Mahamudra and Dzogchen: Are they based on Sutra or Tantra?

Moderator: Tibetan Buddhism moderators

Mahamudra and Dzogchen: Are they based on Sutra or Tantra?

Postby JohnRammy » Sun Nov 25, 2012 6:57 pm

deepbluehum wrote:Tathagatagarbha sutras are completely compatible with mainstream Tibetan Buddhism.


Tibetan commentaries qualified the Tathagatagarbha Sutras genre to a point where you nullify the original Indian meaning.
Everything lacks the identity (atman) imputed by mere conceptual labels.
JohnRammy
 
Posts: 88
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 1:42 am

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby JohnRammy » Sun Nov 25, 2012 7:00 pm

gregkavarnos wrote:If one considers the Tathagatagarbha as the potential for enlightenment that every sentient being "possesses" then it is not incompatible with mainstream Buddhism (actually that is how mainstream Mahayana Buddhism interprets the teachings). If you consider it as a crypto-Hinduist true self/atman, that is where the problems with mainstream Buddhism begin.
:namaste:



I'm not talking about the concept of Buddha Nature. For example you mention the Gelug point of view, which is fine.

I'm talking about the class of literature called the Tathāgatagarbha Sutras.

These are two different things.
Everything lacks the identity (atman) imputed by mere conceptual labels.
JohnRammy
 
Posts: 88
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 1:42 am

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby Sherab Dorje » Sun Nov 25, 2012 7:04 pm

JohnRammy wrote:
gregkavarnos wrote:If one considers the Tathagatagarbha as the potential for enlightenment that every sentient being "possesses" then it is not incompatible with mainstream Buddhism (actually that is how mainstream Mahayana Buddhism interprets the teachings). If you consider it as a crypto-Hinduist true self/atman, that is where the problems with mainstream Buddhism begin.
:namaste:



I'm not talking about the concept of Buddha Nature. For example you mention the Gelug point of view, which is fine.

I'm talking about the class of literature called the Tathāgatagarbha Sutras.

These are two different things.
So are you saying that the concept of the Tathagatagarbha (Buddha Nature) did not originate from, or was not elucidated in, the Tathagatagarbha Sutras?
: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: 10173
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby JohnRammy » Sun Nov 25, 2012 7:08 pm

gregkavarnos wrote:So are you saying that the concept of the Tathagatagarbha (Buddha Nature) did not originate from, or was not elucidated in, the Tathagatagarbha Sutras?
:namaste:


I guess you are not following me.

Kagyus will call the nature of the mind in Mahamudra "Buddha Nature" sometimes.

However Mahamudra is based on a class of literature called tantras, not sutras.

Thus its an entirely different thing than the Tathāgatagarbha Sutras. such as Tathāgatagarbha Sūtra, Srimaladevisimhanada Sutra, Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra, Angulimaliya Sutra and other such nonsense.
Last edited by JohnRammy on Sun Nov 25, 2012 7:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Everything lacks the identity (atman) imputed by mere conceptual labels.
JohnRammy
 
Posts: 88
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 1:42 am

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby deepbluehum » Sun Nov 25, 2012 7:11 pm

JohnRammy wrote:
gregkavarnos wrote:So are you saying that the concept of the Tathagatagarbha (Buddha Nature) did not originate from, or was not elucidated in, the Tathagatagarbha Sutras?
:namaste:


I guess you are not following me.

Kagyus will call the nature of the mind in Mahamudra "Buddha Nature" sometimes.

However Mahamudra is based on a class of literature called tantras, not sutras.

Thus its an entirely different thing than the Tathāgatagarbha Sutras.


Mahamudra and Dzogchen tantras are based on the view in the Tathagatagarbha Sutras.
deepbluehum
 
Posts: 1302
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2011 2:05 am
Location: San Francisco, CA

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby JohnRammy » Sun Nov 25, 2012 7:11 pm

deepbluehum wrote:Mahamudra and Dzogchen tantras are based on the view in the Tathagatagarbha Sutras.


Mahamudra and Dzogchen are based on tantras, not sutras.
Everything lacks the identity (atman) imputed by mere conceptual labels.
JohnRammy
 
Posts: 88
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 1:42 am

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby deepbluehum » Sun Nov 25, 2012 7:13 pm

JohnRammy wrote:
deepbluehum wrote:Mahamudra and Dzogchen tantras are based on the view in the Tathagatagarbha Sutras.


Mahamudra and Dzogchen are based on tantras, not sutras.


Yeah, and those tantras are based on the Mahayana Sutras.
deepbluehum
 
Posts: 1302
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2011 2:05 am
Location: San Francisco, CA

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby JohnRammy » Sun Nov 25, 2012 7:18 pm

Mahamudra and Dzogchen are based on a class of literature called tantras, not sutras.

If you want to speculate on what those tantras themselves are based on, I suggest you read "Center of the Sunlit Sky" first.
Everything lacks the identity (atman) imputed by mere conceptual labels.
JohnRammy
 
Posts: 88
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 1:42 am

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby deepbluehum » Sun Nov 25, 2012 7:31 pm

JohnRammy wrote:Mahamudra and Dzogchen are based on a class of literature called tantras, not sutras.

If you want to speculate on what those tantras themselves are based on, I suggest you read "Center of the Sunlit Sky" first.


I don't speculate. I have transmission. According to Lord Jigten Sumgon in Gongchig, the Third Turning Sutras are the manifold vehicle and the definitive view for the sutras and tantras. There are commentaries about the Nyingthig tantras with similar attitudes about the Tathagatagarbha sutras.
deepbluehum
 
Posts: 1302
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2011 2:05 am
Location: San Francisco, CA

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby deepbluehum » Sun Nov 25, 2012 7:35 pm

JohnRammy wrote:
deepbluehum wrote:Tathagatagarbha sutras are completely compatible with mainstream Tibetan Buddhism.


Tibetan commentaries qualified the Tathagatagarbha Sutras genre to a point where you nullify the original Indian meaning.


Maybe some commentaries, but others are fully supportive of the TGS as definitive, i.e., Gongchig, which is the definitive Kagyu view according to 8th Karmapa.
deepbluehum
 
Posts: 1302
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2011 2:05 am
Location: San Francisco, CA

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby JohnRammy » Sun Nov 25, 2012 7:38 pm

deepbluehum wrote:I don't speculate. I have transmission. According to Lord Jigten Sumgon in Gongchig, the Third Turning Sutras are the manifold vehicle and the definitive view for the sutras and tantras. There are commentaries about the Nyingthig tantras with similar attitudes about the Tathagatagarbha sutras.


LATE Kagyus and Longchenpa qualified and nullified the meaning of the Tathāgatagarbha Sutras to find a place for them somewhere. This is the Tibetan way.
Everything lacks the identity (atman) imputed by mere conceptual labels.
JohnRammy
 
Posts: 88
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 1:42 am

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby deepbluehum » Sun Nov 25, 2012 7:50 pm

JohnRammy wrote:
deepbluehum wrote:I don't speculate. I have transmission. According to Lord Jigten Sumgon in Gongchig, the Third Turning Sutras are the manifold vehicle and the definitive view for the sutras and tantras. There are commentaries about the Nyingthig tantras with similar attitudes about the Tathagatagarbha sutras.


LATE Kagyus and Longchenpa qualified and nullified the meaning of the Tathāgatagarbha Sutras to find a place for them somewhere. This is the Tibetan way.


Lord Jigten Sumgon is hardly a late Kagyu LOL.
deepbluehum
 
Posts: 1302
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2011 2:05 am
Location: San Francisco, CA

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby deepbluehum » Sun Nov 25, 2012 7:54 pm

gregkavarnos wrote:
songhill wrote:The real deludeds are the self-deniers who don't understand the skillful means of our Lord.

“… just as the mother smeared her breasts with a nimba leaf ointment, so too did I say [to my “sick” monks]:‘Meditatively cultivate the understanding that all phenomena lack a self and are empty’.  Just as the child’s mother later wiped her breasts clean and told the child to suckle, saying ‘Before, I could not allow you to suckle at my breasts until your medicinal butter had been digested, but now you can suckle’, so too I instructed [the monks] thus in order that they might be turned away from mundane phenomena, telling them that there is no Self; but now monks, because I teach that the tathâgatagarbha exists, do not be frightened like the child.  Just as the child tested [his mother’s breasts] and then suckled at them, so too do I now teach that you monks should investigate the idea that the tathâgatagarbha exists within yourselves and strenuously apply yourselves to the meditative cultivation of it.” ~ Mahaparinirvana Sutra
Last chance to answer or I will consider what you are doing as trolling and act accordingly: What constitutes this "true self"?


There are citations in the Pali Suttas that say a purified citta is atta. I was just doing some reading on this a few weeks ago, I would have to retrace my steps to find these cites, but it's not trolling. It's simply a little discussed aspect of the suttas. But it's not meant to say it is the "Self," as in Brahman. In the Pali, it is used in the sense of developing oneself, where through the path one becomes Brahma, becomes Dhamma, etc., self perfection, i.e., in the Agganna Sutta.
deepbluehum
 
Posts: 1302
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2011 2:05 am
Location: San Francisco, CA

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby JohnRammy » Sun Nov 25, 2012 7:55 pm

deepbluehum wrote:Lord Jigten Sumgon is hardly a late Kagyu LOL.



The Kagyus themselves are late LOL

Gampopa is late LOL
Everything lacks the identity (atman) imputed by mere conceptual labels.
JohnRammy
 
Posts: 88
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 1:42 am

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby deepbluehum » Sun Nov 25, 2012 7:56 pm

JohnRammy wrote:
deepbluehum wrote:Lord Jigten Sumgon is hardly a late Kagyu LOL.



The Kagyus themselves are late LOL

Gampopa is late LOL


This is off the reservation. You might want to explain this.
deepbluehum
 
Posts: 1302
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2011 2:05 am
Location: San Francisco, CA

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby JohnRammy » Sun Nov 25, 2012 7:57 pm

There was Mahamudra before Gampopa.

There were dudes called Marpa and Milarepa for example.
Everything lacks the identity (atman) imputed by mere conceptual labels.
JohnRammy
 
Posts: 88
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 1:42 am

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby deepbluehum » Sun Nov 25, 2012 8:14 pm

JohnRammy wrote:
deepbluehum wrote:
JohnRammy wrote:

The Kagyus themselves are late LOL

Gampopa is late LOL


This is off the reservation. You might want to explain this.


There was Mahamudra before Gampopa.

There were dudes called Marpa and Milarepa


So everyone after Mila is a late kagyu? That's pretty farfetched. In that case you should see Tony Duff's translations of Metripa's view on Madhyamaka:

"Luminosity completely liberated from the four extremes
And which has the personage of the deity
Is a thing of non-dual supreme bliss,
A mere interdependent origination personage."

Six Verses on Madhyamaka, Metripa


This is precisely the view of the Tathagatagrbha sutras.

Also in Metripa's Doha on Mahamudra:

That which is termed Mahamudra,
Is not a "thing" that can be pointed to.
It is the mind's own nature that is Mahamudra [the Absolute State].
deepbluehum
 
Posts: 1302
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2011 2:05 am
Location: San Francisco, CA

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby JohnRammy » Sun Nov 25, 2012 8:15 pm

deepbluehum wrote:
"Luminosity completely liberated from the four extremes
And which has the personage of the deity
Is a thing of non-dual supreme bliss,
A mere interdependent origination personage."

Six Verses on Madhyamaka, Metripa



Also in Metripa's Doha on Mahamudra:

That which is termed Mahamudra,
Is not a "thing" that can be pointed to.
It is the mind's own nature that is Mahamudra [the Absolute State].



Right this is the view of the tantras.

Mahamudra is based on a class of literature called tantras.


Like I have been saying. :hi:
Everything lacks the identity (atman) imputed by mere conceptual labels.
JohnRammy
 
Posts: 88
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 1:42 am

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby deepbluehum » Sun Nov 25, 2012 8:39 pm

JohnRammy wrote:
deepbluehum wrote:
"Luminosity completely liberated from the four extremes
And which has the personage of the deity
Is a thing of non-dual supreme bliss,
A mere interdependent origination personage."

Six Verses on Madhyamaka, Metripa



Also in Metripa's Doha on Mahamudra:

That which is termed Mahamudra,
Is not a "thing" that can be pointed to.
It is the mind's own nature that is Mahamudra [the Absolute State].



Right this is the view of the tantras.

Mahamudra is based on a class of literature called tantras.


Like I have been saying. :hi:


Anuttarayoga Tantras don't state a single view. The views of these Dohas comes from the Tathagatagarbha Sutras among others:

The common Mahamudra relates to the approach taken in the sutras and tantras; as the Sagaramatiparipriccha-sutra (Sutra Requested by Ocean of Wisdom) says,

"Ocean of Wisdom! All phenomena are impressed with the seal of complete liberation; they are non-dual and utterly pure." And, "...Like the center of space, all phenomena lack diversity. Therefore, all phenomena are impressed witht he seal of equality." It says in the Maitreavatarasutra, (Engaging Maitreya Sutra, "Noble Son! All phenomena are [impressed with] the seal of emptiness." Thus, fifteen types of seals are mentioned there, and the Questions of Gayanaganga Sutra mentions ten types of seals.

In the lower tantra division: the Manjushri Root Tantra labels the gesture of the hands in binding into a mudra as mahamudra. In the Abhisambodhi of Vairochana the attributes of deities are labeled as mahamudra.

In the higher tantra division: four factors are labeled mudra: karmamudra, samayamudra, dharmamudra and mahamudra. Apparently there are many such uses of the term.

However, the conclusion is: It is shown in all sutras and tantras that essence of Tathagata exists, from primordial time, inherently in the minds of sentient beings, and the nature of mind is shown to be luminosity. These statements and the like, wherein the basic mode of existences is described, indicate the mahamudra of the base.

Water Crystal, HH Drikung Kyabgon Chetsang, Sec. 4.1
deepbluehum
 
Posts: 1302
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2011 2:05 am
Location: San Francisco, CA

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby JohnRammy » Sun Nov 25, 2012 8:49 pm

A key feature of the tantras is the nature of the mind i.e. the inseparability of clarity and emptiness.

Mahamudra is based on this.

Come on bro, even introductory books by the Dalai Lama mention this.

"According to Tantra, the ultimate nature of mind is essentially pure......"

Again, I suggest reading "Center of the Sunlit Sky" by Karl B. Or read the root tantras themselves.

End of Thread.
Everything lacks the identity (atman) imputed by mere conceptual labels.
JohnRammy
 
Posts: 88
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 1:42 am

Next

Return to Tibetan Buddhism

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Alexa [Bot], Bakmoon, Fruitzilla, heart, Inge, Kim O'Hara, namoh, Norwegian, Tanaduk and 32 guests

>