Unorthodox Ideas

[pueraeternus]

Um, I accept Allan Wallace is a great practitioner. But like Malcolm pointed out, he is wrong on some stuff.

He is not the only one who said this. Skilton, Williams and many other scholars and practitioners said the same thing.

And Ronald Davidson says something else. So what?

So what? It means that you should read more widely. Astus has provided an excellent list of quotations from very accomplished Tibetan Buddhist masters.

[SSJ3Gogeta]

So what? It means that you should read more widely.

Reading more widely includes your second rate "historians" like Wallace, Williams, A.W. Barber?

No thanks. Been there done that.

I'll go by what Ronald Davidson and Wedemayer say about the subject.

Astus has provided an excellent list of quotations from very accomplished Tibetan Buddhist masters.

I guess that no told you that Madhyamaka is pretty big in the Tibetan tradition.

[pueraeternus]

So what? It means that you should read more widely.

Reading more widely includes your second rate "historians" like Wallace, Williams, A.W. Barber?

No thanks. Been there done that.

I'll go by what Ronald Davidson and Wedemayer say about the subject.

Second rate? What can I say to that, except that your disrespectful derision of all other viewpoints is getting old and tired.

Astus has provided an excellent list of quotations from very accomplished Tibetan Buddhist masters.

I guess that no told you that Madhyamaka is pretty big in the Tibetan tradition.

I guess you don't recognize any of those masters quoted as Tibetan? Madhyamaka is standard Mahayana, so nothing unique about that. The point is that the philosophical basis and infrastructure of tantra is derived from tathagatagarbha, since the inherent buddha nature is the raison d'être for tantric praxis.

[Astus]

FOr example, you can say that you don't have any attachment to a piece of paper. But, you always see this white stuff as paper. WHen you see that white stuff, immediately the idea of paper appear in you, and you again think yes this is paper, so it against imprint in you. There is no attachment there. But, there is something like assertion.

They are indeed this word of "With this one can argue saying that arhats are not free from all attachments, practically making arhats not free from samsara but stuck in the illusion of liberation; or say that tathagatagarbha teachings are only provisional, turning sudden paths into illusory baits."

But if you see the teaching like Nagarjuna, Chandrakirti, they don't say something like that. Those sentences are more to personal view.

You say that there is attachment to the concept of paper. Again, that is attachment to the mental aggregates, since the concept and even the visual impression occurs within the aggregates. But such attachment is not possible, or it is not liberation. Assertion, as they say in madhyamaka, is the extreme of existence, and negation is the extreme of non-existence. These are the basics of mistaken views, and views exist in the aggregates.

Nagarjuna is early mahayana, and Chandrakirti did not follow the tathagatagarbha teachings either.

[Astus]

A pragmatic approach is, well, practical.... But it seems that a bodhisattva is still required to develop a number of capabilities that aren't necessary for an arhat liberated through discernment. For example, the first five of the six higher knowledges and samyaksaṃbodhi. These differences are also accepted by Theravāda, Sarvāstivāda, etc.

There are differences explained in all traditions all right. However, in order to be inclusive, looking at the existing and the disappeared traditions, what actual practices are prescribed and followed don't show different ways. One important idea, however, is an exception. And that is post-enlightenment practices. For an arhat, that's the end of the story, and there are no further instructions. For a bodhisattva, it is the beginning of accumulating infinite merits. So what mahayana adds is a programme for enlightened ones. Or, it is not a prescription but a description. That is, those who have attained liberation are still active as we can see both from old texts and among today's teachers. A third option is that the bodhisattva teaching is a cure for those who failed to apply the teachings to social life. Fourth option is that it's a later technique to bring more people to the Dharma. All of these and more can be said and put together - i.e. all can be true at the same time - as a natural development of Buddhism.

[Astus]

but the hierarchical rankings come primarily from commentarial literature, do they not? There is probably something I am missing, here...

The Lotus Sutra is the number one source of the hierarchical structure of liberation, where sravakas attain only a fake nirvana before they turn to the bodhisattva path.

[catmoon]

The point is that the philosophical basis and infrastructure of tantra is derived from tathagatagarbha, since the inherent buddha nature is the raison d'être for tantric praxis.

You should read "Center of the Sunlit Sky" by Karl B.

Madhyamaka is the foundation of Vajrayana and Mahamudra.

[viniketa]

This is the first I'm hearing that Buddha Nature texts gave rise to Vajrayana.

Ronald Davidson said Madhaymaka gave rise to Vajrayana...

Historically, Vajrayāna is best understood as deriving from a combination of Madhyamaka, Tathāgatagarbha, and prior tantric practices (Indian & otherwise).

[Jnana]

Unlike Yinshun, I prefer the idea of a single vehicle, where the paths are not separate or hierarchical, but provisional in form and one in nature.

A pragmatic approach is, well, practical.... But it seems that a bodhisattva is still required to develop a number of capabilities that aren't necessary for an arhat liberated through discernment. For example, the first five of the six higher knowledges and samyaksaṃbodhi. These differences are also accepted by Theravāda, Sarvāstivāda, etc.

I must say I'm with Astus on this one! The 'provisional' is easy enough to substantiate. Yes, there is liberation with 'extra' qualities -- that is difficult to refute -- but the hierarchical rankings come primarily from commentarial literature, do they not?

Yes, the Śrāvaka commentaries and the early Prajñāpāramitā sūtras.

There is probably something I am missing, here...

Well, as a pragmatist, I think it's outstanding whenever anyone is motivated to terminate the fetters. I have no interest in trying to lay any other syncretic Ekayāna trip on them if they're not interested in such ideas.

[Jnana]

One important idea, however, is an exception. And that is post-enlightenment practices. For an arhat, that's the end of the story, and there are no further instructions.

Yes. And this silence may be one of the most subtle aspects of Gautama's teaching approach.

So what mahayana adds is a programme for enlightened ones. Or, it is not a prescription but a description. That is, those who have attained liberation are still active as we can see both from old texts and among today's teachers. A third option is that the bodhisattva teaching is a cure for those who failed to apply the teachings to social life. Fourth option is that it's a later technique to bring more people to the Dharma. All of these and more can be said and put together - i.e. all can be true at the same time - as a natural development of Buddhism.

Indeed.

[Jnana]

Many of these doctrines also have a tendency to create their own mythology to create an aura of pristine authenticity, but all of them have an obvious historic process of development that undercuts their own narratives.

Indeed.

[viniketa]

Well, as a pragmatist, I think it's outstanding whenever anyone is motivated to terminate the fetters. I have no interest in trying to lay any other syncretic Ekayāna trip on them if they're not interested in such ideas.

It's very clear that one should practice in the manner best suited to one's own 'conditions', no argument there. Ekayāna is not 'late' syncretism, though, as one of the earliest Buddhist schools was the Ekavyāvahārika, who also taught that Buddha taught from a unified, transcendent position.

*Perhaps a more unified tradition will come along with Buddha Maitreya and the next 'turning of the wheel'...

[Astus]

This is probably the stupidest thing I ever read on this forum.

You should read "Center of the Sunlit Sky" by Karl B.

Madhyamaka is the foundation of Vajrayana and Mahamudra.

Karl Brunnhölzl presents the Kagyü interpretation of madhyamaka, where there is also an "emptiness endowed with the supreme of all aspects." (p. 115f). Also, regarding Mahamudra, "Gampopa, Pamo Truba (1110–1170), Jigden Sumgön (1143–1217), and many others have said that "the treatise of our Mahamudra is this Treatise of the Sublime Continuum of the Great Vehicle composed by the Blessed One Maitreya."" (p. 57), which is also called Ratnagotravibhaga, the classical shastra on tathagatagarbha doctrine. Gampopa starts his Jewel Ornament of Liberation with stating the existence of buddha-nature. Brunnhölzl's teacher, Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso Rinpoche is famous for his teaching of Zhentong, that is again takes buddha-nature as a fundamental doctrine, and he confirms it as the basis of Vajrayana in his commentary on the Uttaratantra Shastra (Buddha Nature, p. 305-306).

[SSJ3Gogeta]

Karl Brunnhölzl presents the Kagyü interpretation of madhyamaka, where there is also an "emptiness endowed with the supreme of all aspects." (p. 115f).

And?

and many others have said that "the treatise of our Mahamudra is this Treatise of the Sublime Continuum of the Great Vehicle composed by the Blessed One Maitreya."" (p. 57), which is also called Ratnagotravibhaga, the classical shastra on tathagatagarbha doctrine.

How is this the Ratnagotravibhaga? I'm reading the footnote 191. I don't get it.

Brunnhölzl's teacher, Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso Rinpoche is famous for his teaching of Zhentong, that is again takes buddha-nature as a fundamental doctrine, and he confirms it as the basis of Vajrayana in his commentary on the Uttaratantra Shastra (Buddha Nature, p. 305-306).

Not really.


Anyway, you are free to keep ignoring the other 99.9% of the book and keep "reaching".
Mahamudra comes straight outta Madhyamaka, just like NWA came straight outta Compton.

[Andrew108]

Brunnhölzl's teacher, Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso Rinpoche is famous for his teaching of Zhentong, that is again takes buddha-nature as a fundamental doctrine, and he confirms it as the basis of Vajrayana in his commentary on the Uttaratantra Shastra (Buddha Nature, p. 305-306).

Not really.


Anyway, you are free to keep ignoring the other 99.9% of the book and keep "reaching".
Mahamudra comes straight outta Madhyamaka, just like NWA came straight outta Compton.

Shentong and it's presentation of buddhanature is a key middle way philosophy. Understanding this is vital for an understanding of Vajrayana.
It's good that you are posting here because you can learn something you might have missed otherwise.

[SSJ3Gogeta]

Shentong and it's presentation of buddhanature is a key middle way philosophy. Understanding this is vital for an understanding of Vajrayana.

I think you mean Shentong is a pure Tibetan invention.

There was no Shentong in Indian Madhyamaka.

[Andrew108]

Shentong and it's presentation of buddhanature is a key middle way philosophy. Understanding this is vital for an understanding of Vajrayana.

I think you mean Shentong is a pure Tibetan invention.

There was no Shentong in Indian Madhyamaka.

Well then I must be wrong and you must be right. Thank you for letting me know. Now I have learnt something new.

[Astus]

How is this the Ratnagotravibhaga? I'm reading the footnote 191. I don't get it.

Check the Bibliography on page 835.

"The Sublime Continuum. (Ratnagotravibhagamahayanottaratantrasastra. Theg pa chen po’i rgyud bla ma) Sanskrit edition by Edward H. Johnston. Patna, India: The Bihar Research Society, 1950 (includes the Ratnagotravibhagavyakhya). P5525. ACIP TD4024."

[SSJ3Gogeta]

How is this the Ratnagotravibhaga? I'm reading the footnote 191. I don't get it.

Check the Bibliography on page 835.

"The Sublime Continuum. (Ratnagotravibhagamahayanottaratantrasastra. Theg pa chen po’i rgyud bla ma) Sanskrit edition by Edward H. Johnston. Patna, India: The Bihar Research Society, 1950 (includes the Ratnagotravibhagavyakhya). P5525. ACIP TD4024."

Yeah I don't get it. Whats the connection to Maitripa?

I will stick by what the other 99.9% of the book says like on page 63, page 65 or pretty much any other page.

[Jnana]

Yeah I don't get it. Whats the connection to Maitripa?

It's said that Maitrīpa rediscovered the Uttaratantraśāstra.

I will stick by what the other 99.9% of the book says like on page 63, page 65 or pretty much any other page.

It's well known that Gampopa and the Kagyudpas maintain that the Uttaratantraśāstra is the source text for sūtra mahāmudrā teachings. For example, Buddha Nature: The Mahayana Uttaratantra Shastra with Commentary, p. 15:

Sutra-Mahamudra is the name the incomparable Dhagpo Rinpoche, Gampopa, lent to the view expressed in the Uttara Tantra Shastra.