Good pointMalcolm wrote: ↑Wed Nov 17, 2021 12:03 amThat would make bondage inherent and liberation impossible. You sure you want to go down that route?Schrödinger’s Yidam wrote: ↑Tue Nov 16, 2021 10:43 pm but the entirety of our experience is the obscuration.
video of Brunnhölzl: Buddha Nature as a radical teaching
Re: video of Brunnhölzl: Buddha Nature as a radical teaching
"Me and the sky don't hold views - Me and the river have no fixed practice
Me and the madman don't have a guide- Me and the rainbow have no experiences
Me, the sun and the moon have no certitudes - Me and the jewel bear no fruit" - Dampa Sanggyé as quoted by Domar Mingyur Dorjé (born 1675)
Me and the madman don't have a guide- Me and the rainbow have no experiences
Me, the sun and the moon have no certitudes - Me and the jewel bear no fruit" - Dampa Sanggyé as quoted by Domar Mingyur Dorjé (born 1675)
- conebeckham
- Posts: 5712
- Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:49 pm
- Location: Bay Area, CA, USA
Re: video of Brunnhölzl: Buddha Nature as a radical teaching
Yes, that was my point. Less concisely stated.Malcolm wrote: ↑Wed Nov 17, 2021 12:03 amThat would make bondage inherent and liberation impossible. You sure you want to go down that route?Schrödinger’s Yidam wrote: ↑Tue Nov 16, 2021 10:43 pm but the entirety of our experience is the obscuration.
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
Brunnhölzl has already gone down that route for me. That is what I've been trying to bring people's attention to in the video.Malcolm wrote: ↑Wed Nov 17, 2021 12:03 amThat would make bondage inherent and liberation impossible. You sure you want to go down that route?Schrödinger’s Yidam wrote: ↑Tue Nov 16, 2021 10:43 pm but the entirety of our experience is the obscuration.
Brunnhölzl says (in this view) that the sentient being cannot become a Buddha. The sentient being has to cease in order for a Buddha to arise. My understanding of what Brunnhölzl is saying is that it's like the cessation of a Shravakayana Arhat, but unlike the coma-like nothingness of an Arhat, a Buddha arises. Play the video. It's short. If people are impatient then can fast forward to 1:30.
Enjoy!
*******
In recap, I did start this thread out with the disclaimer that HHK #8's position was an outlier, so I'm not trying to establish this as Karma Kagyu orthodoxy. (In "When Clouds Part" Brunnhölzl doesn't include HHK #3 in this view as he does in the video.) However I find it a very interesting--and telling--outlier.
Last edited by Schrödinger’s Yidam on Wed Nov 17, 2021 2:25 pm, 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
I 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.Malcolm wrote: ↑Wed Nov 17, 2021 12:03 amThat would make bondage inherent and liberation impossible. You sure you want to go down that route?Schrödinger’s Yidam wrote: ↑Tue Nov 16, 2021 10:43 pm but the entirety of our experience is the obscuration.
-
- Posts: 7885
- Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am
Re: video of Brunnhölzl: Buddha Nature as a radical teaching
The video is short. People following this thread should watch the entire thing. It's ridiculous to discuss what Brunnhölzl means if we don't listen to what he says.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.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.
N.B.: Brunnhölzl is being interviewed about Buddha Nature as a general subject in a longer interview, which subsequently is chopped up into smaller pieces. The specific question he is addressing in this section of that longer interview is whether or not Buddha Nature is a radical teaching. So he is emphasizing what is probably the most radical interpretation of Buddha Nature. At least that's how it seems to me.
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
I did. I know Karl. I am sure Karl is quite sure he exists, conventionally speaking, and is equally confident he will realize buddhahood eventually, that his rosary of moments of empty clarity, the all-basis, will continue through the state of Vajradharahood, once his adventitious obscurations are eliminated. What he is talking about is the consequences, as he sees it, of the point of view of Karmapa III and VIII. But as I outline above, this is not the radical departure you imagine it to be.Schrödinger’s Yidam wrote: ↑Wed Nov 17, 2021 2:31 pm The video is short. People following this thread should watch the entire thing. It's ridiculous to discuss what Brunnhölzl means if we don't listen to what he says.
Your idea is the radical misunderstanding of what he is saying.
-
- Posts: 7885
- Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am
Re: video of Brunnhölzl: Buddha Nature as a radical teaching
Funny that "my interpretation" got placed in the title of the video!Malcolm wrote: ↑Wed Nov 17, 2021 2:36 pmI did. I know Karl. I am sure Karl is quite sure he exists, conventionally speaking, and is equally confident he will realize buddhahood eventually, that his rosary of moments of empty clarity, the all-basis, will continue through the state of Vajradharahood, once his adventitious obscurations are eliminated. What he is talking about is the consequences, as he sees it, of the point of view of Karmapa III and VIII. But as I outline above, this is not the radical departure you imagine it to be.Schrödinger’s Yidam wrote: ↑Wed Nov 17, 2021 2:31 pm The video is short. People following this thread should watch the entire thing. It's ridiculous to discuss what Brunnhölzl means if we don't listen to what he says.
Your idea is the radical misunderstanding of what he is saying.
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
No, the only thing related to the title of the video and your misunderstanding is the adjective "radical".Schrödinger’s Yidam wrote: ↑Wed Nov 17, 2021 2:50 pm
Funny that "my interpretation" got placed in the title of the video!
And you have failed to address my objections, since they undermine the "radicalness" of Karl's observation.
Re: video of Brunnhölzl: Buddha Nature as a radical teaching
One can find few verses (of Ratnagotravibhaga) which have same spirit as above premise. Its presentation is so precise that it has clarified the processes of obscurations.from above video:
It is not that sentient beings have the obscurations but they are the obscurations. The sentient beings are defined as skandha, etc.
-
- Posts: 7885
- Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am
Re: video of Brunnhölzl: Buddha Nature as a radical teaching
You are characterizing what he is saying as "not controversial" I am saying it is radical. The title of the video is about how radical Buddha Nature can be.Malcolm wrote: ↑Wed Nov 17, 2021 2:58 pmNo, the only thing related to the title of the video and your misunderstanding is the adjective "radical".Schrödinger’s Yidam wrote: ↑Wed Nov 17, 2021 2:50 pm
Funny that "my interpretation" got placed in the title of the video!
And you have failed to address my objections, since they undermine the "radicalness" of Karl's observation.
I think you're the one that is mistaken here.
Next step is to go to the trouble of getting exact quotes from the video. If I have to go to that much trouble it will take a bit of time.
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
Of course you do. What he is saying is radical and novel to those who have not studied Abhisamayālaṃkara. Nāgārjuna states in the Verses of Dependent Origination:Schrödinger’s Yidam wrote: ↑Wed Nov 17, 2021 3:03 pm
You are characterizing what he is saying as "not controversial" I am saying it is radical. The title of the video is about how radical Buddha Nature can be.
I think you're the one that is mistaken here.
Here, there is nothing to remove,
there is nothing to add;
See the real correctly.
Having seen the real, liberation.
This statement is cited verbatim by Maitreyanātha in the Abhisamayālaṃkara.
Karl is saying nothing more than this.
-
- Posts: 7885
- Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am
Re: video of Brunnhölzl: Buddha Nature as a radical teaching
OK, time to transcribe the video word for word. That won't happen fast, probably not today.Malcolm wrote: ↑Wed Nov 17, 2021 3:20 pmOf course you do. What he is saying is radical and novel to those who have not studied Abhisamayālaṃkara of Haribhadra. Nāgārjuna states in the Verses of Dependent Origination:Schrödinger’s Yidam wrote: ↑Wed Nov 17, 2021 3:03 pm
You are characterizing what he is saying as "not controversial" I am saying it is radical. The title of the video is about how radical Buddha Nature can be.
I think you're the one that is mistaken here.
Here, there is nothing to remove,
there is nothing to add;
See the real correctly.
Having seen the real, liberation.
This statement is cited verbatim by Maitreyanātha in the Abhisamayālaṃkāra.
Karl is saying nothing more than this.
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
You are wasting your time. What Karl says is nothing more than the above. The problem with your position that is that it makes obscurations inherently existing obstacles to buddhahood. That's not what Karl is talking about.Schrödinger’s Yidam wrote: ↑Wed Nov 17, 2021 3:22 pmOK, time to transcribe the video word for word. That won't happen fast, probably not today.Malcolm wrote: ↑Wed Nov 17, 2021 3:20 pmOf course you do. What he is saying is radical and novel to those who have not studied Abhisamayālaṃkara of Haribhadra. Nāgārjuna states in the Verses of Dependent Origination:Schrödinger’s Yidam wrote: ↑Wed Nov 17, 2021 3:03 pm
You are characterizing what he is saying as "not controversial" I am saying it is radical. The title of the video is about how radical Buddha Nature can be.
I think you're the one that is mistaken here.
Here, there is nothing to remove,
there is nothing to add;
See the real correctly.
Having seen the real, liberation.
This statement is cited verbatim by Maitreyanātha in the Abhisamayālaṃkāra.
Karl is saying nothing more than this.
What Karl is talking about is taking a facet of buddhanature theory to a logical extreme, which is that idea that the Uttaratantra is wrong, that buddhanature cannot be a "possession" of sentient beings. But as I said, this is not a problem at all. Buddhanature is a provisional doctrine, according to the Uttaratantra itself, taught to eliminate five faults. It is training wheels for baby bodhisattvas who are scared of emptiness.
Re: video of Brunnhölzl: Buddha Nature as a radical teaching
Making a similar point in When the Clouds Part, it is only "somewhat shocking."
"[S]entient beings are nothing but the adventitious flaws of thoughts and therefore one familiarizes with them as being nonentities." I mean, this is a bit shocking given the conventional presentations, etc. Maybe not for super-scholars, but for regular Buddhist types.
Interestingly, similar points are made in Zen with the intent to "shock."
"[S]entient beings are nothing but the adventitious flaws of thoughts and therefore one familiarizes with them as being nonentities." I mean, this is a bit shocking given the conventional presentations, etc. Maybe not for super-scholars, but for regular Buddhist types.
Interestingly, similar points are made in Zen with the intent to "shock."
Malcolm wrote: ↑Wed Nov 17, 2021 2:36 pm I did. I know Karl. I am sure Karl is quite sure he exists, conventionally speaking, and is equally confident he will realize buddhahood eventually, that his rosary of moments of empty clarity, the all-basis, will continue through the state of Vajradharahood, once his adventitious obscurations are eliminated. What he is talking about is the consequences, as he sees it, of the point of view of Karmapa III and VIII. But as I outline above, this is not the radical departure you imagine it to be.
"The world is made of stories, not atoms."
--- Muriel Rukeyser
--- Muriel Rukeyser
Re: video of Brunnhölzl: Buddha Nature as a radical teaching
Yes, flaws of the thoughts (sems)...The funny thing is, in Tibetan, sentient being is "sems can" "possessor of a mind." Well, without a mind, there can't be flaws of thoughts, can there?
-
- Posts: 247
- Joined: Sat Nov 23, 2019 5:44 am
Re: video of Brunnhölzl: Buddha Nature as a radical teaching
I 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.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
You need to read the Heart Sutra:Nicholas2727 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 17, 2021 5:07 pm I 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.
There is no wisdom, nothing to obtain, and also nothing not to obtain.
Re: video of Brunnhölzl: Buddha Nature as a radical teaching
Nicholas2727 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.
Last edited by Sādhaka on Wed Nov 17, 2021 5:53 pm, edited 5 times in total.
-
- Posts: 1585
- Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2020 10:39 pm