Pointing out instructions

[booker]

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.

[Malcolm]

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feature of Cakrasamvara is that unlike Guhyasamaja, Kalacakra, Hevajra, etc., the mandala of Cakrasamvara is never withdrawn it is not necessary for Śākyamuni to teach it again as it would redundant.

[adinatha]

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feature of Cakrasamvara is that unlike Guhyasamaja, Kalacakra, Hevajra, etc., the mandala of Cakrasamvara is never withdrawn it is not necessary for Śākyamuni to teach it again as it would redundant.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

[Malcolm]

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

[adinatha]

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?

[Malcolm]

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.

And the tantras? Direct contact with buddhas or no?

I have little issue with visionary production of texts.

[adinatha]

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?

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?

[Malcolm]

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.

[adinatha]

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?

[Malcolm]

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

[heart]

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

[Malcolm]

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

[adinatha]

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

[heart]

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

[adinatha]

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.

[username]

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.

[adinatha]

I'm not subscribing. I'm just reporting.

[username]

Mis-reporting, post that on his blog and we'll all read his reply.

[username]

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:

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.

[adinatha]

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:

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.