized lineage masters made about the degeneration of this and future ages.

But it's quite inaccurate to suggest that everyone who disagrees with your choice is some species of cynical non-practicing materialist. There are more than two alternatives available here.

Having studied at a university and spent a great deal of time in academic pursuits and with professors and having had many of my peers go on to develop academic careers I think I have a good grasp of the mental framework that fabricates a thesis. Using variations of the same historical data a great number of convincing possible thesis can be made. You could randomly choose to trust any of them, since they may seductively sound compelling despite opposing each other. I have not read Hubbards book but the excerpt was enough for me to get the gist. In general, I prefer to receive opinions on matters concerning Dharma from those trained in the practice of Dharma, who have developed a degree of extraordinary insight themselves and not just a speculative ordinary intellectual insight that is highly uncertain and unstable.

[Astus]

Adamantine,

Examples from this thread is in the OP itself: this is the age of decline, therefore renunciation is impossible as a path, the path all can use is Vajrayana. This is practically negating the validity of all the other Buddhist teachings and selecting Vajrayana as the sole option. The book the quote is from is about a long ago extinct Chinese school that first propagated the presence of the age of decline. We can also find similar arguments in sutras, most prominently those that are associated with the Pure Land practice as the Pure Land school itself claims that in the age of decline it is the best path to choose.

You may disregard the careful study of Buddhism and put aside other teachings than those you like the most. But I think it is understandable for you that not everyone shares your view regarding Padmasambhava and other Tibetan Buddhist concepts.

[Jnana]

I didn't think we were discussing either ancient Indian cosmology or visionary narrative.

If you're arguing for the literal interpretation of these matters as found in Tibetan termas, then it concerns both.

I thought the discussion was about the future predictions that realized lineage masters made about the degeneration of this and future ages.

And who's "realized lineage masters" would those be??? Yours, I suppose....

I prefer to receive opinions on matters concerning Dharma from those trained in the practice of Dharma, who have developed a degree of extraordinary insight themselves

Sounds to me like you prefer a Tibetocentric bias.

[Malcolm]

This is practically negating the validity of all the other Buddhist teachings

Not really, since if you examine things carefully, Mantrayāna is the only Indian Buddhist tradition that asserts full Buddhahood in one lifetime is actually a possibility.

All other Indian Buddhist traditions of which we have knowledge, Mahāyāna or not, assert that at minimum full awakening is impossible in less then three incalculable eons.

[Malcolm]

Sounds to me like you prefer a Tibetocentric bias.

Well, truthfully, only the Tibeans endeavored to preserve the successive layers of North Indian Buddhism in some semblance of how they may actually have been taught.

[Adamantine]

I didn't think we were discussing either ancient Indian cosmology or visionary narrative.

If you're arguing for the literal interpretation of these matters as found in Tibetan termas, then it concerns both.

I wasn't arguing for a single literal interpretation, since many of the prophecies were written in poetic terms that are not terribly literal-- such as the famous "when the iron bird flies", etc. However, if we look at the gist of them we will find that many of the predictions made hundreds of years ago have actually come to pass. If the predictions turn out to be true, how does that speak to a thesis that these were mere fabrications composed to propagate a particular sect of Buddhism at the expense of others? Is the idea that the masters were realized enough to know the future but duplicitous enough to use that knowledge to deceive beings? Perhaps Hubbard is even right about the particular Chinese sects in question, I have not studied them nor his book, but his generalities are being used here out of context and thus they lose all potential coherence.

I thought the discussion was about the future predictions that realized lineage masters made about the degeneration of this and future ages.

And who's "realized lineage masters" would those be??? Yours, I suppose....

Yes, some of them may be mine.. so?

I prefer to receive opinions on matters concerning Dharma from those trained in the practice of Dharma, who have developed a degree of extraordinary insight themselves

Sounds to me like you prefer a Tibetocentric bias.

I am not particularly prone to preferring Tibet geographically over other parts of the globe, although I do like mountains.
I am naturally more concerned with what awakened beings may say about matters of Dharma then what conventional academics may say. If there were records of Bodhidharma's prophecies leading up to our present age and many of them already had come to pass, I would pay close attention.

[Astus]

Not really, since if you examine things carefully, Mantrayāna is the only Indian Buddhist tradition that asserts full Buddhahood in one lifetime is actually a possibility.

All other Indian Buddhist traditions of which we have knowledge, Mahāyāna or not, assert that at minimum full awakening is impossible in less then three incalculable eons.

Renunciation is a key element in attaining arhatship, the goal of the majority of Indian Buddhist traditions. However, Buddhism in India died out long ago so it's not something I include in "other Buddhist teachings" simply because there is no such living religion. On the other hand, we have East Asian and South Asian Buddhism, neither of them defined as particularly Vajrayana.

[Malcolm]

we have East Asian and South Asian Buddhism

Outside of Tibeta Buddhism/Vajrayāna, Chan alone proposes that it is possible to attain fullbuddhahood in a single lifetime. But it seems that in Chan, "buddhahood" is a generally a euphemism for attaining the bodhisattva stages, and no Indian Mahāyāna tradition denies that it is impossible for someone to attain the path of seeing and so on. However, they would have done so based on past accumulations. So even here, Vajrayāna remain unique in asserting that one can attain full awakening 11 bhumi + in a single lifetime, soup to nuts.

N

[Tsongkhapafan]

Namdrol, what a dopey notion that renunciation is impossible because of modern afflictions. I must be missing something.

What exactly do you mean by renunciation?

Giving up sense objects.

That's not renunciation - it's also impossible as we always have to experience sense objects. What needs to be abandoned it attachment to sense objects, but even this is not renunciation. Renunciation is the wish to be free from a life contaminated by delusions and to be free from the sufferings of countless future lives.

Renunciation is completely possible to achieve. If you argue that the Vajrayana is the only path to abandon attachment, qualified Vajrayana practice depends upon sutra renunciation so without renunciation there is no Vajrayana.

[Malcolm]

Renunciation is completely possible to achieve. If you argue that the Vajrayana is the only path to abandon attachment, qualified Vajrayana practice depends upon sutra renunciation so without renunciation there is no Vajrayana.

You obviously have come late the thread -- renunciation and the path of renunciation are two distinct things, which has been clarified already.

N

[Tsongkhapafan]

Renunciation is completely possible to achieve. If you argue that the Vajrayana is the only path to abandon attachment, qualified Vajrayana practice depends upon sutra renunciation so without renunciation there is no Vajrayana.

You obviously have come late the thread -- renunciation and the path of renunciation are two distinct things, which has been clarified already.

N

Your definition of renunciation is still incorrect.

[Malcolm]

Renunciation is completely possible to achieve. If you argue that the Vajrayana is the only path to abandon attachment, qualified Vajrayana practice depends upon sutra renunciation so without renunciation there is no Vajrayana.

You obviously have come late the thread -- renunciation and the path of renunciation are two distinct things, which has been clarified already.

N

Your definition of renunciation is still incorrect.

No, it isn't. I also clarified that the English word renunciation can be used to translate a number of terms. You are thinking that term renunciation is only appropriate for "nges 'byung". It may also be used for other Tibetans terms such as spong ba and so on.

But of course it is impossible to talk to anyone about these things because everybody on this website with just a little bit learning is convinced they are a pandita.

N

[Tsongkhapafan]

Your definition of renunciation is still incorrect.

No, it isn't. I also clarified that the English word renunciation can be used to translate a number of terms. You are thinking that term renunciation is only appropriate for "nges 'byung". It may also be used for other Tibetans terms such as spong ba and so on.

But of course it is impossible to talk to anyone about these things because everybody on this website with just a little bit learning is convinced they are a pandita.

N

You're making quite an assumption about others.

[Astus]

Outside of Tibeta Buddhism/Vajrayāna, Chan alone proposes that it is possible to attain fullbuddhahood in a single lifetime. But it seems that in Chan, "buddhahood" is a generally a euphemism for attaining the bodhisattva stages, and no Indian Mahāyāna tradition denies that it is impossible for someone to attain the path of seeing and so on. However, they would have done so based on past accumulations. So even here, Vajrayāna remain unique in asserting that one can attain full awakening 11 bhumi + in a single lifetime, soup to nuts.

It is not only Chan but also Huayan and Tiantai teach sudden enlightenment - interestingly Huayan puts "sudden enlightenment" one level below its own "complete teaching of the one vehicle". As for the difference between the entry to the bodhisattva stages and full buddhahood, in Chan it is clarified with the distinction of gradual and sudden paths. Gradual means the bodhisattva stages, sudden means immediate buddhahood. Of course, not everyone among the Chan teachers agreed with this view.

[Jikan]

Your definition of renunciation is still incorrect.

I'm trying to follow your reasoning here but something's missing. Would you please explain in a bit more detail how you understand renunciation, and on what basis you disagree with Namdrol's distinction between renunciation and the path of renunciation?

[Malcolm]

Outside of Tibeta Buddhism/Vajrayāna, Chan alone proposes that it is possible to attain fullbuddhahood in a single lifetime. But it seems that in Chan, "buddhahood" is a generally a euphemism for attaining the bodhisattva stages, and no Indian Mahāyāna tradition denies that it is impossible for someone to attain the path of seeing and so on. However, they would have done so based on past accumulations. So even here, Vajrayāna remain unique in asserting that one can attain full awakening 11 bhumi + in a single lifetime, soup to nuts.

It is not only Chan but also Huayan and Tiantai teach sudden enlightenment - interestingly Huayan puts "sudden enlightenment" one level below its own "complete teaching of the one vehicle". As for the difference between the entry to the bodhisattva stages and full buddhahood, in Chan it is clarified with the distinction of gradual and sudden paths. Gradual means the bodhisattva stages, sudden means immediate buddhahood. Of course, not everyone among the Chan teachers agreed with this view.

No, I don't think that sudden enlightenment in Chan means sudden full buddhahood.

N