Dharma Wheel

Tashi delek dear dharma friends. :namaste: I am currently practicing Ngondro and have been encouraged to engage in Lamrim and Lojong practices as well. According to my teacher I should practice them within the context of the Ngondro Sadhana. This is a very vague phrasing and after requestin more gu...

Empowerments taken in past lives are not a valid basis for practice in this one. Of the three vows, two are lost at death: personal liberation vows and samaya vows. No empowerment, no guru; no guru, no samaya. Claiming one is doing Vajrayana practice when one has not received empowerment is like cl...

The ground may have been prepared in previous lives. Empowerments taken in past lives are not a valid basis for practice in this one. Of the three vows, two are lost at death: personal liberation vows and samaya vows. No empowerment, no guru; no guru, no samaya. Claiming one is doing Vajrayana prac...

Or would it be more appropriate to say that the first time round was "real but a little thin" and that it should now be deepened through at least some continued practice? It seems a bit harsh to say to such people that they were only being tested, and that their efforts were otherwise pointless. PS...

Sure they do, they call it “mere” existence, nominal existence, existence by designation, etc., “Not existent in the ultimate, not nonexistent in then relative.” Are you suggesting that Chandrakirit always refuses lunch? No, I am suggesting he didn’t analyze his lunch at all. But nonetheless he sti...

Thanks for this condescension Malcolm, I had until this point really believed that I was the only one who has listened to a Gelug view.... Based on your comments above, could one draw some other conclusion? I would suggest at this point the thread has reached a natural conclusion. Agreed. Why am I ...

In reality, Gelug Madhyamaka is transmitted ... Sure, there is a discussion, but it is not some kind of direct introduction. In fact Tsongkhapa negates the whole idea of direct introduction. One still has to engage in ones own analysis, the Geshe does not do it for you. For the record, you are not ...

All that is negated in the Gelug presentation is svabhava, not bhava, meaning that for them, the ultimate is a nonexistent and the relative is an existent. They never directly negate the table, only the table”s svabhava. Tsongkhapa’s point of view is laid out very clearly in Lam Rim Chen mo. What I...

No, as Tsongkhapa’s reformulation of the twin negation shows. IIf it were, Nagarjuna wound not have insisted on the fourfold negation. It doesn't show this. Only in the cartoon Gelug presentation.....where this is all and only a philosophy glass bead game. "You've left existence untouched!" Well, n...

I’m not sure, but I am of the belief Gelugpas think it does imply a provisional existence. And they are criticized for it. But I’ve been wrong before. Well, everyone eats their provisional lunch, don't they? These are practical matters. And then there’s the Shakespeare diet line affirming existence...

It doesn't show this. Only in the cartoon Gelug presentation.....where this is all and only a philosophy glass bead game. "You've left existence untouched!" Well, no. If something is dependently arisen, it has never existed. So, seeing appearances as dependent arisings after the negation of svabhav...

Existence, bhava, and the rest. In other words, it is not sufficient to negate only svabhava. Svabhava entails the grasping to existence. If it is negated, so too is the grasping to existence. No, as Tsongkhapa’s reformulation of the twin negation shows. IIf it were, Nagarjuna wound not have insist...

I mean, if the object of Madhyamaka critique/negation is not svabhava , then what else could it possibly be? Existence, bhava, and the rest. In other words, it is not sufficient to negate only svabhava. Svabhava entails the grasping to existence. If it is negated, so too is the grasping to existence.

I mean, if the object of Madhyamaka critique/negation is not svabhava, then what else could it possibly be?

I've never heard any Gelugpa negate intrinsic existence only to discover the thing remains..... So mere existence is negated? It isn't left over? What about "Not existing in the ultimate, not not existing the relative?" This after all is Tsongkhapa's famous formulation of the negation of existence ...

Also: if tables are empty of inherent existence, then they are necessarily also empty of being tables. Not according to Gelug analysis— tables are not empty of mere existence as tables, only inherent existence, which is something other than the table itself. These kinds of interpretations remind me...

It means that Tsongkhapa also argued for a kind of extrinsic emptiness. Tables aren’t empty of tables, they are only empty of inherent existence. Is this what Gendun Chopel criticized when he said that Tsonkhapa's formulation of the object of negation resulted in a completely pointless refutation? ...

For transparency, I suppose I should say that I met my current partner at a big teaching by HHDL, whilst she was chatting to the Khandro of my root master.... And that although it has not always been easy, to share practices together, to share a Dharma kinship....is pretty special, and no doubt the ...

My wife is a practising catholic and I've been practising Buddhism since before we met. Next august we've been married for 20 years. I go to mass with her at Christmas and Easter and she occasionally accompanies me to the Thai buddhist temple. Neither of us has ever been the recipient of any animos...

But I think the vastness and profundity of his approach puts our own little too'ings and fro'ings on these sorts of issues into the correct perspective: it's all Dharma. Just drink as much of it as you can and stop worrying about your petty fixations to this thing or that.