Crisis of a Faith, returning to dharma, and new directions.

[Johnny Dangerous]

Sorry, who is BAW?

B. Allan Wallace. He’s the first teacher who came to mind that will bring up analogous concepts from Western philosophy in a Dharma context. He catches shit for it too, which is unfortunate in my opinion.

[Malcolm]

3. Are there any lineage holders of the Rime schools who are well-educated in Western philosophy as well as the monastic curriculum? The dearth of such overlap is really sad--especially after having studied Deleuze/Guattari, Hegel, Spinoza, and even classical thinkers like Zeno, the more convinced I am that basically our Tibetan teachers have NO idea that there really are some ideas OUTSIDE of Medieval India that converse incredibly well with the Dharma.

This is not important. That said, Hume's Inquiry and Adorno's Negative Dialectics stand out as anti-foundationalist trends in Western Phil. F*ck Hegel. Spinoza is an eternalist. Nomadology is fun, but irrelevant to Dharma, as is 1000 Plateaus, etc., in general.

Nāgārjuna had no idea about Zeno, Plato, or Aristotle, and had no need to. Madhyamaka rulez ok.

[Nilasarasvati]

3. Are there any lineage holders of the Rime schools who are well-educated in Western philosophy as well as the monastic curriculum? The dearth of such overlap is really sad--especially after having studied Deleuze/Guattari, Hegel, Spinoza, and even classical thinkers like Zeno, the more convinced I am that basically our Tibetan teachers have NO idea that there really are some ideas OUTSIDE of Medieval India that converse incredibly well with the Dharma.

This is not important. That said, Hume's Inquiry and Adorno's Negative Dialectics stand out as anti-foundationalist trends in Western Phil. F*ck Hegel. Spinoza is an eternalist. Nomadology is fun, but irrelevant to Dharma, as is 1000 Plateaus, etc., in general.

Nāgārjuna had no idea about Zeno, Plato, or Aristotle, and had no need to. Madhyamaka rulez ok.

This is exactly what bothers me. This general notion that nothing worthwhile or relevant to dharma has happened since Nalanda in the entire rest of the planet's intellectual life, and that in general we are declining and not improving our ability to successfully describe and predict the reality we live in. That we can broad strokes label everything besides Madhyamika as Nihilistic or Eternalist. And this general idea that Pramana as it was conceived in classical India is the height of human reasoning. It's absurd. All I wish was that there was more conversation between, and actual debate and discourse, and that our buddhist traditions weren't essentially frozen in the 9th century or something.

[Konchog Thogme Jampa]

I studied Husserl at University you’re much better off doing 5 minutes meditation than reading any of it. Seriously made my head spin

[Nilasarasvati]

also, in general, I think it's against the tantric view to believe that:

Bodhisattvas only appeared in Dharmic countries. That the enlightened activities of the conquerors did not manifest in the poetry of heathen Persians or the films of Fellini or the rituals of the Mayans. That no flicker of liberation ever occurred outside of the scope of certain orthodox locations and times. That there is a monopoly on enlightenment.

[Malcolm]

also, in general, I think it's against the tantric view to believe that:

Bodhisattvas only appeared in Dharmic countries. That the enlightened activities of the conquerors did not manifest in the poetry of heathen Persians or the films of Fellini or the rituals of the Mayans. That no flicker of liberation ever occurred outside of the scope of certain orthodox locations and times. That there is a monopoly on enlightenment.

Take it up with the Buddha:

"In whatsoever Dhamma and Discipline, Subhadda, there is not found the Noble Eightfold Path, neither is there found a true ascetic of the first, second, third, or fourth degree of saintliness. But in whatsoever Dhamma and Discipline there is found the Noble Eightfold Path, there is found a true ascetic of the first, second, third, and fourth degrees of saintliness.[54] Now in this Dhamma and Discipline, Subhadda, is found the Noble Eightfold Path; and in it alone are also found true ascetics of the first, second, third, and fourth degrees of saintliness. Devoid of true ascetics are the systems of other teachers. But if, Subhadda, the bhikkhus live righteously, the world will not be destitute of arahats."
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .vaji.html

The eightfold path begins, necessarily, with right view.

And, no, there is no other means to overcome and destroy afflictions outside of Buddhadharma. It seems you could work a bit more on contemplating the eight freedoms and ten endowments that make up a precious human birth.

There is no "tantric" view of this. Some people interpret the samaya admonition not to criticize the Hinayāna as a blanket prohibition against critiquing any religion at all. Slagging off someone's religion out of spite is wrong, but offering criticisms of idiots like Hegel and so on, no problem.

[Kai lord]

Bodhisattvas only appeared in Dharmic countries. That the enlightened activities of the conquerors did not manifest in the poetry of heathen Persians or the films of Fellini or the rituals of the Mayans.

By Dhamric countries, you mean "Jambudvīpa" , the famous southern continent where its said to be the only place where a being may become enlightened by being born as a human being.

That southern continent used to be defined or deduced as India/Bharat (by its shape as a large triangular Island before its merge with the rest of Asia and its famous black berry fruit). This is evident by the fact that Buddhists like to praise Asoka as the Iron wheeled Chakravartin, the ruler of the southern continent in their commentaries and suttas. Why would they do that if they didn't see India as Jambudvīpa?

But as more and more non-Indians embraced Buddhism over the centuries, we can slowly see a gradual shift in Buddhist polemic to reflect those changes by redefining Jambudvīpa as the entire Asia (As evident by the works of Xuanzang and others) and in the modern day as Buddhism was spread to the west, Jambudvīpa is now defined as the entire planet Earth. And if there are any western Buddhists who excel in their faith and practice, yes, they will be called Bodhisattvas

So it would appear that Buddhists are more pragmatic than they look. Yes they would even more than happy to praise a non Buddhist worldly ruler as Chakravartin as long as the latter would embrace Buddhism and helped to propagate its faith. There are countless of such examples in history and I do believe we will continue to see them in the future.

[Nilasarasvati]

also, in general, I think it's against the tantric view to believe that:

Bodhisattvas only appeared in Dharmic countries. That the enlightened activities of the conquerors did not manifest in the poetry of heathen Persians or the films of Fellini or the rituals of the Mayans. That no flicker of liberation ever occurred outside of the scope of certain orthodox locations and times. That there is a monopoly on enlightenment.

Take it up with the Buddha:

"In whatsoever Dhamma and Discipline, Subhadda, there is not found the Noble Eightfold Path, neither is there found a true ascetic of the first, second, third, or fourth degree of saintliness. But in whatsoever Dhamma and Discipline there is found the Noble Eightfold Path, there is found a true ascetic of the first, second, third, and fourth degrees of saintliness.[54] Now in this Dhamma and Discipline, Subhadda, is found the Noble Eightfold Path; and in it alone are also found true ascetics of the first, second, third, and fourth degrees of saintliness. Devoid of true ascetics are the systems of other teachers. But if, Subhadda, the bhikkhus live righteously, the world will not be destitute of arahats."
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .vaji.html

The eightfold path begins, necessarily, with right view.

And, no, there is no other means to overcome and destroy afflictions outside of Buddhadharma. It seems you could work a bit more on contemplating the eight freedoms and ten endowments that make up a precious human birth.

There is no "tantric" view of this. Some people interpret the samaya admonition not to criticize the Hinayāna as a blanket prohibition against critiquing any religion at all. Slagging off someone's religion out of spite is wrong, but offering criticisms of idiots like Hegel and so on, no problem.

I don't think you're engaging with me with a principle of charity; I'm not arguing that it's all groovy man, and all religions are basically the same, baby. Nor that other religions or philosophies hold the same, equivalent, or equally meritorious views. Or even anything close to THE view.

But--

There's an anecdote where H.H. Dalai Lama (which I've never seen in print but heard and sounds credible) went to the main shrine to the Virgin De Guadalupe early in the morning before leaving Mexico city one year. He prayed there, mentioned something obliquely about her being a form of Tara. I think we can either see the deity working through the existing cultural forms everywhere, or think chauvinistically that there is a monopoly on enlightened activity and its' restricted to explicitly Buddhist forms, curriculum, etc. That seems silly and I don't think it's what you're arguing either.

Wrong views is essentially a whole other can of worms. I'm not arguing that Spinoza's writing or Bach's music has like, superior views or equivalent merit to the Madhyamika or to the 8 fold path. What I'm saying is, there is fantastic merit in all of the good-faith efforts that human beings have engaged in for centuries cross culturally, and we should see that as 1. Evidence on the relative level of the Brahmaviharas, and the Buddha nature, 2. Evidence in the Mahayana view of the activity of bodhisattvas (how could Christ, generously understood, not be seen as a bodhisattva?), and 3. Inseparable on the highest level from the Mandala of whatever Heruka you practice. The Charnel Ground is still the mandala.

[Kai lord]

how could Christ, generously understood, not be seen as a bodhisattva?

Because many Buddhists don't like his dad especially how he is portrayed in the old testament, Christ praised his dad's actions a lot and he only advocated for compassion to be shown to all humans who embraced his dad, not animals or other sentinel beings, was mentioned. Christ also believe in eternal hell for non believers, etc.

There are more but I think this is suffice for now.

[Johnny Dangerous]

3. Are there any lineage holders of the Rime schools who are well-educated in Western philosophy as well as the monastic curriculum? The dearth of such overlap is really sad--especially after having studied Deleuze/Guattari, Hegel, Spinoza, and even classical thinkers like Zeno, the more convinced I am that basically our Tibetan teachers have NO idea that there really are some ideas OUTSIDE of Medieval India that converse incredibly well with the Dharma.

This is not important. That said, Hume's Inquiry and Adorno's Negative Dialectics stand out as anti-foundationalist trends in Western Phil. F*ck Hegel. Spinoza is an eternalist. Nomadology is fun, but irrelevant to Dharma, as is 1000 Plateaus, etc., in general.

Nāgārjuna had no idea about Zeno, Plato, or Aristotle, and had no need to. Madhyamaka rulez ok.

This is exactly what bothers me. This general notion that nothing worthwhile or relevant to dharma has happened since Nalanda in the entire rest of the planet's intellectual life, and that in general we are declining and not improving our ability to successfully describe and predict the reality we live in. That we can broad strokes label everything besides Madhyamika as Nihilistic or Eternalist. And this general idea that Pramana as it was conceived in classical India is the height of human reasoning. It's absurd. All I wish was that there was more conversation between, and actual debate and discourse, and that our buddhist traditions weren't essentially frozen in the 9th century or something.

I think it really depends on what we mean by “worthwhile or relevant”.

Due in part to my work I mainly read Western psychology rather than philosophy, but like I said there is some overlap.

I think you can certainly find places where non-Buddhist thought approaches the same concepts, but they are never developed the same way because the view behind is simply different from the Buddhist view, it always has some fundamentally different assumptions.

It can certainly dovetail, I posted a while ago about re reading Mans Search for Meaning by Victor Frankl : https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.p ... kl#p590270

It’s definitely one of my favorite non-Buddhist books that touches on existential and ethical questions, and in places I think the ethical advice really lines up. I think you could say the same about some of Abraham Maslows work. However, in the end they simply don’t have the Buddhist view, so reading them is supplementary.

So of course reading and studying other stuff can be useful, the question is just how.

So, it seems more what you are talking about is Dharma teachers/students having a less insular orientation. I agree on the level of my own biases, but I also think that insular orthodoxy is part of what preserves traditions, even if it is not my bag.

That said, I also believe traditions generally become stronger when exposed to other systems of thought. You can see some of this with the intersection of Buddhism and modern Pysch, on the one hand Pyschology has been hugely affected by Buddhist ideas on working with negative emotions, Buddhist-influenced psychological thought has largely re-written the approach of modern Cognitive Behavioral approaches.

On the other hand, Buddhism has benefited in a sense by having empirical support for some of its basic methods of managing the mind, outside of any the larger questions. They are still different things though, and for me as a Dharma person Dharma will always hold more weight than modern psychology because I subscribe to the Buddhist view of things, and not the secular humanism that underlies a lot of psychology. Similarly, on a subjective level Buddhadharma has simply been so much more beneficial to me…anything else I’ve done..that there is no comparison.

I’m not sure there’s a right answer there on an individual level though, there are a variety of approaches, including among Tibetan teachers.

[Nilasarasvati]

how could Christ, generously understood, not be seen as a bodhisattva?

Because many Buddhists don't like his dad especially how he is portrayed in the old testament, Christ praised his dad's actions a lot and he only advocated for compassion to be shown to all humans who embraced his dad, not animals or other sentinel beings, was mentioned. Christ also believe in eternal hell for non believers, etc.

There are more but I think this is suffice for now.

You don't know what you're talking about. And no, it doesn't suffice for now. And you're wrong about almost every single thing you articulated.
You're adopting a primary schooler's understanding of Christian theology, it's bad faith and I'm not going to dignify it with the thorough dissection it probably demands. In general, you've assumed that Christ said a bunch of things that his dubious followers say, but which the Jesus of the gospels did not. Most importantly, Christ endorsed universal mercy and compassion toward others, regardless of religion or status (romans, thieves, prostitutes etc). Most importantly, Christ never said anything about hell. Hell (and heaven for that matter) and the SOUL itself were medieval additions to Christian belief.

[Malcolm]

There's an anecdote where H.H. Dalai Lama (which I've never seen in print but heard and sounds credible) went to the main shrine to the Virgin De Guadalupe early in the morning before leaving Mexico city one year. He prayed there, mentioned something obliquely about her being a form of Tara.

Here is another HHDL anecdote for you, 2005 Tucson, AZ, “When my Christian friends ask me about emptiness,I tell them it is none of their business.”

In general, the Trad Buddhist view is that anything good in other religions is a result of bodhisattva activity, and of course, given rebirth, there is no doubt that bodhisattvas exist everywhere, even if they are, in that incarnation, not aware of their status as bodhisattvas.

Nevertheless, we are talking about liberation from the kleshas that cause the actions which result in birth in samsara. Don’t know about you, but I don’t spend much time reading things which don’t bear directly on this issue, much less speculate about them. YMMV.

[Malcolm]

This is exactly what bothers me. This general notion that nothing worthwhile or relevant to dharma has happened since Nalanda in the entire rest of the planet's intellectual life, and that in general we are declining and not improving our ability to successfully describe and predict the reality we live in. That we can broad strokes label everything besides Madhyamika as Nihilistic or Eternalist. And this general idea that Pramana as it was conceived in classical India is the height of human reasoning. It's absurd. All I wish was that there was more conversation between, and actual debate and discourse, and that our buddhist traditions weren't essentially frozen in the 9th century or something.

It really depends on where your interests lie. Pramana is not liberative. It concerns discerning veridical cognitions from false cognitions, conventionally speaking. One can analyze conventional phenomena endlessly, and still never ever come close to the taste of liberation. There is no doubt that modern logic is much more sophisticated than Dharmakirti’s seven treatises. So what? We don’t need pramana to attain liberation (hence Nagarjuna’s dismissal of pramana). It’s all a question of domain: transcendent or mundane. Buddhadharma concerns the former, and to the extent it is worthwhile and beneficial, can employ the latter, for example, pramana, medicine, grammar, and so on. But we should not confuse these two domains.

[Konchog1]

This is exactly what bothers me. This general notion that nothing worthwhile or relevant to dharma has happened since Nalanda in the entire rest of the planet's intellectual life, and that in general we are declining and not improving our ability to successfully describe and predict the reality we live in. That we can broad strokes label everything besides Madhyamika as Nihilistic or Eternalist. And this general idea that Pramana as it was conceived in classical India is the height of human reasoning. It's absurd. All I wish was that there was more conversation between, and actual debate and discourse, and that our buddhist traditions weren't essentially frozen in the 9th century or something.

It really depends on where your interests lie. Pramana is not liberative. It concerns discerning veridical cognitions from false cognitions, conventionally speaking. One can analyze conventional phenomena endlessly, and still never ever come close to the taste of liberation. There is no doubt that modern logic is much more sophisticated than Dharmakirti’s seven treatises. So what? We don’t need pramana to attain liberation (hence Nagarjuna’s dismissal of pramana). It’s all a question of domain: transcendent or mundane. Buddhadharma concerns the former, and to the extent it is worthwhile and beneficial, can employ the latter, for example, pramana, medicine, grammar, and so on. But we should not confuse these two domains.

I agree.

"In the same way, monks, those things that I have known with direct knowledge but have not taught are far more numerous [than what I have taught]. And why haven't I taught them? Because they are not connected with the goal, do not relate to the rudiments of the holy life, and do not lead to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding. That is why I have not taught them.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

[Kai lord]

how could Christ, generously understood, not be seen as a bodhisattva?

Because many Buddhists don't like his dad especially how he is portrayed in the old testament, Christ praised his dad's actions a lot and he only advocated for compassion to be shown to all humans who embraced his dad, not animals or other sentinel beings, was mentioned. Christ also believe in eternal hell for non believers, etc.

There are more but I think this is suffice for now.

You don't know what you're talking about. And no, it doesn't suffice for now. And you're wrong about almost every single thing you articulated.You're adopting a primary schooler's understanding of Christian theology, it's bad faith and I'm not going to dignify it with the thorough dissection it probably demands. In general, you've assumed that Christ said a bunch of things that his dubious followers say, but which the Jesus of the gospels did not.

Dubious followers? Out of two billions of them? Thats just unwarranted pure arrogant on your part as far as I can see. You have not demonstrated how your interpretation of Christ prove to be much accurate than those Church theologians who had debated and solidified Christianity doctrines over the centuries. Or do you simply accusing the church of massively twisting Christ's words? If thats the case, do you have proofs rather than conjectures?

For example, are you a historian on Christ who have some special documents on what consolidates real or fake gospel verses that are added or deleted to and from Jesus?

Most importantly, Christ endorsed universal mercy and compassion toward others, regardless of religion or status (romans, thieves, prostitutes etc).

You intentionally dodged and refused to address the point about Christ not showing compassion to non believers, hell beings (demons) and animals. Thats just pure intellectual dishonesty

Showing compassion to just humans, is far from what Bodhisattvas are all about. You simply prove my point

Most importantly, Christ never said anything about hell. Hell (and heaven for that matter) and the SOUL itself were medieval additions to Christian belief.

99.9% of the Christians out there will disagree with you. Even the current liberal pope and his cardinals will not think that way and you claimed to know better than them without demonstrating otherwise. Its clear who is having rose coloured lenses.

[treehuggingoctopus]

This is exactly what bothers me. This general notion that nothing worthwhile or relevant to dharma has happened since Nalanda in the entire rest of the planet's intellectual life, and that in general we are declining and not improving our ability to successfully describe and predict the reality we live in. That we can broad strokes label everything besides Madhyamika as Nihilistic or Eternalist. And this general idea that Pramana as it was conceived in classical India is the height of human reasoning. It's absurd. All I wish was that there was more conversation between, and actual debate and discourse, and that our buddhist traditions weren't essentially frozen in the 9th century or something.

I will try to reply with more than this, but it will probably take days/weeks. An incredibly busy time.

[PadmaVonSamba]

This is exactly what bothers me. This general notion that nothing worthwhile or relevant to dharma has happened since Nalanda in the entire rest of the planet's intellectual life, and that in general we are declining and not improving our ability to successfully describe and predict the reality we live in. That we can broad strokes label everything besides Madhyamika as Nihilistic or Eternalist. And this general idea that Pramana as it was conceived in classical India is the height of human reasoning. It's absurd. All I wish was that there was more conversation between, and actual debate and discourse, and that our buddhist traditions weren't essentially frozen in the 9th century or something.

1. This may not be the best explanation of pramana, but I think that for this purpose it is helpful…

https://www.lionsroar.com/what-is-pramana/

…because, as with the term ‘science’, parama doesn’t refer to a ‘thing’ but, instead, describes a process. The process of direct experience. So, to say ‘this general idea that Pramana as it was conceived in classical India is the height of human reasoning is absurd’ suggests that you may have a misunderstanding. Hopefully the short article linked here will help.
In a sense, whatever the height of human reasoning is right now, that’s parama, if it is based on direct experience.

2. Of course, a lot has developed since Nalanda, especially in scientific knowledge. But nothing (in buddhism) comes close to the impact. It’s like, a lot has happened since Galileo, Newton, since Gutenberg, but not much which shifted the whole paradigm the way their contributions did. Same with Nagarjuna and the other Nalanda U alumni.

[Ayu]

You don't know what you're talking about. And no, it doesn't suffice for now. And you're wrong about almost every single thing you articulated.
You're adopting a primary schooler's understanding of Christian theology, it's bad faith and I'm not going to dignify it with the thorough dissection it probably demands. In general, you've assumed that Christ said a bunch of things that his dubious followers say, but which the Jesus of the gospels did not. Most importantly, Christ endorsed universal mercy and compassion toward others, regardless of religion or status (romans, thieves, prostitutes etc). Most importantly, Christ never said anything about hell. Hell (and heaven for that matter) and the SOUL itself were medieval additions to Christian belief.

I'm not sure, where you want to go with this thread. But Jesus Christ is not a topic on this board. You can't assume to have decent scholastic discussion on Christianity here.
Therefore I think, a bit of patience is needed. People here have their view on Christ and Christianity from a kind of unchristian stance.

[PadmaVonSamba]

Everybody who preaches compassion is forgiveness or whatever isn’t automatically a Bodhisattva.

A Bodhisattva vows to liberate beings from samsara. That’s very specific.

Hopefully, altruistic and virtuous attributes would be the norm. That’s the whole point of spreading that message, so that others will do it too. It’s not some magical power that only so-called holy people have.

[Charlie123]

Everybody who preaches compassion is forgiveness or whatever isn’t automatically a Bodhisattva.

A Bodhisattva vows to liberate beings from samsara. That’s very specific.

Hopefully, altruistic and virtuous attributes would be the norm. That’s the whole point of spreading that message, so that others will do it too. It’s not some magical power that only so-called holy people have.

I was thinking the same thing. Anyway, Buddhists do not have a monopoly on kindness and mundane wisdom.