By Scripture/Faith alone?

[Rael]

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.



Kind regards

define propaganda of schools and traditions...i care...please explain

[ground]

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.



Kind regards

define propaganda of schools and traditions...i care...please explain

All kinds of philosophical tenets, and categorization of views and paths.

Kind regards

[ground]

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

And of course if you think it may be helpful to get some vajrayana empowerment or/and to receive some vows then there is no way other than personal oral instructions.

Kind regards

[Adamantine]

It seems to me that the elephant in the room is the simple fact that the teachings and stories in the sutta pitaka were recorded and transmitted purely in an oral lineage for about four hundred and fifty four years before they were ever written down and recorded as a textual compilation. So if anyone doesn't have faith in the ability of oral lineages to accurately record and transmit the Dharma then faith in the sutta pitaka must go out the window as well. And if you have faith in the accuracy of the pali canon, then you must concede that just because mahayana sutras weren't written down at the very same time, this doesn't mean those sutras also don't trace back to the actual Buddha's words.. . it may simply mean that the mahayana sangha holding the oral lineages didn't decide to write them down until a generation or two later, or that the texts written at that time didn't survive. . . (or that the nagas were holding onto them for safekeeping). .

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.

Well this is precisely why it is considered essential to work with guides and gurus when one embarks on these paths - to avoid going astray, confusing the metaphorical with the literal, etc. This perspective only lends emphasis to the importance of oral lineage, and the reductionist conclusion that anyone should simply avoid these teachings and stick to reading the sutta pitaka appears a bit narrow minded.

[ground]

It seems to me that the elephant in the room is the simple fact that the teachings and stories in the sutta pitaka were recorded and transmitted purely in an oral lineage for about four hundred and fifty four years before they were ever written down and recorded as a textual compilation. So if anyone doesn't have faith in the ability of oral lineages to accurately record and transmit the Dharma then faith in the sutta pitaka must go out the window as well. And if you have faith in the accuracy of the pali canon, then you must concede that just because mahayana sutras weren't written down at the very same time, this doesn't mean those sutras also don't trace back to the actual Buddha's words..

I do not take issue with Mahayana sutras qua Mahayana sutras in isolation but I do take some issue with Mahayana sutras qua Mahayana sutras in the present time where there is a presentation of a variety of traditions that had not been accessible to the same degree to an audience when these Mahayana sutras have been "published".
And I think there is good reason to take issue with the interpretations qua interpretations of suttas and sutras by Mahayana scholars and philosophers.
Nagarjuna appeared due to the teachings of the Buddha having been led astray by scholars. Thus Nagarjuna removed impurities from the first record of the Buddha's teaching. Today one may recognize that the Mahayana has been led astray by scholars and philosophers. And one may easily remove the corresponding impurities from the Mahayana through applying the first record of the Buddha's teaching.

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.

Well this is precisely why it is considered essential to work with guides and gurus when one embarks on these paths - to avoid going astray, confusing the metaphorical with the literal, etc. This perspective only lends emphasis to the importance of oral lineage, and the reductionist conclusion that anyone should simply avoid these teachings and stick to reading the sutta pitaka appears a bit narrow minded.

Your presupposition is that Mahayana philosophies and the vajrayana teachings are essential.

Kind regards

[gregkavarnos]

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

Seems a little dangerous, especially if what you believe ("right view") is not qualified by others as well.

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.

The Budha teaches to ignore analysis and dissection of his teachings in order to reach a correct understanding? The Buddha teaches to not listen to what others have to say?

We may fantasize all kinds of situations and possibilities.

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.

Sounds like a value judgement based on right and wrong to me. Anybody else out there read it like that or am I just projecting? Anyway, what makes you think one cannot go astray studying the teachings of the Sutta pitaka? You obviously have never taken part in an argument on the Kalamas Sutta or reincarnation to see that people interpret any text exactly as they want to (or in a manner that will further bolster their notion of a truly existing self).

[ground]

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.

The Budha teaches to ignore analysis and dissection of his teachings in order to reach a correct understanding? The Buddha teaches to not listen to what others have to say?

He teaches to rely on one's own experience and "the wise". (see -> Kalama sutta)

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.

Sounds like a value judgement based on right and wrong to me. Anybody else out there read it like that or am I just projecting? Anyway, what makes you think one cannot go astray studying the teachings of the Sutta pitaka? You obviously have never taken part in an argument on the Kalamas Sutta or reincarnation to see that people interpret any text exactly as they want to (or in a manner that will further bolster their notion of a truly existing self).

Of course that is a value judgement as to "dharma protection". If one follows his guidance the dharma does not evolve into something appropriated, i.e. "mine".
"the Buddha's teachings" in this context of course stands for the whole of the sutta pitaka, not for just a portion taken out of its context and fabricated into "mine" how it often appears with the Kalama sutta and the teachings about re-appearance/"re-birth" (colored either by attachment to existence or by attachment to annihilation).

Kind regards

[Jikan]

Your presupposition is that Mahayana philosophies and the vajrayana teachings are essential.

Kind regards

This is a reasonable supposition for a Vajrayana student to make on a Mahayana discussion board.

[Pema Rigdzin]

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.

If one is fortunate to have a teacher who has genuine realization, then what you say is not true, TMingyur. If a teacher is able to teach from the genuine space of primordial wisdom, such teachings are as fresh as were those of Shakyamuni when he actually spoke them 2,500 or so years ago.

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?

The thing about receiving oral teachings is that one can ask the teacher questions and have a dialog to determine if one's understanding is correct.

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.

It is exactly because there is no inherent meaning in the symbols of a written text that one may very well require the explanation of another - who possesses much deeper knowledge of the meaning the text is intended to convey - in order for one to come to such an understanding of it. A single line of teaching may have multiple levels of meaning, but where in the symbols themselves, individually or in their arrangement together, is there a cause for one to be able to discern more than just their face value? On the other hand, while spoken words are just sounds with no inherent meaning, the teacher can explain the meaning as elaborately as needed, even rephrasing or asking probing questions to lead one to encounter the meaning for oneself, until one has been able to come to a proper understanding. Books cannot do that.

But it is not that I would want to assert that there cannot be circumstances where oral explanations can be helpful ...

Heh, I think this kind of goes without saying, my friend.

[Pema Rigdzin]

Your presupposition is that Mahayana philosophies and the vajrayana teachings are essential.

Kind regards

If you think they're not, particularly the Vajrayana teachings, then you simply have not understood what you've encountered, or you haven't encountered the inner tantras at all. If you had understood, you'd see their import is unavoidable.

No matter what Buddhist path to buddhahood one takes, at the very summit of that path, the final crossing over to the other shore to buddhahood fundamentally depends on the very essence of the intent of the Vajra vehicle. And I of course don't mean the manifest Tibetan form of it that we're so familiar with, but the heart essence completely beyond questions of trappings or interpretations or dogmas or contrivances of any kind. The essence of the Vajra vehicle is the doorway to buddhahood for any and every being who'll ever attain buddhahood. So yes, it is "essential."

[ground]

Your presupposition is that Mahayana philosophies and the vajrayana teachings are essential.

Kind regards

If you think they're not, particularly the Vajrayana teachings, then you simply have not understood what you've encountered, or you haven't encountered the inner tantras at all. If you had understood, you'd see their import is unavoidable.

No matter what Buddhist path to buddhahood one takes, at the very summit of that path, the final crossing over to the other shore to buddhahood fundamentally depends on the very essence of the intent of the Vajra vehicle. And I of course don't mean the manifest Tibetan form of it that we're so familiar with, but the heart essence completely beyond questions of trappings or interpretations or dogmas or contrivances of any kind. The essence of the Vajra vehicle is the doorway to buddhahood for any and every being who'll ever attain buddhahood. So yes, it is "essential."

Yes yes ... it is propaganda that seems to be essential for most traditions.

Never mind ...

but the heart essence completely beyond questions of trappings or interpretations or dogmas or contrivances of any kind.

Yes completely beyond the clinging aggregates and all the views that emerge from these. Just like the Buddha has taught in the sutta pitaka.

Kind regards

[tamdrin]

the things Vajrayana people sometimes don't get is that the claims Vajrayana makes of the lower vehicles is not what they themselves believe about these vehicles. They believe they will lead to the state of stream enterer, once returner, non returner, or arhat and be liberated in 7 lives at the most. Also when we hear of the experience of people who attained arhatship- people who attained perception of absolute truth through Theravada practice some of them will say similiar things to what Vajrayana master says who attained realization. Such as that even if the Buddha were to appear before oneself that they would have no questions to ask..

[Rael]

TMingyur, just a few things i would like to ask....

this propaganda issue you have...can you give me a couple of the biggies you feel are propaganda...

and....


do you feel that people are saying that Buddhism is the only way to Buddhahood and what Buddhahood implies.

I don't actually....Buddhism and Buddhahood; those are words to describe "something"...that "something" can be had by other means..

are not Pratyekabuddhas those that gain it on their own....?

is this not accepted.....

does that fact not blow away one of your propaganda issues ..once again, are there more propaganda issues you are dealing with....just saying propaganda in this forum is not exactly fair...it's judgmental and can be viewed as crass...to say the least....


you said it here ...yes / no:

Your presupposition is that Mahayana philosophies and the vajrayana teachings are essential.

Kind regards

If you think they're not, particularly the Vajrayana teachings, then you simply have not understood what you've encountered, or you haven't encountered the inner tantras at all. If you had understood, you'd see their import is unavoidable.

No matter what Buddhist path to buddhahood one takes, at the very summit of that path, the final crossing over to the other shore to buddhahood fundamentally depends on the very essence of the intent of the Vajra vehicle. And I of course don't mean the manifest Tibetan form of it that we're so familiar with, but the heart essence completely beyond questions of trappings or interpretations or dogmas or contrivances of any kind. The essence of the Vajra vehicle is the doorway to buddhahood for any and every being who'll ever attain buddhahood. So yes, it is "essential."

Yes yes ... it is propaganda that seems to be essential for most traditions.

Never mind ...



Kind regards

[gregkavarnos]

So let's see if I can briefly summarise TMingyurs position as it now stands:

TMingyur is correct and all others (traditions and individuals alike) merely express views and/or expound propaganda.

Sound about right?

The thing is that TMingyur has yet to provide any plausible and/or believable evidence to support the supposed fact that they are correct.

[ground]

So let's see if I can briefly summarise TMingyurs position as it now stands:

TMingyur is correct and all others (traditions and individuals alike) merely express views and/or expound propaganda.

Sound about right?

No. But the point is that the validity of buddhism in general and Mahayana in particular is more diverse than some vajrayanist want to make others believe through their propaganda.

Kind regards

[Blue Garuda]

So let's see if I can briefly summarise TMingyurs position as it now stands:

TMingyur is correct and all others (traditions and individuals alike) merely express views and/or expound propaganda.

Sound about right?

No. But the point is that the validity of buddhism in general and Mahayana in particular is more diverse than some vajrayanist want to make others believe through their propaganda.

Kind regards

How can validity be diverse?

Surely a thing is either valid or not.

Methods of validation may be diverse, I guess, but in the end surely what we 'validate' is not diverse, only how we seek to describe it.

Propaganda does not carry any connotation of negativity, so you may label anyone who wishes to persuade others of their view as using propaganda. Debating, as it is performed within the Vajrayana, is one way of exposing if the view being examined is failing to persuade; same here on this forum I guess.

But who are these Vajrayanists (is that a word?) who dare to want to persuade others through propaganda, and why is that wrong per se?

What would have been the point of Shakyamuni teaching if not to persuade others through propaganda (as properly defined in seeking to persuade others to change their view) ?

maitri

Yeshe

[ground]

So let's see if I can briefly summarise TMingyurs position as it now stands:

TMingyur is correct and all others (traditions and individuals alike) merely express views and/or expound propaganda.

Sound about right?

No. But the point is that the validity of buddhism in general and Mahayana in particular is more diverse than some vajrayanist want to make others believe through their propaganda.

Kind regards

How can validity be diverse?

Because validity always relates to a particular individual. And individuals are diverse.

Propaganda does not carry any connotation of negativity, so you may label anyone who wishes to persuade others of their view as using propaganda. Debating, as it is performed within the Vajrayana, is one way of exposing if the view being examined is failing to persuade; same here on this forum I guess.

Yes of course. You may call it proselytizing or propaganda.

But who are these Vajrayanists (is that a word?) who dare to want to persuade others through propaganda, and why is that wrong per se?

Proselytizing or propaganda seems to be a natural trait of some Vajrayanist as it is of some believers of other religions. Not necessarily wrong per se.
With Vajrayanists it may get problematic if it is accompanied by some sort of proprietary claim as to Mahayana and the spreading of wrong views about other buddhist traditions.

Kind regards

[Blue Garuda]

I think you are mixing up 'validity' and 'validation'.

Something is either valid or not.

How we validate, in other words validation, varies.

In either case, where are the examples to back up the assertion that 'Vajrayanists' are what you have now changed in definition as 'proselytising', a much more defined act than using propaganda.

You and I may be using propaganda to discuss, but I'm not trying to proselytise.

And why on earth do you describe is as a 'natural trait' for Vajrayana in particular?

[gregkavarnos]

Dear TMingyur,

Care to back up your propaganda with some concrete evidence or you just gonna baselessly slander the Vajrayana and Vajrayanaists?
(better put a trade mark on that term Yeshe! I wanna see it in wiki definitions ASAP!)

[Rael]

I think I struck some sort of nerve in Tmingybabes
why won't he address what i brought up...hmmmmm....

tink aboud id
Prateyekabuddhas don't need traditional traditions or texts...

so that tosses all this propaganda jive out the windee....

nya nya nya nya....your propaganda concepts are unfounded....ROFLMAO!!!!!


note to bored;
it just seems so kineegarden to talk of propaganda and not address the actual propaganda except by labeling anything one is not into as propaganda....