Yes, this being a late invention of Gampopa.conebeckham wrote:And without a doubt, the Tathagatagarbha Sutras are part of the transmission of this "Sutra Mahamudra" path.
Otherwise Tathagatagarbha Sutras are not part of the Mahamudra tradition.
Yes, this being a late invention of Gampopa.conebeckham wrote:And without a doubt, the Tathagatagarbha Sutras are part of the transmission of this "Sutra Mahamudra" path.
Yes you definitely need Madhayamaka. Madhyamaka is the basis of the tantras. You might have missed where I said this previously.conebeckham wrote:However, Mikyo Dorje also comments that it essential to an understanding of Mahamudra that one have renunciation of samsara, the mind of Bodhicitta, and the view of Emptiness as outlined in Madhyamaka
From: http://www.ttem.org/forum/index.php?topic=1867.0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;The sutra tradition of Mahamudra encompasses both the second and third turnings of the wheel of dharma [the teachings on emptiness and buddhanature, respectively]. According to the second turning of the wheel, the true nature of mind is beyond conceptual fabrication. That means it cannot be described as being existent or nonexistent, as being something or nothing, or as being permanent or impermanent. Mind cannot be described or conceptualized in any of these ways: the nature of mind is beyond all conceptual fabrication. Then, according to the third turning of the wheel of dharma, which are the teachings on buddhanature such as the Uttaratantrashastra, the true nature of mind is described as luminous clarity. This is the enlightened essence of the buddhanature, completely free from any stain, completely free from any imperfection or flaw. This luminosity is inseparable from emptiness. So the true nature of mind is described as the union of clarity and emptiness.
I'm pretty sure this is a tale like Nagarjuna being given the Perfection of Wisdom Sutras from the nagas.conebeckham wrote:JohnRammy-
Maitripa is a part of the Mahamudra lineage, is he not? He's also credited with "finding" the Ratnagotravibhaga, otherwise known as the Uttaratantrashastra of Maitreya/Asanga, is he not?
You might have missed that Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso says "sutra". I already agreed that the late sutra Mahamudra of Gampopa has a connection to the Tathagatagarbha Sutras.conebeckham wrote: Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso:The sutra tradition of Mahamudra encompasses..........
yesconebeckham wrote:Or is your assertion that Tathagatagarbha sutras and doctrines were only incorporated into Mahamudra transmission with Gampopa?
I think the question is, if a distinction was critical between "sutra" mahamudra and any other sort then why was it not made explicit in the Indian tradition? It seems more likely that this is part of the hermeneutic edifice of the Tibetan scholarly tradition that attempted more or less successfully to knit all of the disparate elements of Buddhist thought into one Grand Unified Theory. It may very well have been important in Tibet to justify the mahamudra teachings, but we are no longer in the same boat here in the West at this time.conebeckham wrote:Ah. Well, you might have missed where I pointed out that these teachings existed prior to Gampopa, and even prior to Marpa-i.e., in India. Or is your assertion that Tathagatagarbha sutras and doctrines were only incorporated into Mahamudra transmission with Gampopa?
Here's another:"At the time I’m meditating on Mahamudra,
I rest without struggle in actual real being.
I rest relaxed in a free-from-wandering space,
I rest in a clarity cradled in emptiness-space.
I rest in awareness and this is blissful space.
I rest unruffled in non-conceptual space.
In variety’s space I rest in equipoise.
I’m resting and this is naked mind itself."
Naropa's song, "The View, Concisely Put" says:THE PROFOUND DEFINITIVE MEANING SUNG ON THE SNOWY RANGE
Sung on the Snowy Range
Supreme guru, I bow down at your feet
The siddhis of blessings come straight from the dakinis
Samaya’s nectar is the most nourishing drink
Your offering of faith has kept me so healthy
This way of gathering merit, it works quite well
For the mind that masters view, the emptiness dawns
In the content seen, not even an atom exists
A seer and seen, refined until they're gone
This way of realizing view, it works quite well
When meditation is clear light river flow
There is no need to confine it to sessions and breaks
Meditator and object, refined until they're gone
This heart bone of meditation, it beats quite well
When you're sure that conduct's work is luminous light
And you're sure that interdependence is emptiness
A doer and deed, refined until they're gone
This way of working with conduct, it works quite well
When biased thinking has vanished into space
No phony facades, eight dharmas, nor hopes and fears,
A keeper and kept, refined until they're gone
This way of keeping samaya, it works quite well
When you've finally discovered your mind is dharmakaya
And you're really doing yourself and others good
A winner and won, refined until they're gone
This way of winning results, it works quite well
We may as well ask why there are the "Six Dharmas of Naropa," as prior to this classification, there was not such an explicit system. A collection of Completion Stage instructions from various lineages, and from various Tantras, were brought together in a meaningful and skillful way. Then again, perhaps this was Marpa's doing, eh? Maybe he was creating a hermeneutic edifice, as well?Karma Dorje wrote:I think the question is, if a distinction was critical between "sutra" mahamudra and any other sort then why was it not made explicit in the Indian tradition? It seems more likely that this is part of the hermeneutic edifice of the Tibetan scholarly tradition that attempted more or less successfully to knit all of the disparate elements of Buddhist thought into one Grand Unified Theory. It may very well have been important in Tibet to justify the mahamudra teachings, but we are no longer in the same boat here in the West at this time.
Of course there is great identity between the tathagathagarbha sutras, the tantras and the dohas of mahamudra: they describe the same underlying reality of luminous emptiness. We need not assume that these are all of a single piece historically.
Jinzang wrote: which shows that Gampopa was not the first Kagyu practitioner
Gathering together a set of six instructions Marpa received from Naropa and calling them the "Six Dharmas of Naropa" is rather obviously not the same thing as developing an innovative notion of Mahamudra broken down into sutra, tantra and essence which was never there before. The first is merely enumerating a list, the second is putting forward an entirely new interpretation. It was not taught by his guru Milarepa or his paramaguru Marpa, and Je Gampopa's formulation was controversial-- criticized by the likes of Sapan for revealing Mahamudra outside of vajrayana context.conebeckham wrote: We may as well ask why there are the "Six Dharmas of Naropa," as prior to this classification, there was not such an explicit system. A collection of Completion Stage instructions from various lineages, and from various Tantras, were brought together in a meaningful and skillful way. Then again, perhaps this was Marpa's doing, eh? Maybe he was creating a hermeneutic edifice, as well?
I personally don't think Gampopa was attempting to create a Grand Unified Theory. I believe he was working with the notion of Skillful Means.
Karma Dorje wrote:many practitioners will practice their entire life without reading the works of Maitreya.
Woah, that's not what I said at all. I was saying that there was no need to justify Mahamudra by situating it in a sutric tradition as most Western practitioners will likely not undertake the study of these texts, *not* that there is no benefit to their study. In fact, I have found them tremendously clear and useful. That's a very glib of you to dismiss them summarily.JohnRammy wrote:Karma Dorje wrote:many practitioners will practice their entire life without reading the works of Maitreya.
Yes, Candrakīrti or Atisa would have said something if the Tathagatagarbha Sutras were important.
Indians ignored these texts for a reason.
This Kagyupa disagrees with you. Marpa was the founder of the Marpa Kagyu lineages. Not that I would underestimate Gampopa, or dismiss Milarepa.JohnRammy wrote:Jinzang wrote: which shows that Gampopa was not the first Kagyu practitioner
Gampopa is THE first Kagyu practitioner.
The first.
The founder.
Actually, the Six Yogas aren't merely a "list," they're a systematic presentation. Quite novel, in many ways. Also I am not certain that Mila or Marpa didn't teach the "non-tantric" Mahamudra --though I agree Gampopa popularized and systematized it.Karma Dorje wrote:Gathering together a set of six instructions Marpa received from Naropa and calling them the "Six Dharmas of Naropa" is rather obviously not the same thing as developing an innovative notion of Mahamudra broken down into sutra, tantra and essence which was never there before. The first is merely enumerating a list, the second is putting forward an entirely new interpretation. It was not taught by his guru Milarepa or his paramaguru Marpa, and Je Gampopa's formulation was controversial-- criticized by the likes of Sapan for revealing Mahamudra outside of vajrayana context.
Could be true, what you say...I don't know.I don't disagree with you that his philosophical moves were skillful means to engage beings more widely in the ultimate teachings. I am simply saying that the reasons behind such an innovation may be particular to Tibet where one had to justify any such a move against the entire edifice of the Buddhist teaching, situating the pointing out instruction in the context of sutra. These days, I don't see many people insisting on such a justification and many practitioners will practice their entire life without reading the works of Maitreya.