Dharma Wheel

A Buddhist discussion forum on Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism
It is currently Mon Dec 22, 2014 1:54 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Forum rules


Please click here to view the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 114 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Aug 05, 2011 9:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2011 5:08 pm
Posts: 106
Location: UK
Namdrol wrote:
booker wrote:
And where in the sudden approach there's place for the path of renunciation which always is said to be the basis for Sutra?


Sutra yāna, whether sudden or gradual, is still based on renunciation of sense objects.

Agree, however Zen is not like it. Infact, the practice of hua'tou, so called "Great Question" can not be done with renunciation of sense objects - they're actually fuelling this style of pracitce.

_________________
"Be Buddhist or be Buddha"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 05, 2011 9:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am
Posts: 12736
adinatha wrote:

Who? What do they say?


Bhavabhata and Bhavyakirit both hold that "This teacher (i.e. Śakyamuni) having attained buddhahood in the beginningless past taught the Cakrasamvara tantras, but later, after becoming the son of Śuddodana, did not teach it. Their reasoning holds that since Cakrasamvara is continually practiced by the heros and yoginis of the twenty four countries, even when eon forms and perished (the twenty four countries) do not form and perish so [the Cakrasamvara] does not disappear. Even though other dharmas may have also been taught in the beginning, since they are destroyed by the formation and perishing of the eon, since they disappear during the interval, they must be taught again by Śākyamuni.

A special feature of Cakrasamvara is that unlike Guhyasamaja, Kalacakra, Hevajra, etc., the mandala of Cakrasamvara is never withdrawn it is not necessary for Śākyamuni to teach it again as it would redundant.

_________________
http://www.atikosha.org
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://www.sakyapa.net
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

How can you not practice the highest Dharma
at this time of obtaining a perfect human body?

-- Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 05, 2011 10:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2011 4:07 am
Posts: 886
Namdrol wrote:
adinatha wrote:

Who? What do they say?


Bhavabhata and Bhavyakirit both hold that "This teacher (i.e. Śakyamuni) having attained buddhahood in the beginningless past taught the Cakrasamvara tantras, but later, after becoming the son of Śuddodana, did not teach it. Their reasoning holds that since Cakrasamvara is continually practiced by the heros and yoginis of the twenty four countries, even when eon forms and perished (the twenty four countries) do not form and perish so [the Cakrasamvara] does not disappear. Even though other dharmas may have also been taught in the beginning, since they are destroyed by the formation and perishing of the eon, since they disappear during the interval, they must be taught again by Śākyamuni.

A special feature of Cakrasamvara is that unlike Guhyasamaja, Kalacakra, Hevajra, etc., the mandala of Cakrasamvara is never withdrawn it is not necessary for Śākyamuni to teach it again as it would redundant.


That makes sense. I'm a little puzzled by some of your responses. In some prev post you said you didn't think Maitreyanatha gave the five treatises to Asanga, that Asanga wrote them and attributed them. Is this not the same for all Prajnaparamita (received by Nagarjuna from a Naga) and the tantras which were all received by some mahasiddha from a buddha?

_________________
CAW!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 05, 2011 10:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am
Posts: 12736
adinatha wrote:
In some prev post you said you didn't think Maitreyanatha gave the five treatises to Asanga, that Asanga wrote them and attributed them.



I never said that. This is a common opinion but it is not mine. My opinion is that Maitreyanath was a human teacher, a Pandita, who wrote the five treatises. His identification with Bodhisattva Maitreya is really quite late as is the story of Asanga's retreat and encounter with Bodhisattva Maitreya.

My opinion is that after that Maitreya chapter was added to the Perfection of Wisdom sutra sometime after the 6th century (mostly likley as a polemical response to Madhyamaka commentaries on Abhisamaya-alamkara that were critical of Yogacara), the indentity of Bodhisattva Maitreya and Maitreyanatha were conflated because the Maitreya chapter adds Yogacara specific themese to the PP sutras. However, we can be sure that the Maitreya Chapter is a later interpolation because it is missing from earlier, pre-sixth century translations of the PP sutras.

Haribhadra (8th century) was the first author on record to assert the author of the Abhisamayalamkara, and by extension, the other four treatises to be Bodhisattva Maitrya.



N

_________________
http://www.atikosha.org
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://www.sakyapa.net
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

How can you not practice the highest Dharma
at this time of obtaining a perfect human body?

-- Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen


Last edited by Malcolm on Fri Aug 05, 2011 10:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 05, 2011 10:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2011 4:07 am
Posts: 886
Namdrol wrote:
adinatha wrote:
In some prev post you said you didn't think Maitreyanatha gave the five treatises to Asanga, that Asanga wrote them and attributed them.



I never said that. This is a common opinion but it is not mine. My opinion is that Maitreyanath was a human teacher, a Pandita, who wrote the five treatises. His identification with Bodhisattva Maitreya is really quite late as is the story of Asanga's retreat and encounter with Bodhisattva Maitreya.

My opinion is that after that Maitreya chapter was added to the Perfection fo Wisdom sutra sometime after the 6th century (mostly likley as a polemical response to Madhyamaka commentaries on Abhisamaya-alamkara that were critical of Yogacara), the indentity of Bodhisattva Maitreya and Maitreyanatha were conflated because the Maitreya chapter adds Yogacara specific themese to the PP sutras. However, we can be sure that the Maitreya Chapter is a later interpolation because it is missing from earlier, pre-sixth century translations of the PP sutras.

N


What about the PP sutras, not discovered in a lake by Nagarjuna?

And the tantras? Direct contact with buddhas or no?

_________________
CAW!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 05, 2011 10:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am
Posts: 12736
adinatha wrote:

What about the PP sutras, not discovered in a lake by Nagarjuna?



It's a nice story. But unlikely since the PP sutras show clear textual development which can be traced in their Chinese and Tibetan translations.

Quote:

And the tantras? Direct contact with buddhas or no?


I have little issue with visionary production of texts.

_________________
http://www.atikosha.org
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://www.sakyapa.net
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

How can you not practice the highest Dharma
at this time of obtaining a perfect human body?

-- Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 05, 2011 10:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2011 4:07 am
Posts: 886
Namdrol wrote:
adinatha wrote:

What about the PP sutras, not discovered in a lake by Nagarjuna?



It's a nice story. But unlikely since the PP sutras show clear textual development which can be traced in their Chinese and Tibetan translations.


How about initially?

Namdrol wrote:
Quote:

And the tantras? Direct contact with buddhas or no?


I have little issue with visionary production of texts.


What about Sam Van Schaik's theory that Dzogchen's tantras were a Tibetan creation by folks like Nubchen who were ambitious to start their own lineage?

_________________
CAW!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 05, 2011 10:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am
Posts: 12736
adinatha wrote:

What about Sam Van Schaik's theory that Dzogchen's tantras were a Tibetan creation by folks like Nubchen who were ambitious to start their own lineage?


Who can question the motivations of dead men?

The truth is that there are all kinds of traditions, often contradictory -- they are not that meaningful to practitioners.

_________________
http://www.atikosha.org
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://www.sakyapa.net
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

How can you not practice the highest Dharma
at this time of obtaining a perfect human body?

-- Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 05, 2011 11:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2011 4:07 am
Posts: 886
Namdrol wrote:
adinatha wrote:

What about Sam Van Schaik's theory that Dzogchen's tantras were a Tibetan creation by folks like Nubchen who were ambitious to start their own lineage?


Who can question the motivations of dead men?

The truth is that there are all kinds of traditions, often contradictory -- they are not that meaningful to practitioners.


The Nyingthig is not meaningful to practitioners?

_________________
CAW!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 05, 2011 11:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am
Posts: 12736
adinatha wrote:
Namdrol wrote:
adinatha wrote:

What about Sam Van Schaik's theory that Dzogchen's tantras were a Tibetan creation by folks like Nubchen who were ambitious to start their own lineage?


Who can question the motivations of dead men?

The truth is that there are all kinds of traditions, often contradictory -- they are not that meaningful to practitioners.


The Nyingthig is not meaningful to practitioners?


I meant the various stories and arguments around the origins of these traditions are not that meaningful. For example, for some it is meaningful if Shakyamuni Buddha taught something, for others it is more meaningful if the Buddha didbn't teach it but it somehow was communicated at the Sambhogakaya level, etc.

N

_________________
http://www.atikosha.org
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://www.sakyapa.net
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

How can you not practice the highest Dharma
at this time of obtaining a perfect human body?

-- Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 06, 2011 9:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 1:55 pm
Posts: 3142
adinatha wrote:
What about Sam Van Schaik's theory that Dzogchen's tantras were a Tibetan creation by folks like Nubchen who were ambitious to start their own lineage?


I can't see him writing this anywhere on his blog, where did you find that?

/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: Sat Aug 06, 2011 3:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am
Posts: 12736
heart wrote:
adinatha wrote:
What about Sam Van Schaik's theory that Dzogchen's tantras were a Tibetan creation by folks like Nubchen who were ambitious to start their own lineage?


I can't see him writing this anywhere on his blog, where did you find that?

/magnus



It would be in his book.

N

_________________
http://www.atikosha.org
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://www.sakyapa.net
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

How can you not practice the highest Dharma
at this time of obtaining a perfect human body?

-- Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 06, 2011 3:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2011 4:07 am
Posts: 886
heart wrote:
adinatha wrote:
What about Sam Van Schaik's theory that Dzogchen's tantras were a Tibetan creation by folks like Nubchen who were ambitious to start their own lineage?


I can't see him writing this anywhere on his blog, where did you find that?

/magnus


Must have been something I downloaded from his blog then. There was a PDF.

here

http://earlytibet.files.wordpress.com/2 ... k_2004.pdf

_________________
CAW!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 06, 2011 8:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 1:55 pm
Posts: 3142
adinatha wrote:
heart wrote:
adinatha wrote:
What about Sam Van Schaik's theory that Dzogchen's tantras were a Tibetan creation by folks like Nubchen who were ambitious to start their own lineage?


I can't see him writing this anywhere on his blog, where did you find that?

/magnus


Must have been something I downloaded from his blog then. There was a PDF.

here

http://earlytibet.files.wordpress.com/2 ... k_2004.pdf


They are only mentioned once "the root text is one of the Seminal Heart tantras which were not in circulation until the eleventh century at the earliest" . I don't find any reference saying he thinks the Tibetans wrote them.

/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: Sat Aug 06, 2011 10:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2011 4:07 am
Posts: 886
heart wrote:
adinatha wrote:
heart wrote:

I can't see him writing this anywhere on his blog, where did you find that?

/magnus


Must have been something I downloaded from his blog then. There was a PDF.

here

http://earlytibet.files.wordpress.com/2 ... k_2004.pdf


They are only mentioned once "the root text is one of the Seminal Heart tantras which were not in circulation until the eleventh century at the earliest" . I don't find any reference saying he thinks the Tibetans wrote them.

/magnus


He's saying Dzogchen wasn't treated as a vehicle in India, but as a view in applying deity yoga. He's saying Dzogchen didn't become a vehicle until Tibet through Nubchen. He basically questions whether the nine yana scheme really came from Padmasambhava. And he said straight out that it seems like Nub wanted to start his own lineage. That the development of the literature and the timing of release after the 11th century is evidence that Dzogchen as a vehicle is a Tibetan invention. Re-read it I guess.

_________________
CAW!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 06, 2011 10:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2011 8:23 pm
Posts: 759
This is an old article I read long before and magnus, whom I agree with here in his interpretation of Sam, posted it here before too if I remember correctly. Sam is not the type of person who would draw such radical conclusions based on almost nothing. He is very respectful and also conservative. While he hypothesizes sometimes, he never states things as fact without evidence and is always flexible. He states all the facts he deems relevant often contradictory. That's just not his style. People can post on his blog and he answers honestly, so I don't buy any of that interpretation. Also he has read widely, including Samten Karmay and others, who state the texts how Dzogchen was actually banned by local rulers in North India and never was properly established openly before it went North and lots lots more. This is a big field not just summed up in a few pages of an article. Attacking Ekajati's protected lineage merely after mis-reading a short article when someone just finished their PhD is going over the top for probably other personal reasons.

_________________
Dzogchen masters I know say: 1)Buddhist religion essence is Dzogchen 2)Religions are positive by intent/fruit 3)Any method's OK unless: breaking Dzogchen vows, mixed as syncretic (Milanese Soup) 4)Don't join mandalas of opponents of Dalai Lama/Padmasambhava: False Deity inventors by encouraging victims 5)Don't debate Ati with others 6)Don't discuss Ati practices online 7) A master told his old disciple: no one's to discuss his teaching with some others on a former forum nor mention him. Publicity's OK, questions are asked from masters/set teachers in person/email/non-public forums~Best wishes


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 06, 2011 11:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2011 4:07 am
Posts: 886
I'm not subscribing. I'm just reporting.

_________________
CAW!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 06, 2011 11:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2011 8:23 pm
Posts: 759
Mis-reporting, post that on his blog and we'll all read his reply.

_________________
Dzogchen masters I know say: 1)Buddhist religion essence is Dzogchen 2)Religions are positive by intent/fruit 3)Any method's OK unless: breaking Dzogchen vows, mixed as syncretic (Milanese Soup) 4)Don't join mandalas of opponents of Dalai Lama/Padmasambhava: False Deity inventors by encouraging victims 5)Don't debate Ati with others 6)Don't discuss Ati practices online 7) A master told his old disciple: no one's to discuss his teaching with some others on a former forum nor mention him. Publicity's OK, questions are asked from masters/set teachers in person/email/non-public forums~Best wishes


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 06, 2011 11:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2011 8:23 pm
Posts: 759
I don't think you know what lineage he is talking about. Meanwhile Sam himself has been working and publishing work on Dunhuang papers validating Dzogchen's much earlier roots. Secondly if you read his penultimate sentence you quoted he says that is the evidence so far but in academic terms the fact that they haven't been found doesn't mean they never existed. Academics know this rule well. In fact parts of the Dunhuang collection he works on have proven case after case that Dzogchen lineage claims have been justified. That has been the recurring theme during the last decade. And if you read his last sentence you quoted he says 'if' and it's a mere little hypothesis not a proven fact as you claim. When confronted on his blog about various ideas he puts forward, he honestly takes them back when other evidence is presented or admits in such cases that it is just a hypothetical idea. Not what you presented as fact at all but quite 'iffy' from the horse's (Sam) mouth himself! Anyway I challenged you to post 'the exact accusations against Dzogchen you wrote' on his blog, you didn't face the music.

Then you say you don't subscribe to his ideas but you just wrote in the other thread:
Quote:
Dzogchen people are wide open to attack on the foundations of their lineage, so best to cut the big talk.

So you are not being honest here either, and much worse, not stable positions.

_________________
Dzogchen masters I know say: 1)Buddhist religion essence is Dzogchen 2)Religions are positive by intent/fruit 3)Any method's OK unless: breaking Dzogchen vows, mixed as syncretic (Milanese Soup) 4)Don't join mandalas of opponents of Dalai Lama/Padmasambhava: False Deity inventors by encouraging victims 5)Don't debate Ati with others 6)Don't discuss Ati practices online 7) A master told his old disciple: no one's to discuss his teaching with some others on a former forum nor mention him. Publicity's OK, questions are asked from masters/set teachers in person/email/non-public forums~Best wishes


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 07, 2011 12:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2011 4:07 am
Posts: 886
username wrote:
I don't think you know what lineage he is talking about. Meanwhile Sam himself has been working and publishing work on Dunhuang papers validating Dzogchen's much earlier roots. Secondly if you read his penultimate sentence you quoted he says that is the evidence so far but in academic terms the fact that they haven't been found doesn't mean they never existed. Academics know this rule well. In fact parts of the Dunhuang collection he works on have proven case after case that Dzogchen lineage claims have been justified. That has been the recurring theme during the last decade. And if you read his last sentence you quoted he says 'if' and it's a mere little hypothesis not a proven fact as you claim. When confronted on his blog about various ideas he puts forward, he honestly takes them back when other evidence is presented or admits in such cases that it is just a hypothetical idea. Not what you presented as fact at all but quite 'iffy' from the horse's (Sam) mouth himself! Anyway I challenged you to post 'the exact accusations against Dzogchen you wrote' on his blog, you didn't face the music.

Then you say you don't subscribe to his ideas but you just wrote in the other thread:
Quote:
Dzogchen people are wide open to attack on the foundations of their lineage, so best to cut the big talk.

So you are not being honest here either, and much worse, not stable positions.


Do you actually read what he wrote? He is straight up saying the Dunhuang do not substantiate Dzogchen's earlier roots. He says that they, at best, substantiate an 11th century beginning, and that ChNN should not be so confident of his assertion that the Dunhuang support Dzogchen's early roots. It's in his blog and in his book. Go read.

_________________
CAW!


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 114 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Norwegian, Saoshun, Yahoo [Bot] and 15 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