By Scripture/Faith alone?

[ground]

TMingyur, It's sounding more and more like you subscribe to the view that the Mahayana and Vajrayana sutras and tantras are not authentic Buddhist scripture, and that only the Pali cannon is trustworthy. Since Dharma Wheel is specifically for a discussion on Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism, I am a bit confused if this is indeed the case.

This just appears to you. The reason may be your clinging to a specific view.
Lama Tsonagkhapa teaches that all scriptures are without contradiction and that all are to be practiced.

You state your view and I state mine. That's fine isn't it? I do not want to proselytize or persuade anybody.

Kind regards

[ground]

Since Dharma Wheel is specifically for a discussion on Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism, I am a bit confused if this is indeed the case.

Mahayana is perfect. Vajrayana is considered to be Mahayana.

Kind regards

[Adamantine]

TMingyur, It's sounding more and more like you subscribe to the view that the Mahayana and Vajrayana sutras and tantras are not authentic Buddhist scripture, and that only the Pali cannon is trustworthy. Since Dharma Wheel is specifically for a discussion on Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism, I am a bit confused if this is indeed the case.

This just appears to you. The reason may be your clinging to a specific view.
Lama Tsonagkhapa teaches that all scriptures are without contradiction and that all are to be practiced.

Kind regards

Perhaps I am misinterpreting the 'meaningless symbols' you write.

Actually there is no need for texts beyond the words of the Buddha in the pali canon. The latter are not "forbidded" and the Buddha did teach what needed to be taught, not more and not less.

However, in the Mahayana Sutras and Tantras there is a lot of explanation about how the path quickens according to levels of view, motivation and practice. So if one is content with waiting three incalculable aeons to achieve liberation than you are correct, there's no need for texts beyond the words of the Buddha in the pali canon

[Adamantine]

Mahayana is perfect. Vajrayana is considered to be Mahayana.

Of course!

[ground]

However, in the Mahayana Sutras and Tantras there is a lot of explanation about how the path quickens according to levels of view, motivation and practice. So if one is content with waiting three incalculable aeons to achieve liberation than you are correct, there's no need for texts beyond the words of the Buddha in the pali canon

Can a path be quickend?

Let alone seven years. If anyone would develop these four frames of reference in this way for six years... five... four... three... two years... one year... seven months... six months... five... four... three... two months... one month... half a month, one of two fruits can be expected for him: either gnosis right here & now, or — if there be any remnant of clinging/sustenance — non-return.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

three incalculable aeons

That is beyond imagination, isnt it? One may feel urged to let go of "time".

Kind regards

[Adamantine]

three incalculable aeons

That is beyond imagination, isnt it? One may feel urged to let go of "time".

Or let go of the lower yanas...

[ground]

three incalculable aeons

That is beyond imagination, isnt it? One may feel urged to let go of "time".

Or let go of the lower yanas...

Or even of the views "lower yanas" and "higher yanas".

Kind regards

[Adamantine]

three incalculable aeons

That is beyond imagination, isnt it? One may feel urged to let go of "time".

Or let go of the lower yanas...

Or even of the views "lower yanas" and "higher yanas".

Kind regards

Hey don't get ahead of yourself here my friend, -you are still writing sentences on a keyboard, after all! Once you've gone beyond the need for language to communicate you can just beam me the reply, insta-realization with no words in-between.

[ground]

three incalculable aeons

That is beyond imagination, isnt it? One may feel urged to let go of "time".

Or let go of the lower yanas...

Or even of the views "lower yanas" and "higher yanas".

Hey don't get ahead of yourself here my friend, -you are still writing sentences on a keyboard, after all! Once you've gone beyond the need for language to communicate you can just beam me the reply, insta-realization with no words in-between.

Well maybe the highest yana actually is to wholeheartedly practice vajrayana with a theravadin sort of view or to wholeheartedly practice the perfection of renunciation as taught by the Buddha of the pali canon with a vajrayana sort of view.
"highest yana" or not - it may be at least the perfection of equanimity and therefore the perfection of renunciation. Might be even the perfection of bliss.


Kind regards

[Adamantine]

Well maybe the highest yana actually is to wholeheartedly practice vajrayana with a theravadin sort of view or to wholeheartedly practice the perfection of renunciation as taught by the Buddha of the pali canon with a vajrayana sort of view.
"highest yana" or not - it may be at least the perfection of equanimity and therefore the perfection of renunciation. Might be even the perfection of bliss.

I actually never mentioned the "highest" yana, but since you brought it up. . .

By practicing meditation to attain awakening
we miss the involuntary awareness within;
by cultivating conventional virtue
we miss our intrinsic thoughtless presence;
by belief in words and letters
...we miss the unspoken sovereign secret spell;
by belief in birth and death—a crucial point—
we miss our unborn and undying nature.

-Longchenpa

[ground]

Well maybe the highest yana actually is to wholeheartedly practice vajrayana with a theravadin sort of view or to wholeheartedly practice the perfection of renunciation as taught by the Buddha of the pali canon with a vajrayana sort of view.
"highest yana" or not - it may be at least the perfection of equanimity and therefore the perfection of renunciation. Might be even the perfection of bliss.

I actually never mentioned the "highest" yana, but since you brought it up. . .

Just a metaphor. You must not take this literally. I was just playing around. I would always come back to my "gold standard" which are the teachings of the Buddha in the suttapitaka:
If something complies it may be helpful in certain contexts although it is not "identical".
If it does not comply then discard.


Kind regards


Edit:
But since the criterion of "compliance" is very "individual" there is again the possibility that my words are misunderstood as rejection of all other teachings.

[gregkavarnos]

This just appears to you. The reason may be your clinging to a specific view.
Lama Tsonagkhapa teaches that all scriptures are without contradiction and that all are to be practiced.

You state your view and I state mine. That's fine isn't it? I do not want to proselytize or persuade anybody.

Well actually it seems that you are not stating your view but a view based on the teachings of Lama Tsongkhapa, based on his view on the teachings found in the scriptures, based on the view of these teachings that was transmitted to him by his teachers, ad nauseum... and let us not forget that during his learning period he was also taught the Sarma Tantras, Dzogchen, etc...

BUT it seems to me that you are making a majorly flawed assumption: that the teachings found in the Sutta Pitaka have not been "tampered with" over the past 2500 years. That they actually are word for word accounts of the Buddhas teachings. No I am not trying to cast doubts and aspersions over the Sutta Pitaka, but let's look at it somewhat objectively.

I will assume that you do not have access to a 2500 year old text written in the Pali language and I will even go so far as to assume that you cannot read Pali anyway and that all your knowledge of the Sutta Pitaka comes from English translations.

Anyone that has translated texts from one language to another (or knows more than one language) will inform you that translation also contains large quantities of interpretation. It is inevitable since there are words, idioms, metaphors, etc... that exist in one language and not another.

AND, what makes you believe that when you read a text that you are not projecting your interpretation onto the text you are reading?

Have you ever been given an oral explanation of a text? If you have then you will be well aware of the depth of meaning that can exist even in the simplest four line stanza of verse!

Others run around
in the Grat Way,

where scripture turns to sophistry
and word play.

Some contemplate
the mandala circle,

Others describe the Fourth
as the real.

Saraha in Tantric Treasures:Three Collections of Mystical Verse from Buddhist India

[ground]

This just appears to you. The reason may be your clinging to a specific view.
Lama Tsonagkhapa teaches that all scriptures are without contradiction and that all are to be practiced.

You state your view and I state mine. That's fine isn't it? I do not want to proselytize or persuade anybody.

Well actually it seems that you are not stating your view but a view based on the teachings of Lama Tsongkhapa, based on his view on the teachings found in the scriptures, based on the view of these teachings that was transmitted to him by his teachers, ad nauseum... and let us not forget that during his learning period he was also taught the Sarma Tantras, Dzogchen, etc...

I referred to words that I remembered because it appeared convenient in this context. To conclude that I state a view that appeared to another may be a bit far-fetched.

But if your argument is based on the misconception that I would reject transmission or lineage then I would like to repeat that I consider texts to be the manifestation of lineage and transmission.

BUT it seems to me that you are making a majorly flawed assumption: that the teachings found in the Sutta Pitaka have not been "tampered with" over the past 2500 years. That they actually are word for word accounts of the Buddhas teachings. No I am not trying to cast doubts and aspersions over the Sutta Pitaka, but let's look at it somewhat objectively.

This assumption is your conclusion but not what I have said.
What you say can be applied to any teaching, be it in writing or oral.

I will assume that you do not have access to a 2500 year old text written in the Pali language and I will even go so far as to assume that you cannot read Pali anyway and that all your knowledge of the Sutta Pitaka comes from English translations.

Anyone that has translated texts from one language to another (or knows more than one language) will inform you that translation also contains large quantities of interpretation. It is inevitable since there are words, idioms, metaphors, etc... that exist in one language and not another.

All this holds true for any other teaching ... be it in writing or oral.

AND, what makes you believe that when you read a text that you are not projecting your interpretation onto the text you are reading?

What makes you believe that when you are listening to an oral teaching that you are not projecting your interpretation onto the sounds you are hearing?

Have you ever been given an oral explanation of a text? If you have then you will be well aware of the depth of meaning that can exist even in the simplest four line stanza of verse!

The assumption that an alleged "depth of meaning" of a text to arise in one's mind is necessarily dependent on the explanation orally given by another would be ill-founded since the text qua text that is before one's eyes is actually meaningless symbols and the sounds qua sounds that one hears actually meaningless sounds. But it is not that I would want to assert that there cannot be circumstances where oral explanations can be helpful ...


Kind regards

[gregkavarnos]

I referred to words that I remembered because it appeared convenient in this context. To conclude that I state a view that appeared to another may be a bit far-fetched.

Why??? Are you so sure that all your insight arises directly from you and does not have its source in teachings you have received?

But if your argument is based on the misconception that I would reject transmission or lineage then I would like to repeat that I consider texts to be the manifestation of lineage and transmission.

No, it is not based on that misconception at all. But doesn't it seem strange to you that you base so much trust on texts and so little on oral explanations/commentaries when in fact the Sutta Pitaka (for example) texts are nothing other than a transcription of the oral instructions/explanations of the Buddha?

What you say can be applied to any teaching, be it in writing or oral.

I agree with you here 100% BUT in the case of oral instruction you have the teacher present so if a certain point needs clarification... AND if it happens to be in a group situation others may ask questions of the teacher that you may not have considered or they may ask questions on a point that you believed you had understood and suddenly, from the answer, you realise that you actually had it completely wrong. Anyway, the oral explanations themselves are normally based on explanations that theteacher themselves have received and on knowledge gained through textual study so you get the best of all worlds!

What makes you believe that when you are listening to an oral teaching that you are not projecting your interpretation onto the sounds you are hearing?

Of course you are but, as I said above, you have the opportunity to clarify. You also have the opportunity to state your interpretation back to the teacher to see if you "got it" which unfortunately with texts you cannot do.

All that said, I would refer you back to my original post where you can see my basic opinion on this whole deal.
viewtopic.php?f=66&t=3397#p28239

[ground]

I referred to words that I remembered because it appeared convenient in this context. To conclude that I state a view that appeared to another may be a bit far-fetched.

Why??? Are you so sure that all your insight arises directly from you and does not have its source in teachings you have received?

Of course it arises dependently. What I meant is that one cannot know the view of another based on words that one reads, hears or remembers.

But if your argument is based on the misconception that I would reject transmission or lineage then I would like to repeat that I consider texts to be the manifestation of lineage and transmission.

No, it is not based on that misconception at all. But doesn't it seem strange to you that you base so much trust on texts and so little on oral explanations/commentaries when in fact the Sutta Pitaka (for example) texts are nothing other than a transcription of the oral instructions/explanations of the Buddha?

Well it is the way it is. I never experienced "insights" (no claim intended, consider those to be very minor) while listening but while reading.

What you say can be applied to any teaching, be it in writing or oral.

I agree with you here 100% BUT in the case of oral instruction you have the teacher present so if a certain point needs clarification...

This may be seen as a disadvantage too: The presence of someone to ask may foster the tendency to give in to habitual papanca. If there is nobody present then papanca may settle "naturally".

AND if it happens to be in a group situation others may ask questions of the teacher that you may not have considered or they may ask questions on a point that you believed you had understood and suddenly, from the answer, you realise that you actually had it completely wrong. Anyway, the oral explanations themselves are normally based on explanations that theteacher themselves have received and on knowledge gained through textual study so you get the best of all worlds!

If you repeatedly engage with a text you may experience that meanings are impermanent and arise "in different lights".
I see however that "group situations" may give rise to joy in that one rejoices in the dedication of others.

What makes you believe that when you are listening to an oral teaching that you are not projecting your interpretation onto the sounds you are hearing?

Of course you are but, as I said above, you have the opportunity to clarify. You also have the opportunity to state your interpretation back to the teacher to see if you "got it" which unfortunately with texts you cannot do.

This clarification is then based on thinking, rationalizing ... but not direct experience. If you get a text wrong mindfulness and direct experience will show the right "understanding".

All that said, I would refer you back to my original post where you can see my basic opinion on this whole deal.
viewtopic.php?f=66&t=3397#p28239

I have nothing to say against this. Texts and practice are not separate spheres.

Kind regards

[Rael]

interesting debate btw Greg and TMingyur ...it leaves me with this....

By Scripture/Faith alone?

A Calvinist Christian believes that only through the Holy Spirit can one understand the Bible.
without the Holy Spirit you cannot have faith in the the Holy Trinity.....

TMingyur, are you saying that your Buddhism is due to experiencing knowledge in the present.

that scriptural learning ,THOUGH valid,
is not as meaningfull as something taking place on a personal level in the present???...

In the thread TMingyur talks about his present day learning experiences....it seems....

"Texts" and Buddhist Scripture are all, actually, descended from "oral tradition."

In Buddha's time, it was all "oral." The Sutras, as I believe we all know, start with "Thus have I heard," not with "Thus have I read."

...

The Dharma is primarily, I think, a living, experiental transmission. Textual support is invaluable, necessary, and no doubt inevitable, in any case. But let's not forget where it all came from........

The question was:

What's your experience?

My experience is not of the time of the Buddha but of the present. And my experience is not what others want "the dharma" to be but it is my experience.

Kind regards

don't we all do this if we have a guru ..doesn't the Guru's Dharma Kaya aid us ..

maybe Tmingyur doesn't realize he is being inspired by a guru he made a pact with in the past???


very Mahayana...very cool......

[gregkavarnos]

What I meant is that one cannot know the view of another based on words that one reads, hears or remembers.

So how can one know the view of "another" then? I would have thought that this is the only way that one can know the view of another, since it seems that (apart from telepathy) this is the only way that one (or another) can express their view: written word, spoken word or (the big one you forget) actions,

Well it is the way it is. I never experienced "insights" (no claim intended, consider those to be very minor) while listening but while reading.

And because you haven't as yet experienced insight while listening then that means that nobody can experience insight from listening? Isn't that a tad self-centred?

This may be seen as a disadvantage too: The presence of someone to ask may foster the tendency to give in to habitual papanca. If there is nobody present then papanca may settle "naturally".

Possible, but not necessary, but in BOTH circumstances. Why would papanca not arise when one is reading? One could argue that is more likely to happen when one is reading because they do not have the direct presence of an "other" to "ground" them in the present moment. When, for example, is one more likely to daydream? When alone or when in the presence of others? Anyway why would papanca settle naturally? It hasn't settled over all these countless rebirths so why would it settle just because one is reading a text or listening to an explanation (albeit Dharmic)?

Oh, for those (like me) who have no grasp of Pali

In Buddhism, conceptual proliferation or self-reflexive thinking (Pali: papañca, Sanskrit: prapañca) refers to the deluded conceptualization of the world through the use of ever-expanding language and concepts, all rooted in the delusion of self. It is intended to elucidate reality, although it has the unexpected result of distorting it and/or creating a false perceptual reality.

If you repeatedly engage with a text you may experience that meanings are impermanent and arise "in different lights".

Sure, or you can impute a real existence onto a dependently arising phenomenon (the book) and consider that it is really the phenomenon that gives rise to insight and not the mind.

This clarification is then based on thinking, rationalizing ... but not direct experience. If you get a text wrong mindfulness and direct experience will show the right "understanding".

And reading cannot lead to thinking and rationalizing? If you get an oral instruction wrong then mindfulness and direct experience won’t show right understanding? Gimme a break dude! Your arguments get weaker by the second.

I have nothing to say against this. Texts and practice are not separate spheres.

And neither are oral instruction and practice separate spheres. Actually I think you will find that texts, practice and oral (aural?) instruction are indispensable and interrelated. All three inform and are informed by each other.

[Rael]

wow...maybe the pages of the reading material are laced with CIA acid or something and it just feels better that when just listening...

it's possible...
is that what they are talking about...

[gregkavarnos]

Like a foolish ox
we tether our mind with the nose ring of Self
and hand the lead of delusion over to Mara
so he can drag us to the slaughterhouse of Samsara.

[ground]

What I meant is that one cannot know the view of another based on words that one reads, hears or remembers.

So how can one know the view of "another" then? I would have thought that this is the only way that one can know the view of another, since it seems that (apart from telepathy) this is the only way that one (or another) can express their view: written word, spoken word or (the big one you forget) actions,

The approach is: You take up what you consider "right view" and experience for yourself.

Well it is the way it is. I never experienced "insights" (no claim intended, consider those to be very minor) while listening but while reading.

And because you haven't as yet experienced insight while listening then that means that nobody can experience insight from listening? Isn't that a tad self-centred?

I am expressing my experience since this was asked for in the beginning "What's your experience? ". If my experience does not comply with traditional views or propaganda of schools and traditions then I don't care as long as it complies with the Buddha's teachings.

This may be seen as a disadvantage too: The presence of someone to ask may foster the tendency to give in to habitual papanca. If there is nobody present then papanca may settle "naturally".

Possible, but not necessary, but in BOTH circumstances. Why would papanca not arise when one is reading? One could argue that is more likely to happen when one is reading because they do not have the direct presence of an "other" to "ground" them in the present moment. When, for example, is one more likely to daydream? When alone or when in the presence of others? Anyway why would papanca settle naturally? It hasn't settled over all these countless rebirths so why would it settle just because one is reading a text or listening to an explanation (albeit Dharmic)?

We may fantasize all kinds of situations and possibilities.

Your arguments get weaker by the second.

It may be your misconception that we are discussing what is "right" or "wrong" practice based on arguments. There is nothing I have to defend or argue in favour of.
What I would like to advocate however is to not loose "connection" to the Buddha's teachings and the right view he taught according to the sutta pitaka because this actually is the prime "dharma protection". One may go astray following one of the established Mahayana philosophies or confusing metaphorical vajrayana teachings with reality, i.e. taking those at face value.

I have nothing to say against this. Texts and practice are not separate spheres.

And neither are oral instruction and practice separate spheres. Actually I think you will find that texts, practice and oral (aural?) instruction are indispensable and interrelated. All three inform and are informed by each other.

I did not reject that there may be cicumstances when oral instructions are helpful. It is up to anybody to proceed the way that she/he feels is conducive. There is no problem here.

Kind regards