A directive for a non-sectarian approach to practice (HHDL)

[JKhedrup]

Viniketa-
You hit the nail on the head! Flexibility seems to go out the window at times. I always find the sectarianism of Buddhists to be rather embarrassing .

But I think that Tibetan Buddhism is getting a bit of a bum rap in this thread. I must say in my experience that the Theravada tradition can also be extremely sectarian. For example, I left at that time my Theravada temple with permission to study Tibetan in Dharamsala. No one complained. But when I went to Thailand for a visit, the abbot of a temple where I had stayed before told me I would have to re-take the bhikkhu ordination as I had become "Mahayana by association" if I wanted to stay for a long period of time.

The Tibetan masters I spoke to, including Lama Zopa Rinpoche and Jangtse Choje Rinpoche (the next Ganden Tripa) told me that since my novice ordination was in Tibetan Buddhism I had a good connection to the lineage. They said it was absolutely unnecessary to re-take the gelong (bhikkhu/full) ordination from a Tibetan master, since the Theravada ordination was valid from a pure ordination lineage. LZR and Jangtse Choje also told me I should participate in the Sojong/Posada with the Tibetan monks with no problem, and I should have a stable conviction that "I am a Gelong".

[Jnana]

Irrelevant.

- You quoted that paragraph on previous page & conceded.

Actually, it's entirely relevant. There are now, and have historically been, Theravādins who practice the bodhisattvayāna and accept the Mahāyāna. Just as there are now, and have historically been Mūlasarvāstivādins and Dharmaguptakas who practice the bodhisattvayāna and accept the Mahāyāna. This is the case whether you want to accept it or not.

This is not a stable line of reasoning. Nor honest as you do not mention your surrender on the last page quoting the same paragraph on the main point.

Nonsense. Acknowledging that some Indian Buddhists used the term "Hīnayāna" doesn't concede or establish anything.

What you will post here from now on as diversionary excuses is completely irrelevant until they ALL announce officially so. That is the point.

There's no need whatsoever for any organization or institution to meet your demands. Firstly, there is no single Theravāda institution that can speak for all Theravāda practitioners. Secondly, your penchant for labels and categories is so overly simplistic as to be meaningless. If you're a Buddhist layperson who's taken refuge and received the five precepts in a Tibetan lineage then you are Mūlasarvāstivāda, which is descended from the the same ancient Sthaviras as the Theravāda.

[viniketa]

Viniketa-
But I think that Tibetan Buddhism is getting a bit of a bum rap in this thread. I must say in my experience that the Theravada tradition can also be extremely sectarian. For example, I left at that time my Theravada temple with permission to study Tibetan in Dharamsala. No one complained. But when I went to Thailand for a visit, the abbot of a temple where I had stayed before told me I would have to re-take the bhikkhu ordination as I had become "Mahayana by association" if I wanted to stay for a long period of time.

The Tibetan masters I spoke to, including Lama Zopa Rinpoche and Jangtse Choje Rinpoche (the next Ganden Tripa) told me that since my novice ordination was in Tibetan Buddhism I had a good connection to the lineage. They said it was absolutely unnecessary to re-take the gelong (bhikkhu/full) ordination from a Tibetan master, since the Theravada ordination was valid from a pure ordination lineage. LZR and Jangtse Choje also told me I should participate in the Sojong/Posada with the Tibetan monks with no problem, and I should have a stable conviction that "I am a Gelong".

Personally, I think all the traditions are 'getting a bum rap' in these 'deals'. As for your personal story (above), you have to love all the bureaucratic pomp & circumstance!

[Jnana]

But when I went to Thailand for a visit, the abbot of a temple where I had stayed before told me I would have to re-take the bhikkhu ordination as I had become "Mahayana by association" if I wanted to stay for a long period of time.

And that abbot doesn't speak for all Theravādins either. I know a number of Theravāda monastics and laypeople who have received Mahāyāna and Vajrayāna teachings and practice accordingly.

[username]

HH the Dalai Lama Dharamsala Lam Rim Commentary 1998:

"Therefore Kagyupas must know the Mahamudra teaching in Sakya. The Sakyapas must know Dzogchen, they must know Kagyu. The Gelugpas must know Dzogchen, they must know Sakya and Kagyu. Such knowledge should not be learned merely for scholarship but for the sake of one's practice.

For the sake of one's practice one should receive important empowerments, get important transmissions and in this way on the one hand you will get some idea and knowledge, and at the same time be able to gain more understanding.

In my own experience, with regards to understanding the meaning of clear light as explained in the Guyyasamaja, I was able to get much inspiration from my study and understanding of Dzogchen. Likewise, certain teachings in the Gelugpa tradition, such as the explanation of the three voidnesses, such kind of understanding will be very helpful in understanding the Dzogchen or Nyingma tradition."

The renowned scholar & life long master H.H. The 14th Dalai Lama taking teachings from Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche & then Trulshik Rinpoche as his Dzogchen lineage masters & teachers till recently & well into his 70's.

GANG RI RA WE KOR WAI ZHING KHAM DIR
In this pure realm, surrounded by snow moutains,

PEN DANG DE WA MA LU JUNG WAI NE
Is the source of complete happiness and benefit,.

CHEN RE ZIG WA TEN DZIN GYAM TSO YI
Avalokiteshvara, Tendzin Gyamtso.

ZHAB PE SI TAI BAR DU TEN GYUR CHIK
May you stand firm until the end of existence.

[pueraeternus]

Also, the Visuddhimagga is also based off the Vimuttimagga, which is a Abhayagiri text.

Yes, the Vimuttimagga is a Sthaviravāda text, relying on the Pāli Tipiṭaka, including the Paṭisambhidāmagga and the Abhidhammapiṭaka. It was also explicitly referred to as such and used as the source text by Daśabalaśrīmitra in his Saṃskṛtāsaṃskṛtaviniścaya for the section on Sthavira teachings. A couple of modern scholars have questioned the prevailing opinion that it was composed at the Abhayagirivihāra, suggesting that it may have been composed on the mainland instead, but that is merely a tangential point.

I believe Skilling found evidence that leans towards the text as a Abhayagiri product. Robertk quoted this from JPTS in Dhammawheel (Skilling 171-210, Journal PTS volXX) :

The position of the Vimuttimagga is closer to that of the Vaibhasikas who include all 4 elements in sprastavyayayatana.

A comparison of the Dhammasangani list with that of the Vimuttimagga shows the important difference that the latter adds 3 items : "rupassa jati, vathu rupa and middha." Although the visuddhmagga attributes the heresy of middhrup to .."some" (ekaccanam matena) the tika tells us that this refers to the abhayagirivasins. Thus the inclusion of both middh-rupa in both the Chinese version and the Tibetan extracts of the Vimuttimagga is evidence that that the Vimutimagga contains classifications that were rejected by the Mahavihara but accepted by the Abhayagiri Skilling concludes that the Vimuttimagga probably came from the Abhayagiri sect. He notes p200 "these are not minor points.

[SSJ3Gogeta]

I like HHDL.

But its kind of hypocritical since he strongly pushes crypto-realist Tsongkhapa Madhyamaka, which is nothing like original Indian Madhyamaka or the other Tibetan schools.

[Norwegian]

SSJ3Gogeta,

Wash your mouth.

He's a Gelug, he likes Tsongkhapa. Nothing wrong with that.

But, so many times he repeats the following point: That the Tibetan lineages have their roots in India (Nyingma, Sakya, Kagyu, Gelug, etc.), and for this very reason it is of the utmost importance to study the works of the authors from the so called Nalanda tradition. In other words Nagarjuna, Aryadeva, Buddhapalita, Shantideva, etc. And of course, if you're not following a Tibetan lineage, but consider yourself a Mahayana Buddhist, the aforementioned still rings true.

That is hardly "pushing crypto-realist Tsongkhapa Madhyamaka" ...

[zangskar]

Avoiding sectarianism is extremely important for Tibetans in the current situation. I think most Tibetans agree on this, not just the Dalai Lama though he is the symbol of this national/religious unity. Different opinions and diversity is good, and of benefit to all, and is made possible by a common sense of unity and mutual respect. That's how I understand HHDLs advice.
Best wishes
Lars

[JKhedrup]

I also disagree. If you look at what His Holiness teaches in India, for example, it is most often texts from the Nalanda tradition, especially the texts of Nagarjuna and Shantideva. He often gently scolds the monks at the three great Gelug seats (Sera, Drepung, Ganden) for relying too much on the debate manuals, and exhorts them to study the Indian treatises.
It is interesting to note too that the official textbooks of the Gelug curriculum- the 5 Great Treatises- are all Indian texts. While for debate a monk might memorize large portions of their monastic textbooks (yig-cha), by their own colleges authors (in the case of Sera Jey, for example, most of the manuals are by Jetsunpa), this will not help them in their memorization exam.
To pass the memorization exam they need to learn by heart large portions of Indian texts such as the Ornament of Clear Realizations, Entering the Middle way etc. And though Tsongkhapa's view has some particular aspects (in many ways I find Sakya Pandita's view makes more sense, though I have to be careful where I say that ) , saying it is "nothing like original Madhyamika" is a bit of a harsh conclusion IMO.