Tibetan Buddhism is not Buddhism; Lamas are not Buddhists.

Re: Tibetan Buddhism is not Buddhism; Lamas are not Buddhists.

Postby ādikarmika » 26 Jun 2012, 22:47

buddhism wrote:From the Mahayana's view, I will explain the meaning of Nāgārjuna's middle way.
...
Our conscious mind cannot stay constantly in a state of “middle way,” so the middle way state of the Alayavijnana (the Buddha nature) is beyond our imaginations.

This is just a highly contrived interpretation invented by your fringe Buddhist sect.
There is no mention whatsoever of ālayavijñāna anywhere in Nāgārjuna's writings.

But hey... why let the facts get in the way of religious dogma. It's never stopped you from writing utter nonsense in the past, so why should you start letting it bother you now?
the moon's too bright, the chain's too tight, the beast won't go to sleep
ādikarmika
Scooter Commuter (qí jī chē shàng xià bān)
Scooter Commuter (qí jī chē shàng xià bān)
 
Posts: 691
Joined: 04 Feb 2011, 10:24
6 Recommends(s)
37 Recognized(s)



Re: Tibetan Buddhism is not Buddhism; Lamas are not Buddhists.

Postby SauLan » 27 Jun 2012, 06:08

Buddhism wrote:
SauLan wrote:...so again an overall objection to father and mother tantras, based on some kind of anti-sex stance, doesn't really work.

Dear SauLan, as on the other thread, I did agree with your veiw, sex is not bad and explain the stance from a Buddhist viewpoint. If my English serves me properly, do you suggest that the whole discussion is on anti-sex stance?
I would re-state it as, for Buddhist Sangha, sex is not allowed.


But there are many sangha members who are married with a wife and family. This isn't prohibited at all in some orders.
Forumosan avatar
SauLan
Mastered ordering "beer" in Chinese (jīngtōng le yòng Guóyǔ shuō "píjiǔ")
Mastered ordering "beer" in Chinese (jīngtōng le yòng Guóyǔ shuō "píjiǔ")
 
Posts: 116
Joined: 03 Feb 2012, 07:24
Location: Madison, Wisconsin, USA
10 Recommends(s)
6 Recognized(s)



Re: Tibetan Buddhism is not Buddhism; Lamas are not Buddhists.

Postby Zla'od » 28 Jun 2012, 18:56

Buddhism (poster), as you know, we are surrounded by scriptures claiming to be Buddhist--some of which you accept, and some of which you reject. What is the rule for determining canon? I was unable to find any criteria in your post about Nagarjuna (unless you meant to say that all such projects are dualistic and therefore misguided).

Since when have you become a ja-knikker?


What does this mean? I'm afraid I don't follow. As for my "age and energy," they might well inspire reflections on impermanence!

If you were the lamas or practitioners, would you have chosen a visualized consort or a physical consort?


Being married--and hoping to remain in that blessed state--I would reluctantly have to answer "visualized" (unless the Mrs. can be induced to convert as well).

Adikarmika, I am unfortunately not very conversant with this field, and a number of questions occur to me (Is Sakyamuni thought to have taught Sthaviravadin doctrines? Was their svabhava intended as a positive doctrine, or merely as a means of attacking the notion of atman?), but since you assure me that this represents the scholarly consensus, I will defer to your superior knowledge and concede this point. I admit the difficulty of identifying any sort of "core" or "essence" (and the slap-dash nature of my resort to the "encyclopedia article" criterion).

In that case, in view of the contradiction which you mention, it seems that no emptiness-believing Mahayanist qualifies as a Buddhist. Zhengjue will be disappointed to learn that they do not make the grade, but may take some comfort in the knowledge that Tibetan Buddhism (or at least, father-mother tantra) is not Buddhist either. Is that the conclusion we are meant to draw? That we should all be Theravadins (assuming no similar disqualification can be applied to them)?
“If a bodhisattva resides as a householder and there appears a woman who is clearly unbound to anyone, habituated to sexual indulgence, attracted to the bodhisattva and seeking sexual activities, the bodhisattva having seen this thinks, 'Do not make her mind upset, producing much misfortune. If she pursues her desire, she will obtain freedom. As expedient means [upaya] I will take her in and have her plant the roots for virtue, also having her abandon unwholesome karma. I will engage in impure activities [abrahma-carya] with a compassionate mind.' Even practising such defiled activities like this, there is nothing that is violated [precepts], and much merit will be produced." -- from the Yogācārabhūmi Śāstra

For even more saucy Buddhist scripture, see http://sdhammika.blogspot.tw/2010/08/st ... m-all.html
Zla'od
Sidewalk Geomancer (lù biān suàn mìng tān)
Sidewalk Geomancer (lù biān suàn mìng tān)
 
Posts: 1093
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 08:36
78 Recognized(s)



Re: Tibetan Buddhism is not Buddhism; Lamas are not Buddhists.

Postby Buddhism » 01 Jul 2012, 22:05

Adikarmika, I meant to reply your post here, somehow it was posted on the other thread;
sorry about my misplacement.
“It is difficult for the correct dharmas to manifest if the erroneous ones are not destroyed 若不破邪,難以顯正.” Bodhisattva Xuanzang (玄奘菩薩) stated in the past.
Buddhism
Scooter Commuter (qí jī chē shàng xià bān)
Scooter Commuter (qí jī chē shàng xià bān)
 
Posts: 658
Joined: 23 Aug 2011, 23:17
1 Recommends(s)
133 Recognized(s)



Re: Tibetan Buddhism is not Buddhism; Lamas are not Buddhists.

Postby Buddhism » 01 Jul 2012, 22:48

Zla'od wrote:Buddhism (poster), as you know, we are surrounded by scriptures claiming to be Buddhist--some of which you accept, and some of which you reject. What is the rule for determining canon? I was unable to find any criteria in your post about Nagarjuna (unless you meant to say that all such projects are dualistic and therefore misguided).

As in your earlier post, Zhengjue is based on the Buddhist teachings of the Citta-Only (Citta-matra). Without the Alayavijnana as the root dharma for all formation and existence, all worldly theory will turn into nihilism as everybody has already known including Adikarmika.

I personally have no right to reject or accept other’s assertions regarding Buddhist dharma; I have to read the statements from the writers (or speakers), the same way as the koan masters did in ancient time, to judge if the statements are in line with the Buddha’s teachings.

I failed at least twice to discuss with Adikarmika about Nagajuna’s “the Middle Way of Eight Negations,” as you put it “dualistic” ( see p. 10 & 14); the dualistic statements are not at all misguiding, Nagajuna was also trying to explain the distinguishing characteristic of the Alayavijnana to the Buddhists, as well as his disciples Aryadeve 提婆 and Tathagatabhadra 如來賢, they were all expounding the Alayavijnana (Citta-Only).

“the Middle Way of Eight Negations" refers to neither arising nor ceasing; neither identical nor diffenent; neither increasing nor decreasing; neither coming nor going. These sound quite familiar to some, I guess.
Buddhism wrote:...If “emptiness” is the whole teachings of Buddhism, nobody could make sense out of Nagarjuna’s “The Middle-Way-View of Eight No” (八不中道), apart from playing around with words through assumption of the conscious mind. That is not Buddhism, any individual with common knowledge is able to “analyze” the superficial meaning of the words. There would be no prajna wisdom in it, and the Buddha should not be called the Unsurpassed Lord (無上士).

If the scholars of later time period could gradually growing and increasing the Buddhist teachings after Buddha’s time, then they should be better than Buddha. And the Buddha should not be called the One with unsurpassed perfect enlightenment (無上正等正覺).

Since when have you become a ja-knikker?

I meant you became a yes-man to all statements! You had very good chance to successfully refute to others' viewpoint.
If you were the lamas or practitioners, would you have chosen a visualized consort or a physical consort?
Being married--and hoping to remain in that blessed state--I would reluctantly have to answer "visualized" (unless the Mrs. can be induced to convert as well).?

Fair enough answer, that's why so many sexual abuse cases committed by the Tantric gurus around the world.
“It is difficult for the correct dharmas to manifest if the erroneous ones are not destroyed 若不破邪,難以顯正.” Bodhisattva Xuanzang (玄奘菩薩) stated in the past.
Buddhism
Scooter Commuter (qí jī chē shàng xià bān)
Scooter Commuter (qí jī chē shàng xià bān)
 
Posts: 658
Joined: 23 Aug 2011, 23:17
1 Recommends(s)
133 Recognized(s)



Re: Tibetan Buddhism is not Buddhism; Lamas are not Buddhists.

Postby SauLan » 02 Jul 2012, 00:11

Buddhism wrote:Fair enough answer, that's why so many sexual abuse cases committed by the Tantric gurus around the world.


What sexual abuse cases?

I have taken teachings from at least ten or so Tibetan teachers (who would be called tantric gurus here), and they didn't even have an unkind word, let alone exhibit any abusive behavior.

I disagree that there are many sexual abuse cases.

All humans are imperfect, but it would be very safe to suggest that the percentage of Tibetan teachers committing "sexual abuse" is negligible at best. I know it's a rather crude observation, but there just aren't enough half-Tibetan babies running around for the "tantric teachers abuse students" stories to be logical.

The bigger story here is the rather surprising percentage of people working very hard to put the words "abuse" and "Tibetan" in the same sentence, over and over, around the world's discussion forums. This is a genuine story.
Forumosan avatar
SauLan
Mastered ordering "beer" in Chinese (jīngtōng le yòng Guóyǔ shuō "píjiǔ")
Mastered ordering "beer" in Chinese (jīngtōng le yòng Guóyǔ shuō "píjiǔ")
 
Posts: 116
Joined: 03 Feb 2012, 07:24
Location: Madison, Wisconsin, USA
10 Recommends(s)
6 Recognized(s)



Re: Tibetan Buddhism is not Buddhism; Lamas are not Buddhists.

Postby Zla'od » 02 Jul 2012, 07:40

Buddhism, do you perhaps mean that the genuine sutras are those which were favored by the Cittamatra school? For example, right now, on my desk, I have a volume of the Middle Length (Pali) Suttas, and a translation of the Avatamsaka (Hua Yen) Sutra. Do either (or both) of these represent the genuine teaching of the Buddha? Why? How can one decide?

I meant you became a yes-man to all statements! You had very good chance to successfully refute to others' viewpoint.


Where did I go wrong? What do you think I should have said?

SauLan, Tibetan Buddhism is a relatively authoritarian religion--closer to Shi'a Islam or Utah Mormonism than to Unitarian Universalism or Reform Judaism, for example--and most of its shortcomings and abuses can be traced to that. Sure, there are many fine people in it, but the prevailing ethos provides few moral standards which adherents are effectively willing to apply to their lamas. (Chogyam Trungpa still gets praised by all kinds of people.)
“If a bodhisattva resides as a householder and there appears a woman who is clearly unbound to anyone, habituated to sexual indulgence, attracted to the bodhisattva and seeking sexual activities, the bodhisattva having seen this thinks, 'Do not make her mind upset, producing much misfortune. If she pursues her desire, she will obtain freedom. As expedient means [upaya] I will take her in and have her plant the roots for virtue, also having her abandon unwholesome karma. I will engage in impure activities [abrahma-carya] with a compassionate mind.' Even practising such defiled activities like this, there is nothing that is violated [precepts], and much merit will be produced." -- from the Yogācārabhūmi Śāstra

For even more saucy Buddhist scripture, see http://sdhammika.blogspot.tw/2010/08/st ... m-all.html
Zla'od
Sidewalk Geomancer (lù biān suàn mìng tān)
Sidewalk Geomancer (lù biān suàn mìng tān)
 
Posts: 1093
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 08:36
78 Recognized(s)



Re: Tibetan Buddhism is not Buddhism; Lamas are not Buddhists.

Postby SauLan » 02 Jul 2012, 12:27

Zla'od wrote:SauLan, Tibetan Buddhism is a relatively authoritarian religion--closer to Shi'a Islam or Utah Mormonism than to Unitarian Universalism or Reform Judaism, for example--and most of its shortcomings and abuses can be traced to that. Sure, there are many fine people in it, but the prevailing ethos provides few moral standards which adherents are effectively willing to apply to their lamas. (Chogyam Trungpa still gets praised by all kinds of people.)


Definitely must disagree with you there. Ethics is one of the most important, and constantly taught, emphases in Tibetan Buddhism, as I have experienced it. I see it constantly applied to, and adhered to, by my teachers.

As for the idea of it being authoritarian, I must strongly disagree again; it is the least authoritarian religion in which I have ever been involved. Now, this is only my experience; my local gompa is Gelug, and the teachers are/were Geshe Lhundup Sopa, Geshe Tenzin Dorje, Geshe Thapke, Yangsi Rinpoche, Khensur Rinpoche, and others. I have also not gotten the authoritarian vibe from HH Dalai Lama when I've had the fortune of taking teachings from him. The constant message is that the responsibility lies with ourselves, not others. This is one of the very things which has drawn me to Buddhism.
Forumosan avatar
SauLan
Mastered ordering "beer" in Chinese (jīngtōng le yòng Guóyǔ shuō "píjiǔ")
Mastered ordering "beer" in Chinese (jīngtōng le yòng Guóyǔ shuō "píjiǔ")
 
Posts: 116
Joined: 03 Feb 2012, 07:24
Location: Madison, Wisconsin, USA
10 Recommends(s)
6 Recognized(s)



Re: Tibetan Buddhism is not Buddhism; Lamas are not Buddhists.

Postby Rotalsnart » 02 Jul 2012, 18:57

SauLan wrote:
Buddhism wrote:Fair enough answer, that's why so many sexual abuse cases committed by the Tantric gurus around the world.


What sexual abuse cases?

I have taken teachings from at least ten or so Tibetan teachers (who would be called tantric gurus here), and they didn't even have an unkind word, let alone exhibit any abusive behavior.

I disagree that there are many sexual abuse cases.

All humans are imperfect, but it would be very safe to suggest that the percentage of Tibetan teachers committing "sexual abuse" is negligible at best. I know it's a rather crude observation, but there just aren't enough half-Tibetan babies running around for the "tantric teachers abuse students" stories to be logical.


Umh, I'm not a Buddhist, but I happen to have met in Taiwan three women who were impregnated and had babies by their "tantric gurus" (3 women, 2 gurus, no connection between the 2 gurus that I know of), the gurus being (at least self-proclaimed) "gurus" of Tibetan buddhism. Neither of these "gurus" were ethnically Tibetan though. Both were ethnic Chinese teachers professing to represent Tibetan Buddhism.
Rotalsnart
Sidewalk Geomancer (lù biān suàn mìng tān)
Sidewalk Geomancer (lù biān suàn mìng tān)
 
Posts: 1054
Joined: 26 Oct 2005, 23:06
93 Recommends(s)
68 Recognized(s)



Re: Tibetan Buddhism is not Buddhism; Lamas are not Buddhists.

Postby SauLan » 02 Jul 2012, 21:13

Rotalsnart wrote:
SauLan wrote:I happen to have met in Taiwan three women who were impregnated and had babies by their "tantric gurus" (3 women, 2 gurus, no connection between the 2 gurus that I know of), the gurus being (at least self-proclaimed) "gurus" of Tibetan buddhism. Neither of these "gurus" were ethnically Tibetan though. Both were ethnic Chinese teachers professing to represent Tibetan Buddhism.


Sounds like something that has little to do with Tibetans or Buddhism. And if a baby happened, tantra wasn't involved, either.
Forumosan avatar
SauLan
Mastered ordering "beer" in Chinese (jīngtōng le yòng Guóyǔ shuō "píjiǔ")
Mastered ordering "beer" in Chinese (jīngtōng le yòng Guóyǔ shuō "píjiǔ")
 
Posts: 116
Joined: 03 Feb 2012, 07:24
Location: Madison, Wisconsin, USA
10 Recommends(s)
6 Recognized(s)



FRIENDLY REMINDER
   Please remember that Forumosa is not responsible for the content that appears on the other side of links that Forumosans post on our forums. As a discussion website, we encourage open and frank debate. We have learned that the most effective way to address questionable claims or accusations on Forumosa is by engaging in a sincere and constructive conversation. To make this website work, we must all feel safe in expressing our opinions, this also means backing up any claims with hard facts, including links to other websites.
   Please also remember that one should not believe everything one reads on the Internet, particularly from websites whose content cannot be easily verified or substantiated. Use your common sense and do not hesitate to ask for proof.
PreviousNext




Proceed to Religion & Spirituality



Who is online

Forumosans browsing this forum: No Forumosans and 1 visitor

Time goes, you say? Ah no!
Alas, Time stays, we go.
-- HENRY AUSTIN DOBSON