Tibetan Buddhism is not Buddhism; Lamas are not Buddhists.

[Buddhism]

I also found this commentary on the publications - is it true that the 1986 Wondrous Favor edition was never for sale (or is it just out of print?)

All the references I have found seem to note this:

此書中文本，係法尊法師譯於1939年，印順法師潤色。此書在台灣有兩家出版社印行：一者為妙吉祥出版社，台北市，1986年印行，非賣品，此即平實居士所引用之版本；二者為文殊出版社，台北市，1988年印行，定價新台幣300元。其中「文殊版」有現代的標點符號和分段，較便於閱讀，故依「文殊版」打字製作網頁版；另外，為了便於讀者查索《狂密與真密》的引用處，同時標示「妙吉祥版」之頁碼，其格式為(000)。然而為避免影響網路查索的功能，標示頁碼之處，係放在段落或標點符號後面，與實際分頁處稍有差異。

Indeed, the 1986 Wondrous Favor edition was not for sale, I also noticed the mark on the intro page "非賣品".
I don't know the exact reason why; but this book was printed in an old fashion style that it lacksed the proper punctuation marks as a normal modern publication 現代的標點符號和分段, I guess this is a major reason. You can see from my pdf scan attachment that the punctuation marks were made by Zhengjue reader.

You also remarked on the 中華民國75年, it refers to the year of 1986. This is the way we count the years of Republic of China after Dr. Sun Yet-Sen's revolution in 1911 (change from Dynasty to Republic).

For your references, thank you.

[Zla'od]

Homage to Manjushri! Dhih ji tar chos chan!

Adharmika:

Zla'od: Tzu chi is not Buddhism because its central practice is non-Buddhist.

(Perhaps you would like to respond on the other thread.)

Okay, I'll answer discursively, so that other people can follow along. And to make this interesting for Buddhism (the poster), I will attempt to argue for what I assume would be her view--that Tzu Chi is Buddhist, but Lamaism is not. By the way, my study of Tibetan logic is limited to a few weeks in the early 1990's, so please forgive any lapses in style or procedure.

Adharmika is obviously preparing a trap for me. In fact the whole project stinks of reification (what is a "central" practice? must Buddhist identity be all-or-nothing?). For questions which fall into the same sort of logical category as "Have you stopped beating your wife?" there is apparently a standard Tibetan objection,"the subject is faulty" (chos chen Khyon chen). However, the problem here lies in the predicate, not the subject (and remember that I have already answered that Tzu Chi is a form of Buddhism).

My first inclination was to ask for an example (sho!), in hopes of learning what Adharmika thinks Tzu Chi's central practice is. (Can't remember whether it is the questioner or the defender who gets to ask for examples.) On reflection, I suspect that he has in mind Tzu Chi's charity activity, which according to the organization's own propaganda, is non-sectarian. However, unlike sexual tantra--which Buddhism (the poster) would say is totally inconsistent with Buddhism (the religion)--charity by no means contradicts the teachings of Buddhism (the religion). So there is a sense in which Tzu Chi's central activity is Buddhist (Buddhism the religion permits, and indeed encourages, it) and a sense in which it is not (people of any religion may participate).

It then occurred to me that I should answer ma khyap ("no pervasion") on the grounds that Buddhist identity is not inconsistent with a non-Buddhist central practice. An example would be the late Adam Youch of the Beastie Boys, a Buddhist whose central practice was the performance of rap music. So: ma khyap!

[adikarmika]

Tzu chi is not Buddhism because its central practice is non-Buddhist.

...
It then occurred to me that I should answer ma khyap ("no pervasion") ...

It therefore follows that a religious tradition whose central practice is non-Buddhist is not necessarily not Buddhism.

[Zla'od]

As they say in Tibetan, "duh" ('dod). I agree.

Note: I am now getting nervous about the distinction between being "Buddhist" and being "Buddhism." But that language was contained in my original answer, so I must bite the bullet. A similar issue is whether Tzu Chi is "a religious tradition" or a mixed tradition which is partly or mostly religious. It's enough to tempt one to become a Prasangika Madhyamika, I tell ya!

[adikarmika]

It follows that being a form of Buddhism and having highest yoga tantra as a central practice are not mutually exclusive.


EDIT:
It occurred to me that we may need to be more precise with our language and distinguish between instances and general categories.

The original proposition should perhaps have been less ambiguously expressed as "Tzu Chi is not a form (or type, or tradition, etc.) of Buddhism."

As it stands, in the event that the thesis is disproven, it might then be argued that since Tzu Chi is Buddhism (in the sense of being another name for the general category, Buddhism) that Zhengjue is Tzu Chi. Which would, of course, be absurd.

I assume that the answers you have given so far accord with your undersanding that we are here debating whether Tzu Chi is a type of Buddhism, not the general category, Buddhism, and that it will not be necesssary to go back to square one again.

[Zla'od]

Yes, by all means, let's understand "...is Buddhism" to mean "...is a form / type / tradition of Buddhism".

As for

It follows that being a form of Buddhism and having highest yoga tantra as a central practice are not mutually exclusive.

Ma khyap ("no pervasion," i.e. "this does not follow").

NOTE: I am going to try to maintain that an organization devoted to highest yoga tantra cannot be Buddhist, because highest yoga tantra and Buddhism are contradictory. Since charity and Buddhism are not contradictory, the same would not apply to Tzu Chi. In other words, to be "a form of Buddhism" an organization need not follow Buddhist practices as its central practices, but must not have central practices which contradict the teachings of Buddhism.

[adikarmika]

In that case, I put it to you that:
being a form of Buddhism and having highest yoga tantra as a central practice are mutually exclusive.

[Zla'od]

'dod (I accept)

[adikarmika]

In the interest of saving time, allow me to take the liberty of taking the next few steps in the dialectical procedure at once, so that we can quickly get to the point where you have the opportunity to formally express your reason for holding the point of view that you do.
(There's a procedure that must be followed here.)

Your expected responses to my statements are in parentheses.
If you don't agree with them, just say so, and we can backtrack and go through the process step-by-sep.



I put it to you that a religious tradition that has highest yoga tantra as its central practice must necessarily not be a form of Buddhism.

(I accept)

I put it to you that there must be a reason why a religious tradition that has highest yoga tantra as its central practice must necessarily not be a form of Buddhism.

(I accept)

I put it to you that no such reason exists.

(Why?)

No such reason exists because
1) the fact that highest yoga tantra is a non-Buddhist practice is not the reason, and
2) there is no other reason.



Strictly speaking, you may respond in one of four ways, but in practice you would probably choose either option (B) or (C) below.
The full range of possible responses are as follows:

(A) Accept the above statement (but that would lead to self contradiction).

(B) Say that the first part of the reason is not established (rtags dang po ma grub).
In other words, you do not accept that "because highest yoga tantra is a non-Buddhist practice" is not a valid reason to say that a religious tradition that has highest yoga tantra as its central practice must necessarily not be a form of Buddhism.
To put it another way, you think that the fact that highest yoga tantra is a non-Buddhist practice is valid grounds for holding that any tradition that has highest yoga tantra as its central practice must necessarily not be a form of Buddhism.

(C) Say that the second part of the reason is not established (rtags gnyis pa ma grub). In that case, I may ask you (Shog!) to supply some other reason that you may have in mind for holding that a religious tradition that has highest yoga tantra as its central practice must necessarily not be a form of Buddhism.

(D) Say that there is no pervasion (which I believe would be a denial of the law of the excluded middle, so you probably don't want to go there).

[Zla'od]

Yes, good. I accept all of the answers you anticipated, but choose (c) for the last. Dak nyiba ma drup.

(Shog! you say...)

The (unlisted other) reason is that highest yoga tantra contradicts the teachings of Buddhism. (It is not merely non-Buddhist, but anti-Buddhist.)

(Anticipating further implications you may wish to draw out:) This means that any religious tradition whose central practice contradicts the teachings of Buddhism, cannot be a (genuine) form of Buddhism. And highest yoga tantra contradicts the teachings of Buddhism.