Dharma Wheel

A Buddhist discussion forum on Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism
It is currently Tue Dec 23, 2014 5:36 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Forum rules


Please click here to view the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 173 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 9  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Mar 09, 2011 3:15 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 6:44 pm
Posts: 1565
ngodrup wrote:
Like it or not, Je Tsogkhapa's main Tantric sources are Nyingma.
Like it or not, about 70% of his writings are on Tantric subjects.
Je Tsongkhapa was a revolutionary philosopher who had studied
every system existing in his time, he also practiced them.
His view is not sectarian, his followers... well another story.
But the great monastic universities were intended for all Tibetans,
not just Gelugpas.

Agreed.
One of the things Je Rinpoche is unanimously praised for was his tireless devotion and relentless pursuit of a comprehensive practice methodology.
He succeeded and presented it for future generations. Its too bad some who claim to be his followers have perverted the spirit of his methods.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 09, 2011 3:19 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:49 pm
Posts: 2808
Location: Bay Area, CA, USA
Quote:
free from thoughts of inherent existence. This is also the case with 'does not exist', which should be read as 'does not exist inherently', meaning that they are not utterly non-existence but are mere appearances and mere names. This is consistent with Nagarjuna and Chandrakirti's intentions


According to the current Geluk interpretation.

On the other hand, some do not need add qualifiers to the words of the masters, and can interpret them without recourse to added qualifiers.

_________________
May any merit generated by on-line discussion
Be dedicated to the Ultimate Benefit of All Sentient Beings.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 09, 2011 3:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 9:36 am
Posts: 230
Nangwa wrote:
Tsongkhapafan wrote:
Nangwa wrote:
Nonsense.
The view that is in the minority on the interpretation of Nagarjuna and Chadrakirti is most definitely Tsongkhapa's.
Gorampa's refutation of Tsongkhapa in Freedom From Extremes is devastating. No wonder the Gelug political authority of central Tibet had the text banned.


Far from being 'devastating', Gorampa's refutation is most unconvincing and is easily dismissed. He clearly doesn't understand the nature of conventional truths. Tsongkhapa's interpretation is far more convincing and satisfying, providing as it does a perfect union of conventional and ultimate truths in accordance with Nagarjuna's intention.

Whatever you say chief.
The only thing that is unconvincing is that you are at all familiar with Gorampa's views, or Nagarjuna's for that matter.
It sounds like your giving a sales pitch or simply regurgitating what you read in Tharpa Publications.


Now you're making an assumption based on your biases, not the evidence, simply because I disagree with you.

If you read a comprehensive presentation of the two systems, for example, 'The Two Truths Debate' by Sonam Thakchoe, it's clear that Tsongkhapa's arguments are more convincing, but you can make up your own mind.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 09, 2011 3:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:49 pm
Posts: 2808
Location: Bay Area, CA, USA
..or you could read The Center of the Sunlit Sky for a different interpretation of the issues inherent in Tsong Khapa's followers' interpretations....but whatever. We could throw books around all day...

_________________
May any merit generated by on-line discussion
Be dedicated to the Ultimate Benefit of All Sentient Beings.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 09, 2011 4:35 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 7:01 pm
Posts: 291
fortunately you dont even really need madyamaka for tantra/ mahamudra/dzogchen. Nagarjuna is just for fun...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 09, 2011 7:27 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 1:55 pm
Posts: 3142
tamdrin wrote:
fortunately you dont even really need madyamaka for tantra/ mahamudra/dzogchen. Nagarjuna is just for fun...


You do need to an understanding of emptiness according to my teacher, so that is not exactly true.

/magnus

_________________
"To reject practice by saying, 'it is conceptual!' is the path of fools. A tendency of the inexperienced and something to be avoided."
- Longchenpa


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 09, 2011 9:16 am 
Offline
Former staff member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 7:09 am
Posts: 2940
Location: Space is the Place
conebeckham wrote:
..or you could read The Center of the Sunlit Sky for a different interpretation of the issues inherent in Tsong Khapa's followers' interpretations....but whatever. We could throw books around all day...


And Gendun Choepel gives a nice alternative too. .

_________________
Contentment is the ultimate wealth;
Detachment is the final happiness. ~Sri Saraha


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 09, 2011 9:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 9:36 am
Posts: 230
tamdrin wrote:
fortunately you dont even really need madyamaka for tantra/ mahamudra/dzogchen. Nagarjuna is just for fun...


Venerable Atisha says of the lineage of Nagarjuna and Chandrakirti:

"There is Buddhahood in this lineage. Apart from this lineage, there is no Buddhahood"

Chandrakirti says in Guide to Middle Way (Madhyamakavatara):

Those who are outside the path of Master Nagarjuna
Have no means of peace
They depart from the truths of convention and Thatness
And, because they depart from them, cannot attain liberation.


These teachings are therefore definitive and essential to attain liberation and enlightenment.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 09, 2011 10:13 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 12:08 pm
Posts: 708
Tsongkhapafan wrote:
If you read a comprehensive presentation of the two systems, for example, 'The Two Truths Debate' by Sonam Thakchoe, it's clear that Tsongkhapa's arguments are more convincing, but you can make up your own mind.


I have and read this book and it is partisan for me. Tsongkhapa arguments are exaggerated and could be easy questioned but Gorampa position is explained as for Him is the only one abstract truth not accessible conventionally. But the book is very useful for investigation what partisans of Tsongkhapa really think and for comparison them with original Madhyamaka and supplementary Yogacara :smile:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 09, 2011 12:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2010 1:18 pm
Posts: 359
:focus:
It's just illogical that Je Ripoche used the term Dzogchen as a new term which no one knows what that really means.
Je Rinpoche did praise (Nyingma's) Dzogchen, get over it.

Because some people have problem with Dzogchen, they modify Je Rinpoche's words to fit what they believe. That pretty much explains how subjective they are when they discuss other topics.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 09, 2011 3:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 6:44 pm
Posts: 1565
Tsongkhapafan wrote:

Now you're making an assumption based on your biases, not the evidence, simply because I disagree with you.

If you read a comprehensive presentation of the two systems, for example, 'The Two Truths Debate' by Sonam Thakchoe, it's clear that Tsongkhapa's arguments are more convincing, but you can make up your own mind.


I'm quite familiar with Dr. Thakchoe's book.
We definitely disagree about whose arguments are more convincing. As much as I love Je Rinpoche, his interpretation of the Two Truths is just plain weird and is not in accord with Nagarjuna, Aryadeva, or Chandrakirti. The masters of the other lineages have been calling him out on this for 500 years now.
Its quite strange for someone who comes into a Dzogchen subforum cavalierly proclaiming that all interpretations of the teachings other than what you have been spoon-fed are incorrect to point out someone elses "biases".
Look in the mirror friend.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 09, 2011 3:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 6:44 pm
Posts: 1565
narraboth wrote:
:focus:
It's just illogical that Je Ripoche used the term Dzogchen as a new term which no one knows what that really means.
Je Rinpoche did praise (Nyingma's) Dzogchen, get over it.

Because some people have problem with Dzogchen, they modify Je Rinpoche's words to fit what they believe. That pretty much explains how subjective they are when they discuss other topics.


Its quite clear in the practical methods of the Gelug lineage as well. Once one approaches the dzog rim level of practice the methods and viewpoints of Lamdre, Mahamudra, and Dzogchen become relevant. In my early years as a practitioner I completed preliminaries in the Gelug setting along with the anutarrayogatantra retreats of their Vajrayogini system before pursuing the study and practice of Dzogchen. There is absolutely no conflict in this.
I am eternally grateful to my Gelug lama's and the amazing Je Tsongkhapa guru yoga practice, The Ganden Lha Gyema.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 09, 2011 3:57 pm 
Offline
Former staff member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 5:29 pm
Posts: 4612
Location: Baltimore, MD
heart wrote:
tamdrin wrote:
fortunately you dont even really need madyamaka for tantra/ mahamudra/dzogchen. Nagarjuna is just for fun...


You do need to an understanding of emptiness according to my teacher, so that is not exactly true.


You do absolutely need an understanding of emptiness but according to my Sakya and Nyingma teachers the Mind Only school position is sufficient.

Kirt

_________________
Kirt's Tibetan Translation Notes

"Only you can make your mind beautiful."
HH Chetsang Rinpoche


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 09, 2011 4:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:49 pm
Posts: 2808
Location: Bay Area, CA, USA
Quote:
You do absolutely need an understanding of emptiness but according to my Sakya and Nyingma teachers the Mind Only school position is sufficient
.

That's interesting, Kirt...I assume that this is the Mind Only interpretation which does not posit the absolutely existing Mind? Or, in other wordds, Yogacara that posits mind as ultimately empty?

_________________
May any merit generated by on-line discussion
Be dedicated to the Ultimate Benefit of All Sentient Beings.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 09, 2011 4:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 6:44 pm
Posts: 1565
conebeckham wrote:
Quote:
You do absolutely need an understanding of emptiness but according to my Sakya and Nyingma teachers the Mind Only school position is sufficient
.

That's interesting, Kirt...I assume that this is the Mind Only interpretation which does not posit the absolutely existing Mind? Or, in other wordds, Yogacara that posits mind as ultimately empty?

There are differing views on this.
Yogacara falls into the so-called middle way philosophy but its value is limited to explaining certain functions of consciousness etc. in my opinion.
A philosophical view that posits a mind that is anything other than a "mind" that is ultimately empty will eventually end up hindering progress on the path.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 09, 2011 4:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 9:36 am
Posts: 230
kirtu wrote:
heart wrote:
tamdrin wrote:
fortunately you dont even really need madyamaka for tantra/ mahamudra/dzogchen. Nagarjuna is just for fun...


You do need to an understanding of emptiness according to my teacher, so that is not exactly true.


You do absolutely need an understanding of emptiness but according to my Sakya and Nyingma teachers the Mind Only school position is sufficient.

Kirt


But the Chittamatrin view of emptiness is the emptiness of the mind and its object being different entities, not the lack of inherently existing mind which according to Nagarjuna and Chandrakirti is necessary, otherwise there is clinging to inherent existence and no liberation.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 09, 2011 4:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 7:01 pm
Posts: 291
conebeckham wrote:
Quote:
You do absolutely need an understanding of emptiness but according to my Sakya and Nyingma teachers the Mind Only school position is sufficient
.

That's interesting, Kirt...I assume that this is the Mind Only interpretation which does not posit the absolutely existing Mind? Or, in other wordds, Yogacara that posits mind as ultimately empty?



According to the Drikung Kagyu lineage, the mind only school of thought will get you to the 7th Bhumi, no farther (but hey thats not bad right? 7th bhumi woohoo!)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 09, 2011 5:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 7:01 pm
Posts: 291
Tsongkhapafan wrote:
tamdrin wrote:
fortunately you dont even really need madyamaka for tantra/ mahamudra/dzogchen. Nagarjuna is just for fun...


Venerable Atisha says of the lineage of Nagarjuna and Chandrakirti:

"There is Buddhahood in this lineage. Apart from this lineage, there is no Buddhahood"

Chandrakirti says in Guide to Middle Way (Madhyamakavatara):

Those who are outside the path of Master Nagarjuna
Have no means of peace
They depart from the truths of convention and Thatness
And, because they depart from them, cannot attain liberation.


These teachings are therefore definitive and essential to attain liberation and enlightenment.


Its this clinging to intellectualisms that I am talking about.. From this text..

Also critical of a mere intellectual approach..
"partiality.

•First, the pitfall of view itself : the yogi in this esoteric Tantric system prefers naked direct perception to the view generally taught, accepted as emptiness devoid of
extremes. But there is no difference between those two if the ultimate is realized. If it
is not realized, then the general view is a verbal view held in the analytic mind and
does not hit upon the actual import; it is an erroneous view
. Not trusting in the view
which is direct perception, but placing confidence in the verbal, analytic view, one
thinks that there is nothing to aim at, and that freedom from extremes is inactivity


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 09, 2011 6:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 6:44 pm
Posts: 1565
tamdrin wrote:
conebeckham wrote:
Quote:
You do absolutely need an understanding of emptiness but according to my Sakya and Nyingma teachers the Mind Only school position is sufficient
.

That's interesting, Kirt...I assume that this is the Mind Only interpretation which does not posit the absolutely existing Mind? Or, in other wordds, Yogacara that posits mind as ultimately empty?



According to the Drikung Kagyu lineage, the mind only school of thought will get you to the 7th Bhumi, no farther (but hey thats not bad right? 7th bhumi woohoo!)

This is one of the many interesting features of the Gongchig.
At first its a bit of a head scratcher but in the context of the commentary it is a pretty good argument.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 09, 2011 6:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:49 pm
Posts: 2808
Location: Bay Area, CA, USA
Quote:
But the Chittamatrin view of emptiness is the emptiness of the mind and its object being different entities, not the lack of inherently existing mind


The Yogacara view is that all is mind....but not necessarily that mind is not empty.

_________________
May any merit generated by on-line discussion
Be dedicated to the Ultimate Benefit of All Sentient Beings.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 173 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 9  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Phuntsog Tashi and 17 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group