Buddhism & Bon: Practicing Both at Once?

Moderator: Tibetan Buddhism moderators

Re: Buddhism & Bon: Practicing Both at Once?

Postby Karma Dorje » Mon May 20, 2013 4:32 pm

Caz wrote:Certainly Modern Bon is very similar to some forms of Buddhism today but that still doesn't make its refuge worthy. As you know at every age of the turning of Dharma the Dharma of the previous age becomes extinct and is renewed again by the Tathagata in this case Shakyamuni Buddha so for one to suggest that there is a ancient Buddha who's Dharma has been preserved in the form of the Bon religion is nonsense. Buddhist Refuge comes from Buddha you cannot call yourself a Buddhist if your refuge is also placed within Bon as well that's taking eclecticism way to far.

Sure Padmasambhava may have acted skilfully and suppressed the more evil practices that existed within Bon at one point but even with A fully accomplished being such as Padmasambhava cannot produce a existent authentic refuge lineage from where there is none.


I am curious: In this vast universe, with as many star systems as the sands of the Ganges, do you think that Shakyamuni is the only Buddha that appears at this time? If so, do you think that Buddhism looks exactly the same as it does here on Earth in each of those places? I ask because you seem quite emphatic about there only being one Buddhadharma and that's the way it arose here on this planet at this particular time.

Surely, authentic lineage comes from the dharmakaya and not merely by dint of historical connection to a particular being.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly."
~Arthur Carlson
User avatar
Karma Dorje
 
Posts: 864
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 10:35 pm

Re: Buddhism & Bon: Practicing Both at Once?

Postby dzogchungpa » Mon May 20, 2013 5:23 pm

T. Chokyi wrote:Malcolm changed his view since back on esangha, he used to think similar to Namgyal, and argue that Bon was not where you did your refuge of the three jewels becasue Shakyamuni Buddha wasn't one of the jewels, an entirely different Buddha is used in Bon. Malcolm would say you violate your refuge vows, however, since that time he changed this way of thinking.

Since he isn't here I thought I would point this out:
vajracakra.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=850
Note that, in the higher tantras, there is talk of a self and an I, even though in the lower teachings the absence of self and the absence of I is what is always proclaimed. - Tony Duff
To educate the educated is notoriously difficult. - Jacques Barzun
སརྦ་དྷརྨ་དྷཱ་ཏུ་ཨཱཏྨ་ཀོ་྅ཧཾ༔
User avatar
dzogchungpa
 
Posts: 2011
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 10:50 pm

Re: Buddhism & Bon: Practicing Both at Once?

Postby ngodrup » Mon May 20, 2013 6:15 pm

One and only one Buddha, Shakyamuni.
That would be the view of Theravada.

Infinite Buddhas: That is the view of Mahayana.

If one takes refuge in Kuntuzangpo, is one therefore
not Buddhist? In that case, every single person who has
practiced the Nam Cho Ngondro would be non Buddhist.
ngodrup
 
Posts: 557
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 6:58 pm

Re: Buddhism & Bon: Practicing Both at Once?

Postby Konchog1 » Mon May 20, 2013 8:06 pm

dzogchungpa wrote:
T. Chokyi wrote:Malcolm changed his view since back on esangha, he used to think similar to Namgyal, and argue that Bon was not where you did your refuge of the three jewels becasue Shakyamuni Buddha wasn't one of the jewels, an entirely different Buddha is used in Bon. Malcolm would say you violate your refuge vows, however, since that time he changed this way of thinking.

Since he isn't here I thought I would point this out:
vajracakra.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=850
The board requires you to be registered and logged in to view this forum.
Would you please quote the post that you're linking to?
Equanimity is the ground. Love is the moisture. Compassion is the seed. Bodhicitta is the result.

-Paraphrase of Khensur Rinpoche Lobsang Tsephel citing the Guhyasamaja Tantra

"All memories and thoughts are the union of emptiness and knowing, the Mind.
Without attachment, self-liberating, like a snake in a knot.
Through the qualities of meditating in that way,
Mental obscurations are purified and the dharmakaya is attained."

-Ra Lotsawa, All-pervading Melodious Drumbeats
User avatar
Konchog1
 
Posts: 1296
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2011 4:30 am

Re: Buddhism & Bon: Practicing Both at Once?

Postby Sherab Dorje » Mon May 20, 2013 9:14 pm

For the record this statement attributed to me is inaccurate:

Malcolm...used to think similar to Namgyal, and argue that Bon was not where you did your refuge of the three jewels becasue Shakyamuni Buddha wasn't one of the jewels, an entirely different Buddha is used in Bon. Malcolm would say you violate your refuge vows, however, since that time he changed this way of thinking.
I never ever stated that one would violate one's ["Buddhist"] vows of refuge by taking refuge in Tonpa Shenrab. I never would have made that statement, since I am a student of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu since 1992.

M


Let's get back to the topic please!
"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
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 9287
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Buddhism & Bon: Practicing Both at Once?

Postby Caz » Mon May 20, 2013 10:24 pm

Karma Dorje wrote:
Caz wrote:Certainly Modern Bon is very similar to some forms of Buddhism today but that still doesn't make its refuge worthy. As you know at every age of the turning of Dharma the Dharma of the previous age becomes extinct and is renewed again by the Tathagata in this case Shakyamuni Buddha so for one to suggest that there is a ancient Buddha who's Dharma has been preserved in the form of the Bon religion is nonsense. Buddhist Refuge comes from Buddha you cannot call yourself a Buddhist if your refuge is also placed within Bon as well that's taking eclecticism way to far.

Sure Padmasambhava may have acted skilfully and suppressed the more evil practices that existed within Bon at one point but even with A fully accomplished being such as Padmasambhava cannot produce a existent authentic refuge lineage from where there is none.


I am curious: In this vast universe, with as many star systems as the sands of the Ganges, do you think that Shakyamuni is the only Buddha that appears at this time? If so, do you think that Buddhism looks exactly the same as it does here on Earth in each of those places? I ask because you seem quite emphatic about there only being one Buddhadharma and that's the way it arose here on this planet at this particular time.

Surely, authentic lineage comes from the dharmakaya and not merely by dint of historical connection to a particular being.



There are many Buddha's but there is only one Buddha Shakyamuni and surely in order for it to considered genuine Buddhadharma and worthy it has a lineage which arises with him as the founder, Even our Tantric lineages arise from Vajradhara who is the enjoyment body.

Where does the lineage of Bon arise from ? The Dark magics of evil doers and powerful forces such as the Naga's this was the original Bon that has been suppressed to an extent but by accounts it does still exist in the outskirts of distant places.

Anything that arises from such things is not worthy of refuge.
Abandoning Dharma is, in the final analysis, disparaging the Hinayana because of the Mahayana; favoring the Hinayana on account of the Mahayana; playing off sutra against tantra; playing off the four classes of the tantras against each other; favoring one of the Tibetan schools—the Sakya, Gelug, Kagyu, or Nyingma—and disparaging the rest; and so on. In other words, we abandon Dharma any time we favor our own tenets and disparage the rest.

Liberation in the Palm of your hand~Kyabje Pabongkha Rinpoche.
Caz
 
Posts: 543
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2011 12:49 am

Re: Buddhism & Bon: Practicing Both at Once?

Postby Konchog1 » Mon May 20, 2013 10:37 pm

I think this may be the point of confusion:
Where does the lineage of Bon arise from ? The Dark magics of evil doers and powerful forces such as the Naga's this was the original Bon that has been suppressed to an extent but by accounts it does still exist in the outskirts of distant places.
Bon today is heavily influenced by Buddhism to the point where even the Dalai Lama states that it's Buddhist enough to take refuge in. However, the Bon that Padmasambhava, the Dharma kings, Milarepa, Jigten Sumgon, and Phabongkha attacked as non-Buddhist was the original shamanist Bon, which of course breaks your refuge vow if you practice it.
Equanimity is the ground. Love is the moisture. Compassion is the seed. Bodhicitta is the result.

-Paraphrase of Khensur Rinpoche Lobsang Tsephel citing the Guhyasamaja Tantra

"All memories and thoughts are the union of emptiness and knowing, the Mind.
Without attachment, self-liberating, like a snake in a knot.
Through the qualities of meditating in that way,
Mental obscurations are purified and the dharmakaya is attained."

-Ra Lotsawa, All-pervading Melodious Drumbeats
User avatar
Konchog1
 
Posts: 1296
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2011 4:30 am

Re: Buddhism & Bon: Practicing Both at Once?

Postby T. Chokyi » Mon May 20, 2013 10:45 pm

gregkavarnos wrote:
For the record this statement attributed to me is inaccurate:

Malcolm...used to think similar to Namgyal, and argue that Bon was not where you did your refuge of the three jewels becasue Shakyamuni Buddha wasn't one of the jewels, an entirely different Buddha is used in Bon. Malcolm would say you violate your refuge vows, however, since that time he changed this way of thinking.
I never ever stated that one would violate one's ["Buddhist"] vows of refuge by taking refuge in Tonpa Shenrab. I never would have made that statement, since I am a student of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu since 1992.

M


Let's get back to the topic please!



Thank you Greg!

I see, so he does not feel that way, and says he never did, ok fine, whos to argue, maybe I misunderstood.

:focus:
User avatar
T. Chokyi
 
Posts: 357
Joined: Sat May 26, 2012 11:19 am

Re: Buddhism & Bon: Practicing Both at Once?

Postby Lhug-Pa » Tue May 21, 2013 12:29 am

This is what the naysayers here fail to understand:

Yungdrung Bön is the original Bön, from the Buddha known as Tonpa Shenrab Miwoche.

"Old Bön", "Black Bön", "New Bön", "White Bön", etc. all came later.

Black/Old Bön may be in only some aspects based on Yungdrung Bön, and White/New Bön is mixed with Buddhism; nevertheless, people should do more research regarding Yungdrung Bön, before jumping to conclusions based on mere assumptions.

I'm sure that any Bönpo Geshe or Lopön can prove through debate that the realization of Yungdrung Bön is equal to that of Buddha Dharma; that is for those who are going after intellectual analysis.
User avatar
Lhug-Pa
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2011 11:58 pm

Re: Buddhism & Bon: Practicing Both at Once?

Postby hop.pala » Tue May 21, 2013 5:51 am

New Bön is an mixed religion,that preservate something from Bön but contain the essence of buddhism,the essence of enlightement.

"Tonpa Shenrab Miwoche embodied three different paths to enlightenment: Sutra, the renunciation path (Chi Gyu Tsen Nyi Thek Pa); Tantra, the transformation path (Nang San Wa Ngak Kyi Thek Pa); and Dzogchen, the self-liberation path (Sang Wa Sem Chok La Na Me Pei Thek pa)"

Tehe essence of the teaching is the realization of Buddhahood:

"The final stage was the transformation of his physical body into light, the rainbow body of the Dzogchen way. "

http://bonshenling.org/bonhistory/
hop.pala
 
Posts: 187
Joined: Sat May 11, 2013 3:48 am

Re: Buddhism & Bon: Practicing Both at Once?

Postby Caz » Tue May 21, 2013 7:05 am

Lhug-Pa wrote:This is what the naysayers here fail to understand:

Yungdrung Bön is the original Bön, from the Buddha known as Tonpa Shenrab Miwoche.

"Old Bön", "Black Bön", "New Bön", "White Bön", etc. all came later.

Black/Old Bön may be in only some aspects based on Yungdrung Bön, and White/New Bön is mixed with Buddhism; nevertheless, people should do more research regarding Yungdrung Bön, before jumping to conclusions based on mere assumptions.

I'm sure that any Bönpo Geshe or Lopön can prove through debate that the realization of Yungdrung Bön is equal to that of Buddha Dharma; that is for those who are going after intellectual analysis.


I somehow think that this "original " Bon you refer to would never have manifested if not for the arrival of Buddhadharma. :o
Abandoning Dharma is, in the final analysis, disparaging the Hinayana because of the Mahayana; favoring the Hinayana on account of the Mahayana; playing off sutra against tantra; playing off the four classes of the tantras against each other; favoring one of the Tibetan schools—the Sakya, Gelug, Kagyu, or Nyingma—and disparaging the rest; and so on. In other words, we abandon Dharma any time we favor our own tenets and disparage the rest.

Liberation in the Palm of your hand~Kyabje Pabongkha Rinpoche.
Caz
 
Posts: 543
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2011 12:49 am

Re: Buddhism & Bon: Practicing Both at Once?

Postby mutsuk » Tue May 21, 2013 8:01 am

Konchog1 wrote: the original shamanist Bon, which of course breaks your refuge vow if you practice it.

A statement which so obviously demonstrates that you don't know anything about Bon : there is no refuge in shamanistic Bon and there has never been any. Moreover, according to Bon accounts, Tönpa Shenrab suppressed this form of Bon.
mutsuk
 
Posts: 454
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2010 7:35 pm

Re: Buddhism & Bon: Practicing Both at Once?

Postby Pema Rigdzin » Tue May 21, 2013 8:10 am

Namgyal wrote:Is Bon Dharma?...No. The fact that a few enlightened masters are able study Bon in a spirit of friendship and tolerance does not make it 'the fifth school of Tibetan Buddhism'. A 'fifth Tibetan spiritual school' certainly, but it is not a tradition founded by Lord Buddha, so it is not Buddhism, regardless of how similar it may appear. If you were to ask the Bonpo themselves they would assert, very strongly, that they are not another Buddhist lineage.


I'm personally a Nyingmapa and not personally interested in studying Bon or any other tradition really since I already have all I need, but I must say... Not even all Buddhist teachings were technically founded by Shakyamuni Buddha. Virtually all of the Vajrayana was originally transmitted in this world by other buddhas, and Buddhist Dzogchen was introduced by Garab Dorje. Buddhas are buddhas are buddhas.

More pertinent, however, is the fact that Bon contains every last one of the liberative elements of Vajrayana and Dzogchen and nothing at the definitive level of its teaching that contradicts the Buddha's Dharma. If those elements don't lead to buddhahood for Bonpos, how could they lead to buddhahood for Buddhists? Matter of fact, Bonpo Madhyamaka mirrors Gelug Madhyamaka so much that man Bonpo scholars have gone to Gelug monasteries like Ganden for their study and debate of Madhyamaka. So what gives? You might say it comes down to Bonpos lacking an authentic lineage... Well, Guru Rinpoche and a number of Nyingma tertons transmitted the inner tantras, including Dzogchen, to them and a number of indisputable Nyingma Dzogchen masters have attested to the ultimate realization and rainbow body accomplishment of Bon Dzogchen masters like Shardza Tashi Gyaltsen. Not sure how you could argue effectively against those points, but I'm interested to see what you think.
Last edited by Pema Rigdzin on Tue May 21, 2013 8:12 am, edited 1 time in total.
Pema Rigdzin
 
Posts: 1030
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 3:19 am
Location: Southern Oregon

Re: Buddhism & Bon: Practicing Both at Once?

Postby mutsuk » Tue May 21, 2013 8:11 am

Lhug-Pa wrote:"Old Bön", "Black Bön", "New Bön", "White Bön", etc. all came later.

No, Old Bon came first, but except for its name of Bon, it has nothing to do with Yungdrung Bon. Black Bon and White Bon are buddhist terminology which is not used in original Yungdrung Bon teachings (despite a certain use in neo-modern texts).

Black/Old Bön may be in only some aspects based on Yungdrung Bön,

No it is not.

and White/New Bön is mixed with Buddhism;

White Bon and New Bon are not the same. And New Bon is a very special lineage which is based on Drenpa Namkha and Vairocana. Contrary to what people usually believe, Padmasambhava plays a very secondary role in this.

nevertheless, people should do more research regarding Yungdrung Bön, before jumping to conclusions based on mere assumptions.

These people have a background of prior zealots who were prompt in criticizing Bon without opening any Bonpo book. This is a trademark frequent among uneducated Geluks.

I'm sure that any Bönpo Geshe or Lopön can prove through debate that the realization of Yungdrung Bön is equal to that of Buddha Dharma; that is for those who are going after intellectual analysis.

Well Bon follows the four seals, etc. It is Buddhist since it follows the teachings of a Sangyé (sangs-rgyas), a Buddha. If we were to accept Caz and Konchog rantings, displaying their traditional hate toward Bon, then applying the same criteria to their lineage would certainly surprise them. Shakyamuni never taught Tantras so all the Geluk tantras are taught by someone else and according to these 2 guys criteria then these are not the teachings of a Buddha since they were taught by someone else. And it's no use to bring the Sambhogakaya issue in it, it has no historical value. From a Theravadin point of view, the Geluk Buddhism is Bonpo.... :rolling:
Last edited by mutsuk on Tue May 21, 2013 8:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
mutsuk
 
Posts: 454
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2010 7:35 pm

Re: Buddhism & Bon: Practicing Both at Once?

Postby mutsuk » Tue May 21, 2013 8:20 am

Caz wrote:I somehow think that this "original " Bon you refer to would never have manifested if not for the arrival of Buddhadharma. :o

Not according to Bon accounts. But what is certain is that Yungdrung Bon as it exists today is a Sarma school but it has roots in the 8th century and is actually now closer to Geluks than any other school. Usually people think Nyingma and Bon are close to one another. This is true only for Dzogchen, and even there, there are so many differences to imagine that their Dzogchen lineages have a common origin (both deny the fact). The only difference between Bon and Geluk is the introduction of Dzogchen in the Bon cursus of studies. If you look at the program of their respective Geshe Degree, Bonpos and Gelukpas are just the same (except again for Dzogchen), so much so that they can debate between them without much lexicon problems. So far, as recognized by the Dalai Lama administration, the friendly debates between Bonpos and Geluks have always given Bonpos the victory during debates held in Dolanji and elsewhere. The problem that are raised here on this forum is only there because Kongchog and Caz are uneducated in terms of Bon and its actual impact on the history of Tibet. They most obviously don't read the academic literature on the subject and they most obviously share the opinions of this sub-lineage of Geluks which is associated with a certain worldly being that one is not allowed to mention here (even though this is the real reason of their recurring arguments here...).
mutsuk
 
Posts: 454
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2010 7:35 pm

Re: Buddhism & Bon: Practicing Both at Once?

Postby Namgyal » Tue May 21, 2013 11:33 am

mutsuk wrote:...what is certain is that Yungdrung Bon as it exists today is a Sarma school but it has roots in the 8th century...The only difference between Bon and Geluk is the introduction of Dzogchen in the Bon cursus of studies...The problem that are raised here on this forum is only there because Kongchog and Caz are uneducated in terms of Bon and its actual impact on the history of Tibet. They most obviously don't read the academic literature on the subject and they most obviously share the opinions of this sub-lineage of Geluks which is associated with a...).

I've read the academic literature and it bears no resemblance to your opinions Mutsuk. Nothing is certain in respect of Bon's history and composition. 'Yungdrung', 'black', 'reformed' etc. etc., are either comparatively modern titles or else meaningless terms invented by early Western scholars which are now discredited. What is certain is that Bon today is almost indistinguishable from Buddhism, and therefore obviously it is an excellant spiritual path and source of refuge. My Lama is His Holiness the Dalai Lama, so technically I'm Gelugpa. In common with my Lama I hold the 'unbounded' view of all Buddhist traditions, and indeed a friendship with all religions. I'll dispute with anyone who defames other religious practitioners including sectarian Gelugpa. I don't deny that there is a small conservative faction within the Gelug whose views are rigid and discriminatory, but this is not the view of the vast majority, of His Holiness the Dalai Lama, or of Je Tsongkhapa.
:namaste:
Namgyal
 
Posts: 339
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2013 12:13 pm

Re: Buddhism & Bon: Practicing Both at Once?

Postby Namgyal » Tue May 21, 2013 11:58 am

Pema Rigdzin wrote:I'm personally a Nyingmapa and not personally interested in studying Bon or any other tradition really since I already have all I need, but I must say... Not even all Buddhist teachings were technically founded by Shakyamuni Buddha. Virtually all of the Vajrayana was originally transmitted in this world by other buddhas, and Buddhist Dzogchen was introduced by Garab Dorje. Buddhas are buddhas are buddhas. More pertinent, however, is the fact that Bon contains every last one of the liberative elements of Vajrayana and Dzogchen and nothing at the definitive level of its teaching that contradicts the Buddha's Dharma. If those elements don't lead to buddhahood for Bonpos, how could they lead to buddhahood for Buddhists? Matter of fact, Bonpo Madhyamaka mirrors Gelug Madhyamaka so much that man Bonpo scholars have gone to Gelug monasteries like Ganden for their study and debate of Madhyamaka. So what gives? You might say it comes down to Bonpos lacking an authentic lineage... Well, Guru Rinpoche and a number of Nyingma tertons transmitted the inner tantras, including Dzogchen, to them and a number of indisputable Nyingma Dzogchen masters have attested to the ultimate realization and rainbow body accomplishment of Bon Dzogchen masters like Shardza Tashi Gyaltsen. Not sure how you could argue effectively against those points, but I'm interested to see what you think.

:good:
There have been twenty-six 'Buddhas' of the past, whose religions were not called 'Buddhism', and according to the tantras 'Dzogchen' exists on thirteen other worlds in this universe, where it is obviously not called 'Dzogchen'. In this sense we are all practitioners of different versions of the same thing. However, as ordinary practitioners we bind ourselves to just one path. Even if a nearby path is identical, by skipping over to it, we weaken our original binding by creating an alternate focus. Instead, in my opinion, one is better served by focussing solely on the Three Jewels...or on the Four Jewels, if thats your chosen path.
:namaste:
Namgyal
 
Posts: 339
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2013 12:13 pm

Re: Buddhism & Bon: Practicing Both at Once?

Postby mutsuk » Tue May 21, 2013 12:43 pm

Namgyal wrote:I've read the academic literature

You most obviously have not.

and it bears no resemblance to your opinions Mutsuk.

Well, my references are Dan Martin, Henk Blezer, Samten Karmay, Charles Ramble, Jean-Luc Achard and a few others. They are leading scholars in Bon studies. My opinion is based on reading their work and Bonpo works directly.

Nothing is certain in respect of Bon's history and composition.

Wrong. We have much certainty for post-dynastic works, history and doctrines. You don't know what you're talking about. This is silly.

'Yungdrung', 'black', 'reformed' etc. etc., are either comparatively modern titles or else meaningless terms invented by early Western scholars which are now discredited.

Wrong again... It's starting to be recurrent... Most of these adjectives appear already in Jigten Sumgon and are later endorsed by ill-informed and uneducated (in Bon lore I mean) Geluk scholars such as Thu'u bkvan Blo bzang Chos kyi nyi ma and others. dBra ston pandita has demonstrated the non-pertinent nature of their analysis. Read more, you'll know more.

What is certain is that Bon today is almost indistinguishable from Buddhism,

Modern Bon is a Sarma school, this is obvious to all. If you'd read the academic literature you pretend to have read, you'd have a clearer picture of the subject.

and therefore obviously it is an excellant spiritual path and source of refuge.

So now you're changing... Interesting.

and indeed a friendship with all religions.

And in this you are in error. You should read, if you can, works of siddhanta nature to understand why non-buddhist religions should be avoided. In this case, friendship is making you blind.

I'll dispute with anyone

Indeed, it seems clear.
mutsuk
 
Posts: 454
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2010 7:35 pm

Re: Buddhism & Bon: Practicing Both at Once?

Postby Namgyal » Tue May 21, 2013 1:06 pm

mutsuk wrote:Wrong. We have much certainty for post-dynastic works, history and doctrines. You don't know what you're talking about. This is silly.
Given the lack of written resources on the Bon tradition from pre-Buddhist Tibet and the clear and powerfulinfluence Buddhism has had on the Bon traditions over the past thirteen hundred years, it seems unlikely wewill ever have a clear picture of the tradition and its views before the advent of Buddhism.(Rossi)(Earlier in this thread)
mutsuk wrote:So now you're changing... Interesting.
At no point have I expressed a negative view of Bon (have you actually even read through this thread?)
mutsuk wrote:And in this you are in error. You should read, if you can, works of siddhanta nature to understand why non-buddhist religions should be avoided. In this case, friendship is making you blind.
Thanks, but I'll stick with friendship.
Namgyal
 
Posts: 339
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2013 12:13 pm

Re: Buddhism & Bon: Practicing Both at Once?

Postby mutsuk » Tue May 21, 2013 1:18 pm

Namgyal wrote:
mutsuk wrote:Wrong. We have much certainty for post-dynastic works, history and doctrines. You don't know what you're talking about. This is silly.
Given the lack of written resources on the Bon tradition from pre-Buddhist Tibet and the clear and powerfulinfluence Buddhism has had on the Bon traditions over the past thirteen hundred years, it seems unlikely wewill ever have a clear picture of the tradition and its views before the advent of Buddhism.(Rossi)(Earlier in this thread)

I have not quoted or refered to Rossi as a reliable historian for Bon. She is no historian of Bon. But you said "Nothing of Bon...". You're wrong, we have a pretty clear picture of historical Bon (post-dynastic if you prefer). You should read more.

namgyal wrote:At no point have I expressed a negative view of Bon (have you actually even read through this thread?)

viewtopic.php?f=40&t=12790&start=40#p166821
You definitely showed hostility. As Konchog and Caz, you like to put things in small boxes so that it reasurres you. Religious history is more complex than you actually suspect. Tibetan Buddhism would not have the characteristics it has if it were not for Bon. Remember Atisha's surprises when encountering TIbetan "buddists"?

namgyal wrote:Thanks, but I'll stick with friendship.
[/quote]
Your prerogative, but this should not prevent you from reading relevant chapters in siddhanta literature dealing with heretical traditions... You got a bunch of them in geluk corpuses...
mutsuk
 
Posts: 454
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2010 7:35 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Tibetan Buddhism

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], heart, palchi, uan and 22 guests

cron
>