Thank you that helps clarify it a little bit. Malcolm's suggestion to read the Heart Sutra also helped, maybe listening to some talk by a teacher over this would help clarify some points as well. Have I misunderstood even some Shentong teachers through reading and listening that they view Buddhahood as not illusory tho? I would have to find some exact quotes and possibly re-read them, but I remember it sounding like they were saying Buddhahood is real/not illusory. Don't mean to take this too far off track eitherSādhaka wrote: ↑Wed Nov 17, 2021 5:44 pmNicholas2727 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 17, 2021 5:07 pmI thought the attainment of Buddhahood was not illusory? What is the point of working so hard for so many life times if the final result is an illusion? Maybe I have gotten this bias since many teachers or authors I have read lean in the Shentong direction, but maybe you can clarify.
Well, there’s illusion with afflictions, and illusion without afflictions.
It would all be illusion all the way down, but you see what I mean....
It seems like an “catch-22”, but as long as afflictions persist, suffering persists; even though the afflictions and suffering are also illusions from the beginning.
Always coming back to the Four Noble Truths.
And empty, yes; however:
"Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is defiled by incoming defilements."
"Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is freed from incoming defilements." — The Pabhassara Sutta
And:
https://read.84000.co/translation/toh95 ... 6-001-2282
https://read.84000.co/translation/toh95 ... 6-001-2027
Therefore emptiness, yet not only emptiness.
video of Brunnhölzl: Buddha Nature as a radical teaching
-
- Posts: 247
- Joined: Sat Nov 23, 2019 5:44 am
Re: video of Brunnhölzl: Buddha Nature as a radical teaching
-
- Posts: 7885
- Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am
Re: video of Brunnhölzl: Buddha Nature as a radical teaching
There’s not just one way to look at this. So I’m sure some people say that.Have I misunderstood even some Shentong teachers through reading and listening that they view Buddhahood as not illusory tho? I would have to find some exact quotes and possibly re-read them, but I remember it sounding like they were saying Buddhahood is real/not illusory. Don't mean to take this too far off track either
1.The problem isn’t ‘ignorance’. The problem is the mind you have right now. (H.H. Karmapa XVII @NYC 2/4/18)
2. I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against lama abuse.
3. Student: Lama, I thought I might die but then I realized that the 3 Jewels would protect me.
Lama: Even If you had died the 3 Jewels would still have protected you. (DW post by Fortyeightvows)
2. I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against lama abuse.
3. Student: Lama, I thought I might die but then I realized that the 3 Jewels would protect me.
Lama: Even If you had died the 3 Jewels would still have protected you. (DW post by Fortyeightvows)
Re: video of Brunnhölzl: Buddha Nature as a radical teaching
Also the vivid, wakeful awareness that some people don't like to talk about.
"The world is made of stories, not atoms."
--- Muriel Rukeyser
--- Muriel Rukeyser
Re: video of Brunnhölzl: Buddha Nature as a radical teaching
Yes, however that’s not so easy to talk about in an open forum where not everyone has received Empowerment or Direct Introduction, because you can only talk about it so much without having to go into details of for example Dzogchen praxis. And some aspects are not appropriate to talk about with people who don’t have teachers in such lineages.
Not that there’s anything to hide, and not that it contradicts the Buddha’s teachings; it’s just that misunderstandings can arise.
Last edited by Sādhaka on Wed Nov 17, 2021 9:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: video of Brunnhölzl: Buddha Nature as a radical teaching
You mean rig pa. Rig pa is also empty, baseless, and not established in anyway at all. The Dzogchen tantras and Longchenpa declare this univocally.
-- Tantra Without Syllables.Retinue of nonexistent superficial appearances, listen!
There is no separate object in me, the view of self-originated pristine consciousness. Passing away in the past does not exist. Arising in
the future does not exist. Appearing in the present does not exist in any way. Karma does not exist. Traces do not exist. Ignorance does not exist. Mind does not exist. Intellect does not exist. Wisdom does not exist. Saṃsāra does not exist. Nirvāṇa does not exist. Not even vidyā (rig pa) itself exists. Not even the appearances of pristine consciousness exist. All those arose from a nonexistent apprehender.
This "nonexistent apprehender," indicates the union of the two truths. Even rig pa is something relative, that is why it is a path dharma, not a result dharma. It vanishes at the time of the result.
Re: video of Brunnhölzl: Buddha Nature as a radical teaching
What Tibetan word is "apprehender" here?
Also, how does anyone know if it vanishes at the time of result if there is no knowing/cognition/awareness?
Also, how does anyone know if it vanishes at the time of result if there is no knowing/cognition/awareness?
"The world is made of stories, not atoms."
--- Muriel Rukeyser
--- Muriel Rukeyser
Re: video of Brunnhölzl: Buddha Nature as a radical teaching
This position leaves a lot of questions begging. Namely: if Buddhas do not perceive obscurations of sentient beings, then what of upaya? What of teaching Dharma itself, which is contextually attuned to the specific afflictions of specific sentient beings? i.e. the point of view of the result is not the only relevant point of view here.Malcolm wrote: ↑Wed Nov 17, 2021 2:25 pmI doubt very much that Karl is an annihilationist. You have really misunderstood his point, quite grievously. What he and the karmapas are implying is that there never were sentient beings to begin with. This is not controversial. Haribhadra, a Madhyamaka, points out than when one realizes buddhahood, one realizes too there was never a time when one was not a buddha. This insight does not depend on the Buddhanature doctrine at all, since it is straight out of the PP Sutras. Moreover, it is commonly stated that from the point of the view of the result, Buddhas only perceive other Buddhas, they do not perceive sentient beings, because to perceive obscurations would equal being obscured. Buddhas have no obscurations, hence they do not perceive them, ergo, they have no perception of sentient beings at all. Thus is another reason why Haribhadra points out that the path is entirely illusory from beginning to end, including the attainment of buddhahood.Schrödinger’s Yidam wrote: ↑Wed Nov 17, 2021 2:17 pmBrunnhölzl has already gone down that route for me. The sentient being cannot become a Buddha. The sentient being has to cease in order for a Buddha to arise. It's like the cessation of a Shravakayana Arhat, but unlike the coma-like nothingness of an Arhat, a Buddha arises. That is what I've been trying to bring people's attention to. Play the video. It's short. If people are impatient then can fast forward to 1:30.
Re: video of Brunnhölzl: Buddha Nature as a radical teaching
The general example is the wish-fulfilling gem. Buddha activity is spontaneous, and manifests because of their aspirations as bodhisattvas on the path.tobes wrote: ↑Wed Nov 17, 2021 11:26 pm This position leaves a lot of questions begging. Namely: if Buddhas do not perceive obscurations of sentient beings, then what of upaya? What of teaching Dharma itself, which is contextually attuned to the specific afflictions of specific sentient beings? i.e. the point of view of the result is not the only relevant point of view here.
- conebeckham
- Posts: 5714
- Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:49 pm
- Location: Bay Area, CA, USA
Re: video of Brunnhölzl: Buddha Nature as a radical teaching
For instance, 8th Karmapa says, in his commentary on the Abhisamayalamkara, that Tathagatagarbha is the only ultimately real entity, and that this entity and sentient beings are mutually exclusive. It is not the case that sentient beings possess Buddha Nature. Instead, Sentient being seem to exist in Buddha Nature, like clouds in the sky which do not actually affect the sky. Paraphrasing from Brunnholzl, When the Clouds Part.Schrödinger’s Yidam wrote: ↑Wed Nov 17, 2021 9:09 pmThere’s not just one way to look at this. So I’m sure some people say that.Have I misunderstood even some Shentong teachers through reading and listening that they view Buddhahood as not illusory tho? I would have to find some exact quotes and possibly re-read them, but I remember it sounding like they were saying Buddhahood is real/not illusory. Don't mean to take this too far off track either
དམ་པའི་དོན་ནི་ཤེས་རབ་ཆེ་བ་དང་།
རྟོག་གེའི་ཡུལ་མིན་བླ་མའི་བྱིན་རླབས་དང་།
སྐལ་ལྡན་ལས་འཕྲོ་ཅན་གྱིས་རྟོགས་པ་སྟེ།
དེ་ནི་ཤེས་རབ་ལ་ནི་ལོ་རྟོག་སེལ།།
"Absolute Truth is not an object of analytical discourse or great discriminating wisdom,
It is realized through the blessing grace of the Guru and fortunate Karmic potential.
Like this, mistaken ideas of discriminating wisdom are clarified."
- (Kyabje Bokar Rinpoche, from his summary of "The Ocean of Definitive Meaning")
རྟོག་གེའི་ཡུལ་མིན་བླ་མའི་བྱིན་རླབས་དང་།
སྐལ་ལྡན་ལས་འཕྲོ་ཅན་གྱིས་རྟོགས་པ་སྟེ།
དེ་ནི་ཤེས་རབ་ལ་ནི་ལོ་རྟོག་སེལ།།
"Absolute Truth is not an object of analytical discourse or great discriminating wisdom,
It is realized through the blessing grace of the Guru and fortunate Karmic potential.
Like this, mistaken ideas of discriminating wisdom are clarified."
- (Kyabje Bokar Rinpoche, from his summary of "The Ocean of Definitive Meaning")
-
- Posts: 7885
- Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am
Re: video of Brunnhölzl: Buddha Nature as a radical teaching
Yeah, that.conebeckham wrote: ↑Thu Nov 18, 2021 1:30 amFor instance, 8th Karmapa says, in his commentary on the Abhisamayalamkara, that Tathagatagarbha is the only ultimately real entity, and that this entity and sentient beings are mutually exclusive. It is not the case that sentient beings possess Buddha Nature. Instead, Sentient being seem to exist in Buddha Nature, like clouds in the sky which do not actually affect the sky. Paraphrasing from Brunnholzl, When the Clouds Part.Schrödinger’s Yidam wrote: ↑Wed Nov 17, 2021 9:09 pmThere’s not just one way to look at this. So I’m sure some people say that.Have I misunderstood even some Shentong teachers through reading and listening that they view Buddhahood as not illusory tho? I would have to find some exact quotes and possibly re-read them, but I remember it sounding like they were saying Buddhahood is real/not illusory. Don't mean to take this too far off track either
You could have cited a page number ya know.
1.The problem isn’t ‘ignorance’. The problem is the mind you have right now. (H.H. Karmapa XVII @NYC 2/4/18)
2. I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against lama abuse.
3. Student: Lama, I thought I might die but then I realized that the 3 Jewels would protect me.
Lama: Even If you had died the 3 Jewels would still have protected you. (DW post by Fortyeightvows)
2. I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against lama abuse.
3. Student: Lama, I thought I might die but then I realized that the 3 Jewels would protect me.
Lama: Even If you had died the 3 Jewels would still have protected you. (DW post by Fortyeightvows)
Re: video of Brunnhölzl: Buddha Nature as a radical teaching
conebeckham wrote: ↑Thu Nov 18, 2021 1:30 amFor instance, 8th Karmapa says, in his commentary on the Abhisamayalamkara, that Tathagatagarbha is the only ultimately real entity, and that this entity and sentient beings are mutually exclusive. It is not the case that sentient beings possess Buddha Nature. Instead, Sentient being seem to exist in Buddha Nature, like clouds in the sky which do not actually affect the sky. Paraphrasing from Brunnholzl, When the Clouds Part.Schrödinger’s Yidam wrote: ↑Wed Nov 17, 2021 9:09 pmThere’s not just one way to look at this. So I’m sure some people say that.Have I misunderstood even some Shentong teachers through reading and listening that they view Buddhahood as not illusory tho? I would have to find some exact quotes and possibly re-read them, but I remember it sounding like they were saying Buddhahood is real/not illusory. Don't mean to take this too far off track either
I’ve seen it referred to as the ‘Seed of Buddhahood’.
All beings ‘have’ it, yet don’t ‘possess’ it.
Apparently the Taoist Alchemical text The Secret of the Golden Flower refers to it as the ‘Golden Embryo’.
Lao Tzu could have been a emanation of a Buddha, yet it seems difficult to find a living practice-lineage going back to him; therefore it probably doesn’t matter all that much....
Last edited by Sādhaka on Thu Nov 18, 2021 1:59 am, edited 3 times in total.
Re: video of Brunnhölzl: Buddha Nature as a radical teaching
I’ll need to look at the Tibetan text itself before I believe this is what Karmapa VIII intended to say. Sound bites on Dharmawheel are not conclusive of anything.conebeckham wrote: ↑Thu Nov 18, 2021 1:30 amFor instance, 8th Karmapa says, in his commentary on the Abhisamayalamkara, that Tathagatagarbha is the only ultimately real entity, and that this entity and sentient beings are mutually exclusive. It is not the case that sentient beings possess Buddha Nature. Instead, Sentient being seem to exist in Buddha Nature, like clouds in the sky which do not actually affect the sky. Paraphrasing from Brunnholzl, When the Clouds Part.Schrödinger’s Yidam wrote: ↑Wed Nov 17, 2021 9:09 pmThere’s not just one way to look at this. So I’m sure some people say that.Have I misunderstood even some Shentong teachers through reading and listening that they view Buddhahood as not illusory tho? I would have to find some exact quotes and possibly re-read them, but I remember it sounding like they were saying Buddhahood is real/not illusory. Don't mean to take this too far off track either
And quite frankly, Tibetan scholars make errors. If such an opinion cannot be grounded in both scripture and reasoning, it should be disregarded as erroneous, no matter whose opinion it is.
Last edited by Malcolm on Thu Nov 18, 2021 2:46 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: video of Brunnhölzl: Buddha Nature as a radical teaching
Re: video of Brunnhölzl: Buddha Nature as a radical teaching
It's worth reading Tony Duff's translation of the three interviews between Gampopa and Phagdru in, I think, "Gampopa teaches Mahamudra". Provides a lot more context around this. The first interview is when Phagdru is assessing Gampopa as a teacher, the second is Gampopa instructing him on the nature of mind and telling him to go into retreat, the third is when Phagdru has some experience and returns for clarifications, if I remember correctly.Matt J wrote: ↑Tue Nov 16, 2021 9:21 pm So I think I tracked down the Karmapa story, which adds context and does not appear controversial at all:
The Karmapa followed his explanation with a pertinent story of the first meeting between Gampopa (1079-1135, the founder of the Dakpo Kagyu lineage), and his disciple Geshe Phakmo Drukpa (1110-1170, a lineage holder, whose activity was the greatest among Gampopa’s disciples).
-
- Posts: 7885
- Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am
Re: video of Brunnhölzl: Buddha Nature as a radical teaching
The entire premise of this thread is based on the Brunnhölzl vide linked in the first post. The premise of that video is that Brunnhölzl is responding to the idea that Buddha Nature is, or at least can be, a radical Teaching. He is deliberately responding with what is probably the most outrageous interpretation of Buddha Nature which he credits to both HHK8 and HHK3. So I don't think "error" enters into the equation no matter how much it conflicts with more mainstream thought. That's the point--it's radical!And quite frankly, Tibetan scholars make errors. If such an opinion cannot be grounded in both scripture and reasoning, it should be disregarded as erroneous, no matter whose opinion it is.
1.The problem isn’t ‘ignorance’. The problem is the mind you have right now. (H.H. Karmapa XVII @NYC 2/4/18)
2. I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against lama abuse.
3. Student: Lama, I thought I might die but then I realized that the 3 Jewels would protect me.
Lama: Even If you had died the 3 Jewels would still have protected you. (DW post by Fortyeightvows)
2. I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against lama abuse.
3. Student: Lama, I thought I might die but then I realized that the 3 Jewels would protect me.
Lama: Even If you had died the 3 Jewels would still have protected you. (DW post by Fortyeightvows)
Re: video of Brunnhölzl: Buddha Nature as a radical teaching
If it’s wrong, it is just wrong. But as I said, I’ll need to look at the text itself. For example, what is KVIII definition here of Buddhanature and so on? As we know, tathagatagarbha has been defined in sutras from the all-basis consciousness to dharmakaya and everything in between.Schrödinger’s Yidam wrote: ↑Thu Nov 18, 2021 3:05 amThe entire premise of this thread is based on the Brunnhölzl vide linked in the first post. The premise of that video is that Brunnhölzl is responding to the idea that Buddha Nature is, or at least can be, a radical Teaching. He is deliberately responding with what is probably the most outrageous interpretation of Buddha Nature which he credits to both HHK8 and HHK3. So I don't think "error" enters into the equation no matter how much it conflicts with more mainstream thought. That's the point--it's radical!And quite frankly, Tibetan scholars make errors. If such an opinion cannot be grounded in both scripture and reasoning, it should be disregarded as erroneous, no matter whose opinion it is.
-
- Posts: 7885
- Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am
Re: video of Brunnhölzl: Buddha Nature as a radical teaching
I'm no court stenographer, so there could be an error here or there, but here's my transcript of the video in question. I'm starting the transcription around 1:15 into the video since it isn't pertinent to the thread and I wanted to save myself some work.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l86nQ9ac58M
And of course the video is still up in case someone wants to check my transcription. It also allows one to hear his voice inflections, like where he finds a point amusing. Here is the link for it on YouTube:Brunnhölz wrote: But I think it’s, um, yeah it is radical because it questions fundamentally the whole outlook of who we are and also what it means to be on the Path and what the fruition is like. And the most radical, I think, presentation is in actually in some Teachings where it is said, that uh, like for example the 3rd and 8th Karmapa, and also a few other places I have seen, that it is so radical that it actually says it’s not that sentient beings have Buddha Nature. Like they don’t own it. It’s actually something that’s completely different from anything that a sentient being is. And that is very radical. And they even go to the extent of saying it’s not that sentient being have obscurations, they are the obscurations. So that is very radical. I mean who wants to be an obscuration? Not very flattering.
But I think when you think about it, it is extremely profound. Because what is a sentient being? It’s the 5 skhandas, and that is exactly what obscures Buddha Nature. It’s made very clear in the Buddha Nature texts. So, it’s radical in the sense that basically in order to become a Buddha you actually have to say good bye to yourself. Like, to yourself and the world as you know it. Like, you have to go out of exsistence as a sentient being to become a Buddha. So from that point of view it’s not even that a sentient being becomes a Buddha, like 8th Karmapa says very clearly that’s actually impossible. Because that would be like saying “clouds become the cloud-free sky”, which is not happening. No, you have to get rid of the clouds in order to experience the cloud free sky. So in that sense yes, it is extremely radical.
And, of course it sounds, like, more schmoozy if you say “all sentient beings have Buddha Nature”. Then you can still entertain some kind of notion “oh yeah, that’s my true self” or something like that. But, that’s actually, when you really look at it that’s not the case at all. And from that point of view then it is also clear Buddha Nature is not some sort of atman. So it takes care of that problem too.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l86nQ9ac58M
Last edited by Schrödinger’s Yidam on Thu Nov 18, 2021 3:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
1.The problem isn’t ‘ignorance’. The problem is the mind you have right now. (H.H. Karmapa XVII @NYC 2/4/18)
2. I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against lama abuse.
3. Student: Lama, I thought I might die but then I realized that the 3 Jewels would protect me.
Lama: Even If you had died the 3 Jewels would still have protected you. (DW post by Fortyeightvows)
2. I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against lama abuse.
3. Student: Lama, I thought I might die but then I realized that the 3 Jewels would protect me.
Lama: Even If you had died the 3 Jewels would still have protected you. (DW post by Fortyeightvows)
Re: video of Brunnhölzl: Buddha Nature as a radical teaching
Yeah, it is a sound bite. It leaves a whole range of questions unanswered, how is Buddhanature being defined here and so on.Schrödinger’s Yidam wrote: ↑Thu Nov 18, 2021 3:25 am I'm no court stenographer, so there could be an error here or there, but here's my transcript of the video in question. I'm starting the transcription around 1:15 into the video since it isn't pertinent to the thread and I wanted to save myself some work.
-
- Posts: 7885
- Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am
Re: video of Brunnhölzl: Buddha Nature as a radical teaching
From the same interview session he defines Buddha Nature in this video:Malcolm wrote: ↑Thu Nov 18, 2021 3:29 amYeah, it is a sound bite. It leaves a whole range of questions unanswered, how is Buddhanature being defined here and so on.Schrödinger’s Yidam wrote: ↑Thu Nov 18, 2021 3:25 am I'm no court stenographer, so there could be an error here or there, but here's my transcript of the video in question. I'm starting the transcription around 1:15 into the video since it isn't pertinent to the thread and I wanted to save myself some work.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmB7lZm3jBc
1.The problem isn’t ‘ignorance’. The problem is the mind you have right now. (H.H. Karmapa XVII @NYC 2/4/18)
2. I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against lama abuse.
3. Student: Lama, I thought I might die but then I realized that the 3 Jewels would protect me.
Lama: Even If you had died the 3 Jewels would still have protected you. (DW post by Fortyeightvows)
2. I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against lama abuse.
3. Student: Lama, I thought I might die but then I realized that the 3 Jewels would protect me.
Lama: Even If you had died the 3 Jewels would still have protected you. (DW post by Fortyeightvows)
Re: video of Brunnhölzl: Buddha Nature as a radical teaching
The question Is not Karls definition, but Karmapa 8’s.Schrödinger’s Yidam wrote: ↑Thu Nov 18, 2021 3:44 amFrom the same interview session he defines Buddha Nature in this video:Malcolm wrote: ↑Thu Nov 18, 2021 3:29 amYeah, it is a sound bite. It leaves a whole range of questions unanswered, how is Buddhanature being defined here and so on.Schrödinger’s Yidam wrote: ↑Thu Nov 18, 2021 3:25 am I'm no court stenographer, so there could be an error here or there, but here's my transcript of the video in question. I'm starting the transcription around 1:15 into the video since it isn't pertinent to the thread and I wanted to save myself some work.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmB7lZm3jBc