Dharma Wheel

A Buddhist discussion forum on Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism
It is currently Thu Dec 25, 2014 7:32 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Forum rules


Please click here to view the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 395 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Oct 05, 2012 5:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 12:08 pm
Posts: 708
Malcolm wrote:
Mariusz wrote:
Malcolm wrote:

This statement simply ignores and betrays ignorance of the entire history of tenet system literature in India as well as Tibet.

M

I've already read english books which I always quoted here. Of course I will be happy If you again present some new quotes in question. Thanx



Yes, you have read books influenced completely by a post-14th century read on Indian Tenet systems.....
So it is just wrong to claim that Tsongkhapa was the one who "margianalizes" Yogacara as cittamatra.

M
Thank you, but with all respect, It is just illogical for me, if Yogacara, which according to the sources was the top of Mahayana teachings in India developed after Madhyamaka, finally presented such easy to identify trap of "Mind Only existence empty of both [subject and object]". :rolleye: In contrast, what I've read from Mipham and the Karmapas works perfectly well for me, as I wrote already in many forums here. :shrug: Perhaps these quotes are out of context or so. Nevertheless it is possibility for me to learn tibetan in my city, so, if it will succeed, I also will investigate the tibetan sources. :anjali:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 05, 2012 6:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am
Posts: 12737
Mariusz wrote:
Thank you, but with all respect, It is just illogical for me,


Suit yourself, I myself prefer to follow what Indian Mādhyamikas,who were capable of debating with actual Yogacara masters, have to say about the matter.

_________________
http://www.atikosha.org
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://www.sakyapa.net
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

How can you not practice the highest Dharma
at this time of obtaining a perfect human body?

-- Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 9:16 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 12:08 pm
Posts: 708
Malcolm wrote:
Mariusz wrote:
Thank you, but with all respect, It is just illogical for me,


Suit yourself, I myself prefer to follow what Indian Mādhyamikas,who were capable of debating with actual Yogacara masters, have to say about the matter.

However as Karl Brunnhölzl in "The Center" discovered:

... as a very rough outline, one may distinguish three main streams (of Yogacara):
1) the distinct system of Maitreya, Asanga, and Vasubandhu (the lineage of vast
activity)
2) a later, in parts more “idealistic” Yogacara (cittamatrins), as exemplified by Dharmapla (530-561)
3) an epistemologically oriented tradition, headed by Dignaga and Dharmakırti.

the quotes of Malcolm above could refute the more “idealistic” Yogacara (cittamatrins), but not the original Yogacara (the lineage of vast
activity)? If so, I agree of course.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2012 7:44 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2012 7:52 pm
Posts: 194
Have been kind of loathe to bring this back up, but to be honest I also think a point should be made : the whole idea of arguing, sectarianism and negativity towards eachother when discussing the difference between schools seems like a clear sign that as we do this we're caught in delusion.

Sometimes insight seems to work better than other times, and at the moment [insert word(s.) Either "I think," "I feel," it "seems like," but they're just words and can't convey properly.] each school is just approaching the primordial/mind in a different way if it's being done properly. Have always been fascinated with the idea of the primordial ever since reading about Dzogchen, and have often thought about its relation to Zen and Yogacara, the two that I've spent most time with. If someone says Dzogchen is the highest path because it introduces you to your primordial nature instantly, then you go onwards and work to maintain that, then that's fine by me. I won't think it's better or worse than Yogacara or Zen if done properly, but can accept that it's maybe the best method at introducing you to the primordial state from the start.

At the same time though I'd say that a good enough Zen master, or a good enough Yogacarin, with the right student, could introduce awakening/the primordial/suchness and so on equally as fast, but it's maybe very rare and that Dzogchen does it more consistently from the off. (my own issue though is that you can have the best Dzogchen teacher, but if the student isn't ready there's still going to be difficulties in maintaining that state.) In the end though I think it's the same state with different terms that we arrive at if it's done properly, and that's why I often laugh at the arguments or just shake my head at them, because I think we're using different schools for the reason that we're different people, with different karma, different learning speeds, different living circumstances, and different styles of approaching awakening.

I'm not saying anything I've just written is "right," just wanted to add my own take on it in the hope that it'd maybe help one or more get past some of the negativity.

_________________
"A 'position', Vaccha, is something that a Tathagata has done away with." - MN 72


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2012 11:46 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 06, 2012 8:19 am
Posts: 541
rob h wrote:
Have been kind of loathe to bring this back up, but to be honest I also think a point should be made : the whole idea of arguing, sectarianism and negativity towards eachother when discussing the difference between schools seems like a clear sign that as we do this we're caught in delusion.

Sometimes insight seems to work better than other times, and at the moment [insert word(s.) Either "I think," "I feel," it "seems like," but they're just words and can't convey properly.] each school is just approaching the primordial/mind in a different way if it's being done properly. Have always been fascinated with the idea of the primordial ever since reading about Dzogchen, and have often thought about its relation to Zen and Yogacara, the two that I've spent most time with. If someone says Dzogchen is the highest path because it introduces you to your primordial nature instantly, then you go onwards and work to maintain that, then that's fine by me. I won't think it's better or worse than Yogacara or Zen if done properly, but can accept that it's maybe the best method at introducing you to the primordial state from the start.

At the same time though I'd say that a good enough Zen master, or a good enough Yogacarin, with the right student, could introduce awakening/the primordial/suchness and so on equally as fast, but it's maybe very rare and that Dzogchen does it more consistently from the off. (my own issue though is that you can have the best Dzogchen teacher, but if the student isn't ready there's still going to be difficulties in maintaining that state.) In the end though I think it's the same state with different terms that we arrive at if it's done properly, and that's why I often laugh at the arguments or just shake my head at them, because I think we're using different schools for the reason that we're different people, with different karma, different learning speeds, different living circumstances, and different styles of approaching awakening.

I'm not saying anything I've just written is "right," just wanted to add my own take on it in the hope that it'd maybe help one or more get past some of the negativity.


:namaste: rob h, all and All,

:good: :applause: :twothumbsup:

AND that's MR. Delusion, to you, please. :smile:

I have NEVER understood how, when talking about what cannot be talked about, how there can ANY smallest judgement as to which path is higher or lower.

All you can say, if you have to say anything, is which path resonates most, (is most meaningful) to YOU, at a certain moment in time. We are each a swirling developing dynamic of (ultimately empty) karmic forces, and what is the best path for me, at one time in my life, is not the best path at another. If this is true for me, how can I even begin to say what is the best path for another, at a certain moment in time. Maybe a realized omniscient Master can say this, but I certainly can't.

For me, and I am the ONLY one whom I apply this to, Dzogchen is the "highest" path because, for me, it can include, explain and allow for, all other paths. Dzogchen does not limit me to any particular path of practice or philosophical view. For me, this is what "Great Completion," Great Accomplishment" and "Great Symbol," means. In Dzogchen, all my experience can be integrated with natural mind. If some other, path were to show itself that was, in my view, higher than Dzogchen, then I would call myself a follower of that other view. So really maybe the name of my school is, "The provisionally held, highest view of the moment, school" So yes, - this feels good. I am, "Mr. provisionally held, highest view of the moment," and maybe we are all, truly, like this.

In a non-naming truth, resting in the natural mind, I don't call (or not call) myself anything, and could not, even if I wanted to.

Ah






and I might sing the song of the vajra, as a way of demonstrating integration with movement.

All this knocks down to, "work out your path with diligence." And this is true, even if your path is the "totally perfect from the beginning, and spontaneously arising," path of Dzogchen, and you relax into it through non-striving. You still need to be aware of when you are not in the state and (non) apply :smile: appropriate practice, (non) diligently. :smile:

You cannot create or construct, the natural state, so it is really tricky how you talk about this.

This all knocks down to - to keep on topic - ; the Doctrine of the Holy Yogachara is perfect, the Doctrine of the Holy Dzogchen is perfect, but MY Doctrine of the "Provisionally held highest view of the moment" is the most perfect of all, and so is yours. :smile:

Wow - that's a lot of words. :smile:

Lord Buddha taught the 84,000 (means a lot of) different teachings so that there would be something for everyone.

Thank you Lord Buddha, and the precious Masters, of all sacred traditions, who keep the living light of enlightenment alive, by teaching in this world, today.

:bow: :bow: :bow:

Homage to the enlightened Masters, of all traditions, who teach the :heart: of the matter! May they live long, in good health and with success in all things.

:heart:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2012 12:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 12:47 am
Posts: 468
Yes siree bob-o.

When I read the above post, first I started crying (the word "swirling' got to me - I once wrote a poem about 'swirling whirling worlds of words, no wonder we grab on') and then later in the post I started laughing (I don't remember at what).

Anyhoo.....

Thanks again for being here. What a relief.

:heart:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2012 8:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2012 7:52 pm
Posts: 194
oldbob wrote:
I am, "Mr. provisionally held, highest view of the moment," and maybe we are all, truly, like this.


Hahah! That's awesome, great post too.

_________________
"A 'position', Vaccha, is something that a Tathagata has done away with." - MN 72


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 21, 2012 6:26 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:30 pm
Posts: 1444
rob h wrote:
Have been kind of loathe to bring this back up, but to be honest I also think a point should be made : the whole idea of arguing, sectarianism and negativity towards eachother when discussing the difference between schools seems like a clear sign that as we do this we're caught in delusion.


Actually debate is a big part of many schools and isn't seen as a sign of delusion at all. It's always been a cornerstone of these traditions. Rejection of debate is just as much delusion, it all depends on how it's being related to. Pacifism isn't a sign of being in accord with the authentic condition. Plus a lot of this thread has been in response to a certain few people who had been casting unfounded aspersions on this forum for awhile prior to the inception of this thread, and it just came to a head here. It's all good!

"When one who is aware of the correct teachings has judgmental thoughts, the demon of permanence does not make them an obstacle. Finding the differences and refuting the assertions of others is a characteristic of full maturity that cannot be taken away."
- Sūtralamkāra

"If, with the intention of identifying and teaching higher and lower views, other precepts are deprecated, this is not transgression, but greatly increases merit."
- Commentary on The 14 Root Downfalls | rtsa ltung bcu bzhi


Highlights: Tibetan Debate

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6daHMqrMUY
(Excerpts from the inaugural program in Asia Society's Great Debates series, featuring monks from the Drepung Loseling Monastery and a discussion between Geshe Thupten Jinpa [The Dalai Lama's principal translator] and Professor Daniel Perdude.)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 23, 2012 1:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2012 7:52 pm
Posts: 194
asunthatneversets wrote:
rob h wrote:
Have been kind of loathe to bring this back up, but to be honest I also think a point should be made : the whole idea of arguing, sectarianism and negativity towards eachother when discussing the difference between schools seems like a clear sign that as we do this we're caught in delusion.


Actually debate is a big part of many schools and isn't seen as a sign of delusion at all. It's always been a cornerstone of these traditions. Rejection of debate is just as much delusion, it all depends on how it's being related to.


Agreed completely, if you check my post I didn't mention debate as being the problem, (when I say "arguing." I also mean as in a negative thing. Arguing to me means negative, people too overheated to debate properly.) just when we make it continually negative basically. That's a sign of delusion as far as it seems. And yep, agreed, if we didn't debate there'd be no point in forums in the firstplace, it's good to debate properly or else we're all lost.

That's one of the best things about Buddhism, the level of questioning that leads us further towards the truth, because we're not afraid to question, we're taught to. :namaste:

_________________
"A 'position', Vaccha, is something that a Tathagata has done away with." - MN 72


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 23, 2012 7:32 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 8:22 pm
Posts: 82
IMHO: this forum is definitely lack of it's academic sub forum for a such kind of conversation..
I mean- who cares about yogacara in dzogchen subforum..Moderator, correct me if I am wrong :)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 23, 2012 1:27 pm 
Offline
Former staff member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 3:20 am
Posts: 2995
Location: British Columbia
Who cares? The people who wrote this 20-page thread, I guess. As long as the discussion stays civil, I have no problems with it.

_________________
Sergeant Schultz knew everything there was to know.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 23, 2012 3:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 6:26 pm
Posts: 639
Location: Mudhole? Slimy? My home, this is.
oldbob wrote:
rob h wrote:
Have been kind of loathe to bring this back up, but to be honest I also think a point should be made : the whole idea of arguing, sectarianism and negativity towards eachother when discussing the difference between schools seems like a clear sign that as we do this we're caught in delusion.

Sometimes insight seems to work better than other times, and at the moment [insert word(s.) Either "I think," "I feel," it "seems like," but they're just words and can't convey properly.] each school is just approaching the primordial/mind in a different way if it's being done properly. Have always been fascinated with the idea of the primordial ever since reading about Dzogchen, and have often thought about its relation to Zen and Yogacara, the two that I've spent most time with. If someone says Dzogchen is the highest path because it introduces you to your primordial nature instantly, then you go onwards and work to maintain that, then that's fine by me. I won't think it's better or worse than Yogacara or Zen if done properly, but can accept that it's maybe the best method at introducing you to the primordial state from the start.

At the same time though I'd say that a good enough Zen master, or a good enough Yogacarin, with the right student, could introduce awakening/the primordial/suchness and so on equally as fast, but it's maybe very rare and that Dzogchen does it more consistently from the off. (my own issue though is that you can have the best Dzogchen teacher, but if the student isn't ready there's still going to be difficulties in maintaining that state.) In the end though I think it's the same state with different terms that we arrive at if it's done properly, and that's why I often laugh at the arguments or just shake my head at them, because I think we're using different schools for the reason that we're different people, with different karma, different learning speeds, different living circumstances, and different styles of approaching awakening.

I'm not saying anything I've just written is "right," just wanted to add my own take on it in the hope that it'd maybe help one or more get past some of the negativity.


:namaste: rob h, all and All,

:good: :applause: :twothumbsup:

AND that's MR. Delusion, to you, please. :smile:

I have NEVER understood how, when talking about what cannot be talked about, how there can ANY smallest judgement as to which path is higher or lower.

All you can say, if you have to say anything, is which path resonates most, (is most meaningful) to YOU, at a certain moment in time. We are each a swirling developing dynamic of (ultimately empty) karmic forces, and what is the best path for me, at one time in my life, is not the best path at another. If this is true for me, how can I even begin to say what is the best path for another, at a certain moment in time. Maybe a realized omniscient Master can say this, but I certainly can't.

For me, and I am the ONLY one whom I apply this to, Dzogchen is the "highest" path because, for me, it can include, explain and allow for, all other paths. Dzogchen does not limit me to any particular path of practice or philosophical view. For me, this is what "Great Completion," Great Accomplishment" and "Great Symbol," means. In Dzogchen, all my experience can be integrated with natural mind. If some other, path were to show itself that was, in my view, higher than Dzogchen, then I would call myself a follower of that other view. So really maybe the name of my school is, "The provisionally held, highest view of the moment, school" So yes, - this feels good. I am, "Mr. provisionally held, highest view of the moment," and maybe we are all, truly, like this.

In a non-naming truth, resting in the natural mind, I don't call (or not call) myself anything, and could not, even if I wanted to.

Ah






and I might sing the song of the vajra, as a way of demonstrating integration with movement.

All this knocks down to, "work out your path with diligence." And this is true, even if your path is the "totally perfect from the beginning, and spontaneously arising," path of Dzogchen, and you relax into it through non-striving. You still need to be aware of when you are not in the state and (non) apply :smile: appropriate practice, (non) diligently. :smile:

You cannot create or construct, the natural state, so it is really tricky how you talk about this.

This all knocks down to - to keep on topic - ; the Doctrine of the Holy Yogachara is perfect, the Doctrine of the Holy Dzogchen is perfect, but MY Doctrine of the "Provisionally held highest view of the moment" is the most perfect of all, and so is yours. :smile:

Wow - that's a lot of words. :smile:

Lord Buddha taught the 84,000 (means a lot of) different teachings so that there would be something for everyone.

Thank you Lord Buddha, and the precious Masters, of all sacred traditions, who keep the living light of enlightenment alive, by teaching in this world, today.

:bow: :bow: :bow:

Homage to the enlightened Masters, of all traditions, who teach the :heart: of the matter! May they live long, in good health and with success in all things.

:heart:


I'm breaking my self-imposed lurking exile for just a second to tell OldBob that that's precisely one of the posts I've been looking forward to seeing here since when I registered.

:good: :good: :good: :good: :good:

:heart:

Now, back to the other depths.

_________________
. . . there they saw a rock! But it wasn't a rock . . .


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 23, 2012 5:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2011 2:05 am
Posts: 1302
Location: San Francisco, CA
"A view of Madhyamaka is not Madhyamaka. A view of Mahamuda is not Mahamudra. I view of Dzogchen is not Dzogchen." --Lord Jigten Sumgon


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 27, 2012 7:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2012 11:41 pm
Posts: 31
I realize that some of the more developed schools of Chinese Buddhism like TianTai, Hua Yen, and later Chan make use of Yogachara vocabulary and concepts but I really don't view any of them as strict or classical Yogachara. Chan specifically is a transmission outside of Scripture that transcends all views, theoretical constructs, and maps. Any use of Yogachara terminology is simply a provisional expediant.

When I get home I will post a link to a good article I found that shows that Tiantai contradicts classical Yogachara in some of It's teachings too. Can't link on my cellphone.

So, basically what I'm saying is that I'm not so sure Yogachara is held to by all the Chinese schools as being the highest.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 28, 2012 2:12 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2012 11:41 pm
Posts: 31
Here is one of the articles on Tiantai I was talking about in my last post. The author contends that Tiantai teaching isn't subjective idealism (or any kind of idealism for that matter). I always assumed that was what early Yogacara was but there seems debate on that front with other people seeing it more as a practical phenomenology that was never intended to be thought of as ontology**. If the later people are correct I might have been wrong in saying that Tiantai isn't Yogacara. So maybe the Tiantai part of what I said was all wrong but at least the PDF I'm linking too is interesting so maybe that will make up for it :shrug:

The Deluded Mind as World and Truth: Epistemological Implications of Tiantai Doctrine and Praxis in the Works of Jingxi
Zhanran (711-782)Brook Ziporyn Northwestern University
http://www1.uprh.edu/rsoto/Ziporyn_Tiantai.pdf

I found a second PDF earlier but I can't seem to locate it again. :oops:

** See this book for example. It's on my purchase list now:
Buddhist Phenomenology: A Philosophical Investigation of Yogacara Buddhism and the Ch'eng Wei-shih Lun
http://www.amazon.com/Buddhist-Phenomen ... 0700711864


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 395 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 16, 17, 18, 19, 20

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 13 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group