Is Tibetan Buddhism more logical?

No holds barred discussion on the Buddhadharma. Argue about rebirth, karma, commentarial interpretations etc. Be nice to each other.

Re: Is Tibetan Buddhism more logical?

Postby ronnewmexico » Sat Sep 18, 2010 3:01 am

Not to get into a discussion on karma nor sudden enlightenment and the Tibetan Schools variance on that thing.....but to the logic issue.

I recall reading of a tutor to monks in the Tibetan tradition being involved in debate, being told in the debate of the absolute certaintity of Mr Sumuru as the center of the universe(as point of truth in the debate)....so debate as a absolute indicator of logical process....not necessarily.

Secondarily, as regards HHDL, his statements as opposed to his written words may convey different meanings as they are spoken to a audience in the first and meant in part to be a legacy of sorts in the second.

So....I always take the written words....what he has written and his people have published.... to be the real true opinion on things. Statements....I have seen statements that display apparent contradictory things in many contexts.

This particular statement being on his official website and such would indicate affirmation of each part of what he says to be absolutly what he feels on such things but even with that qualifier it is still a statement and not the written word so it can not similiarily be a absolute.

So reduced to writting and published under his offices approval I would assume this is his opinion....otherwise it may be like things we all say every day...we mean something but not necessarily always what we say or how it is interpreted.

Perhaps this is published as mentioned, but if not.....this may apply.
"This order considers that progress can be achieved more rapidly during a single month of self-transformation through terrifying conditions in rough terrain and in "the abode of harmful forces" than through meditating for a period of three years in towns and monasteries"....Takpo Tashi Namgyal.
User avatar
ronnewmexico
 
Posts: 1601
Joined: Fri Dec 25, 2009 10:17 pm

Re: Is Tibetan Buddhism more logical?

Postby d.sullivan » Fri Sep 24, 2010 5:46 am

Jikan wrote:I'd say that many streams of Tibetan Buddhism (not all) frontload reason and dialectics instead of devotional practices, where East Asian Buddhist traditions generally start with devotion or meditation or liturgy. The difference is in pedagogy and emphasis.


I would argue that a defining characteristic of most of the Tibetan Buddhist schools is the devotional - devotion to the Guru. That doesn't mean that they don't also put a lot of emphasis on reason and dialectics, but we can't ignore that devotion plays a big part in Tibetan Buddhism.

I wonder how general HHDL's original statement is, and if he includes the Thai Forest tradition, for example, in the group of traditions that are less rational than his tradition?
d.sullivan
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2010 11:12 am

Re: Is Tibetan Buddhism more logical?

Postby neverdowell » Fri Sep 24, 2010 10:21 am

d.sullivan wrote:I would argue that a defining characteristic of most of the Tibetan Buddhist schools is the devotional - devotion to the Guru. That doesn't mean that they don't also put a lot of emphasis on reason and dialectics, but we can't ignore that devotion plays a big part in Tibetan Buddhism.

That's what I thought, and the reason I originally shied away from Tibetan Buddhism and most forms of Mahayana Buddhism except Zen. Devotion to Gurus and Buddha figures. There seemed to be a gap between the emptiness teachings and the devotional side, as far as explaining how they are connected. I did not understand how it fit together until I had some experiences, nothing to do with anything I read.
:stirthepot:

d.sullivan wrote:I wonder how general HHDL's original statement is, and if he includes the Thai Forest tradition, for example, in the group of traditions that are less rational than his tradition?

I spent a lot of time only listening to Theravada teachers, even though I was committed to the Bodhisattva aspiration! Because Theravada seemed the most logical, the least imbued with "fluff". Sorry but that's how I saw it at the time. Yeah I've had a bumpy ride... right now I'm going to a Chinese temple.
:bow:

To develop bodhichitta, which is the actual practice, you need to develop such compassion that you simply cannot bear others being tormented by suffering. But in order to develop this compassion, you must know exactly how you yourself are plagued by suffering. And you must understand that the whole of samsara is by nature suffering. But first you must fear the lower realms, for without this you will have no repudiation of celestial and human happiness. You must therefore train your mind in the small- and medium- scope parts of the path. -- Pabongka Rinpoche
neverdowell
 
Posts: 69
Joined: Sat Jun 26, 2010 9:58 am
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Previous

Return to Open Dharma

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: JKhedrup, Johnny Dangerous and 25 guests

>