Defining Buddhism - Theravada/Mahayana/Varayana

[Enochian]

In point of fact, I've gone to considerable lengths to demonstrate that the early discourses are entirely compatible with mādhyamaka.

But why is it up to YOU to demonstrate that?

You are a guy living in 2011 using junk english translations.

Nagarjuna lived in 200 probably using texts we don't even have anymore. He goes to great pains to show how his teaching was a restoration to Gautama's message after the theravadin abidharma debacle.

[adinatha]

If you want to create a dharma constructed from archeological sources, you will be limiting yourself significantly.

Straw man argument.

It's not. It's what you are attempting.

The way you guys say it sounds disrespectful like it's just a fantasy. And then Geoff's knee jerks, he hiccups and says, "it's silly."

The only thing that's silly is trying to justify one's beliefs by attempting to put the vajrayāna teachings in the mouth of Gautama. It's a completely unnecessary, limiting strategy. It requires dismissing the historical record and results in marginalizing what everyone agrees Gautama did teach.

[/quote]

Fallacy of appeal to authority. Fallacy of commonly held beliefs.

You mean everyone White? Because I know plenty of masters who would laugh at you for saying this. You are free to trust the archeologists, linguists and all the other pointy-haired types at the University. I'm free to laugh at that bullshit. First, of all it's all pure speculation. There is no solid evidence of what came out of Gautama's mouth, period. It's all hearsay. "Thus I heard...," Objection, HEARSAY. Sustained!

You need to brush up on what science actually considers a fact. You have fallen into the illusion of knowledge.

[adinatha]

I think they both depend on the Sambhogakāya, Vajradhara, and he in turns depends on Samantabhadra.

That's the Dzogchen mandala. Don't pretend it's absolute. That's a conceptual construction. Another one is Vajradhara and Samantabhadra are synonymous. You could say that revealed by recent realized masters if you like.

[adinatha]

There were many canons, that were lost to history.

All of the early records of discourses and fragments of discourses preserved in various languages are consistent in the teachings they present. It's all 100% Śrāvakayāna. The śramaṇa Gautama didn't teach the Mahāyāna sūtras. It's really not a big deal.

What are you just ignoring the 200 BCE Mahayana texts that are older than the records of the sravakayana discourses?

[Jnana]

But why is it up to YOU to demonstrate that?

Why should you care?

You are a guy living in 2011 using junk english translations.

Yet another fallacious assumption. I read texts in Pāli, Buddhist Sanskrit, and Tibetan.

Nagarjuna lived in 200 probably using texts we don't even have anymore. He goes to great pains to show how his teaching was a restoration to Gautama's message after the theravadin abidharma debacle.

Not so. Nāgārjuna was primarily critiquing Sarvāstivāda ideas.

You mean everyone White? Because I know plenty of masters who would laugh at you for saying this.

Once again you've completely missed the point. I mean everyone Buddhist. The only discourses that all Buddhists agree are the teachings of the Buddha are the Nikāyas and their Āgama counterparts. This was just as true in India 1500 years ago as it is today.

What are you just ignoring the 200 BCE Mahayana texts that are older than the records of the sravakayana discourses?

I'm not ignoring anything.

[Enochian]

Yet another fallacious assumption. I read texts in Pāli, Buddhist Sanskrit, and Tibetan.

And you claim to have all the texts Nagarjuna had?


The only logical conclusion is that you think you are smarter than Nagarjuna and sons.

[Jnana]

The only logical conclusion is that you think you are smarter than Nagarjuna and sons.

This is nonsensical. A completely fallacious, illogical conclusion.

[Enochian]

The only logical conclusion is that you think you are smarter than Nagarjuna and sons.

This is nonsensical. A completely fallacious, illogical conclusion.

Come on, you don't try to read Pali canon passages in the attempt to cipher off meaning???

In my opinion there is zero reason to read the Pali canon, since Nagarjuna and sons extracted the essence for us.

[Jnana]

In my opinion there is zero reason to read the Pali canon, since Nagarjuna and sons extracted the essence for us.

Thanks for sharing your opinion.

[adinatha]

You mean everyone White? Because I know plenty of masters who would laugh at you for saying this.

Once again you've completely missed the point. I mean everyone Buddhist. The only discourses that all Buddhists agree are the teachings of the Buddha are the Nikāyas and their Āgama counterparts. This was just as true in India 1500 years ago as it is today.

So clearly wrong. You are totally missing out on what the living traditions say. For example, the Kagyu say Gampopa was a personal disciple of Gautama, named Youthful Moonlight. This name is mentioned in the Mahayana text, Samadhiraja Sutra. Gampopa affirmed he was this bodhisattva disciple. So this would mean that he was present when Gautama taught Mahayana. Lord Jigten Sumgon was also a disciple of Gautama with a similar sutra tie. So you are wrong, some Buddhists say Gautama taught Mahayana from his mouth.

Let's say you are arguing that not all Buddhists agree on what was the original teaching of the Buddha. But all agree the Buddha taught sravakayana. So therefore the original Buddhism is sravakayana. You cannot draw this conclusion from these premises. This does not mean this is all the Buddha really said. All it shows is a consensus as to a part, and a consensus belief is not a fact. Furthermore, that consensus is based on a variety of assumptions and speculations that can never be proved.

What are you just ignoring the 200 BCE Mahayana texts that are older than the records of the sravakayana discourses?

I'm not ignoring anything.[/quote]

You are drawing assumptions based on speculations. The Mahayana texts we have are just as old as any. There is no reason to conclude the Buddha's words were limited to sravakayana, at least not based on real evidence.

Most importantly, that Buddha was omniscient with miracle powers is basically required belief to be a Buddhist. We cannot know what the Buddha knew or how he intended to go about his business. It is simply not possible we can conclude 2500 years hence what the Buddha really did. If he could go and confront a deity in a devaloka, then of course he could speak to monks, celestial bodhisattvas, and dakinis while subduing Mahadeva and Parvati and any other manner of miraculous act simultaneously.

If you are going to follow consensus, then you are in the land of the lowest common denominator, and you will have to view the Buddha as a simple man who taught wise words in a forest. Because there is a large contingent of Western neo-Buddhists who are just humanists looking for an atheistic philosophy to make life worth living, who would assert the Buddha was not omniscient and nothing more than a normal human with something smart to say.

[Jnana]

If you are going to follow consensus, then you are in the land of the lowest common denominator, and you will have to view the Buddha as a simple man who taught wise words in a forest.

You are consistently missing the point.

Because there is a large contingent of Western neo-Buddhists who are just humanists looking for an atheistic philosophy to make life worth living, who would assert the Buddha was not omniscient and nothing more than a normal human with something smart to say.

I hold no such view.

[adinatha]

If you are going to follow consensus, then you are in the land of the lowest common denominator, and you will have to view the Buddha as a simple man who taught wise words in a forest.

You are consistently missing the point.

You have yet to make one.

Because there is a large contingent of Western neo-Buddhists who are just humanists looking for an atheistic philosophy to make life worth living, who would assert the Buddha was not omniscient and nothing more than a normal human with something smart to say.

I hold no such view.[/quote]

Come on, son. Make a point.

[adinatha]

Mahayana is as old as anything else.

There are a number of good sources on the early development of the Mahāyāna. I'm pretty sure that I mentioned some of them in this thread. Another source which will be available in coming months is Ven. Huifeng's doctoral dissertation and translation of one of the works of Yìnshùn Dǎoshī. Also, here's what Namdrol has said on this subject previously:

Likewise, while the Mahayana sutras were inspired by the blessings of the Buddha, I don't believe he actually taught a single one of them. Nevertheless, I think the teachings in them are profound and stand on their own. I apply the same standard to gter mas. Some are more profound than others. That has to do with the realization of the gter ton, and very little to do with their imputed source of authorship....

So for example, it is spiritually meaningful that the PP sutras are set on Vulture's Peak-- but it sure is not a historical reality.[ Even though Shakyamuni Buddha certainly never actually taught Mahayana, nevertheless, Mahayana stands on its own and is valid as a spiritual path and practice because the folks that wrote the Mahayana sutras down were realized persons. The source of these teachings are all realized beings-- their assumed historical settings are merely skillful means to instill faith in the teachings in those person's who need to crutch of historical literalism....

In general, if a sutra is crucial to one's own schools exegesis, but is of questionable provenance, it cannot be used in a general discussion to bolster one's own school's position since the text upon which one is basing one's position is not accepted as a valid text by all parties....
[/list]

All the best,

Geoff

This passage, Geoff, doesn't prove Gautama only taught Sravakayana. It is Namdrol's belief. He doesn't believe it is a historical fact Gautama taught on Vulture's Peak. There is no evidence he did or did not. His statement about skillful means and a crutch is just his theory. There is not evidence either way.

Neither you nor Namdrol has proven what Gautama really said. Save your time. You are incapable of providing such a proof, because it does not exist. You are in the land of theories; you have become enamored of one, you believe it. The problem is there's no truth to it.

[Josef]

This passage, Geoff, doesn't prove Gautama only taught Sravakayana. It is Namdrol's belief. He doesn't believe it is a historical fact Gautama taught on Vulture's Peak. There is no evidence he did or did not. His statement about skillful means and a crutch is just his theory. There is not evidence either way.

Neither you nor Namdrol has proven what Gautama really said. Save your time. You are incapable of providing such a proof, because it does not exist. You are in the land of theories; you have become enamored of one, you believe it. The problem is there's no truth to it.

Nobody ever will prove it one way or the other but its extremely unlikely that Gautama taught anything beyond Sravakayana.
It doesn't matter either.

[fragrant herbs]

If I want to write more I will start a blog in order to warn people of the Tibetan teachings and what can happen to women and men, but also to show them that the teachings in Tibet included raping young girls and boys.

This is what I am talking about:

The Kalachakra Tantra urges the yogi to render the mudra pliant with intoxicating liquor: “Wine is essential for the wisdom consort [prajna]. ... Any mudra at all, even those who are still not willing, can be procured with drink” (Grünwedel, Kalacakra III, p. 147). It is only a small step from this to the use of direct force. There are also texts, which advise “that if a woman refuses sexual union she must be forced to do so” (Bhattacharyya, 1982, p. 125).

[Jnana]

You are in the land of theories; you have become enamored of one, you believe it. The problem is there's no truth to it.

No one's trying to convince you to believe anything. The context in which this issue arose in another thread has long since past. (I never created this thread, it was split off from another discussion by the mods months ago.) At any rate, if you want to believe that Gautama taught the tantras that's fine by me.

[Malcolm]

I think they both depend on the Sambhogakāya, Vajradhara, and he in turns depends on Samantabhadra.

That's the Dzogchen mandala.

Actually, it comes from Yoga tantra.

N

[adinatha]

I think they both depend on the Sambhogakāya, Vajradhara, and he in turns depends on Samantabhadra.

That's the Dzogchen mandala.

Actually, it comes from Yoga tantra.

N

Not all say the same thing.

[Malcolm]

Gampopa affirmed he was this bodhisattva disciple. So this would mean that he was present when Gautama taught Mahayana.

No, it just means that Gampopa decided that this person referred to himself.

The Mahayana texts we have are just as old as any.

Some date to around 100 BCE. Not many.

There is no reason to conclude the Buddha's words were limited to sravakayana, at least not based on real evidence.

There are actually a lot of reasons to think this is so. The Agamas/Nikayas are, for the most part, clearly based on an oral tradition. The Mahāyāna sutras are all literary compositions.

Most importantly, that Buddha was omniscient with miracle powers is basically required belief to be a Buddhist.

The conclusion you are drawing from your premise is erroneous.

The fact that Buddha claimed omniscience for himself in some Pali text does not prove he personally taught even one Mahayāna text.

My approach to this is to toss out authorship as a valid criterion for judging the validity of a given Buddhist text. Instead I look at the text itself, rather than its putative author. In other words, judge the text by what it says, not by who supposedly said it.

N

[kirtu]

If I want to write more I will start a blog in order to warn people of the Tibetan teachings and what can happen to women and men, but also to show them that the teachings in Tibet included raping young girls and boys.

Except - that it is not true that Tibetan Buddhist teachings include raping young girls and boys.

I really don't care if I am banned from this site, mainly because after the closing of two Tantra threads and one Sogyal thread that was deleted I have learned enough.

The Sogyal thread wasn't deleted - it was merged with the Defining Buddhism thread.

I am sorry that I ever met my Tibetan teacher or some of the people on this board, outside of saying that I think Greg is really a caring and compassionate person.
...
I doubt very much, after my experiences, that I will ever be part of Buddhism again.

I'm very sorry. That is certainly your choice but it seems like you are overreacting.

What is the fundamental point of Mahayana Buddhism? Great compassion - compassion for all sentient beings everywhere - compassion for everything that draws breath in whatever way. Just pursuing great compassion will eventually bring you to enlightenment. If you need to practice renunciation then you can do that. There are different paths for different people. What interests you in the teachings of Buddhism?

Why is compassion so needed? Because for a long time but esp. in the 20th century and this beginning century, history has been an overt river of blood and misery. Everyone needs you personally to attain enlightenment or a degree of enlightenment and save the world. This is absolutely the situation. If you feel you need to abandon Buddhism then that's your choice. But please do not abandon compassion and love for all beings.

Kirt