Tibetan Buddhism is not Buddhism; Lamas are not Buddhists.

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

Postby ādikarmika » 16 May 2012, 08:06

Zla'od wrote:
adikarmika wrote:I put it to you that cultivation of the bodhisattva path contradicts the teachings of Buddhism because it contradicts certain Buddhist scriptures.


Ma khyap. (No pervasion.)


(Again, I have taken the liberty of assuming certain responses from you in order to quickly get to the point where you can formally state your reason.)


Then I put it to you that a practice that contradicts certain Buddhist scriptures does not necessarily contradict the teachings of Buddhism

[I accept, you say.]

In that case, I put it to you that highest yoga tantra does not contradict the teachings of Buddhism.

[Why? you say.]

Because there does not exist any valid reason for saying that highest yoga tantra does contradict the teachings of Buddhism.

[This is not established, you say.]

There does not exist any valid reason for saying that highest yoga tantra does contradict the teachings of Buddhism because
1) the fact that highest yoga tantra is a practice that contradicts certain Buddhist scriptures is not a valid reason, and
2) there is no other reason

[The second part of the reason is not established, you say.]

In that case, I put it to you that there exists a valid reason other than "because it contradicts certain Buddhist scriptures" for saying that highest yoga tantra contradicts the teachings of Buddhism

[I accept, you say.]

Shog! (State such a reason.) [I say.]
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 ādikarmika » 16 May 2012, 08:14

Zla'od wrote:PS. Oh God. Not Adharmika. Adikarmika. I swear, I have been misreading your name all this time! (Really.)

I thought it was something you just came up with, as Tibetans sometimes do, as a mocking reference to one's opponent in debate.
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 Zla'od » 16 May 2012, 08:55

Highest yoga tantra contradicts the teachings of Buddhism, because it contradicts the core teachings of Shakyamuni Buddha, according to the best historical evidence.

Note: I am going to argue that highest yoga tantra violates several of the Five Precepts, and that the Five Precepts are numbered among the core teachings of the historical Buddha. While some skeptical historians may doubt even this, this would not help Adikarmika. (And yes, "Adharmika" would have been a good joke, had I been clever enough to think of it on purpose!) I am also going to argue, if asked, that such Mahayana flourishes as bodhicitta and sunyata (permissibly)expand upon, rather than contradict, the historical Buddha's teachings.
“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: 1067
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 08:36
76 Recognized(s)



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

Postby Homey » 16 May 2012, 10:49

You guys really don't need to go through this charade. We all know how it's going to end.
Why not???

If you are what you eat, then I guess that makes me "fast, cheap, and easy"!
Forumosan avatar
Homey
High School Triad Member (gāozhōng liúmáng)
High School Triad Member (gāozhōng liúmáng)
 
Posts: 525
Joined: 20 Jan 2008, 00:27
2 Recommends(s)
17 Recognized(s)



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

Postby sandman » 16 May 2012, 11:41

Interrupters, please bear with us.
Regardless of how it may appear to you, there is is nothing sectarian or "Us vs. Them" at all about this debate.
It is simply an intellectual exercise that seeks to determine, through a traditional dialectical procedure, whether a certain point of view is self-contradictory or not.
In this case, the point of view in question is that espoused by buddhism (the person) and defended by Zla'od, who has been brave enough to take up the challenge (unlike buddhism, who was not, despite being the initiator of the debate.)

I apologise. You're right. I'm sorry for painting you all with the "Buddhism" brush (buddhism the poster, not Buddhism the tenet). The squeaky wheel gets the oil and all that. The rational kind of gets pushed back in the face of the strident wailings. Again, sorry.
sandman
Manjusri (Wénshū)
 
Posts: 30176
Joined: 04 Jun 2001, 16:01
28 Recommends(s)
199 Recognized(s)



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

Postby ādikarmika » 16 May 2012, 13:45

Zla'od wrote:Highest yoga tantra contradicts the teachings of Buddhism, because it contradicts the core teachings of Shakyamuni Buddha, according to the best historical evidence.


(I aim to show that you can only say something "contradicts the core teachings of Shakyamuni, according to the best historical evidence" by arguing that it is contrary to scripture. There can be no other reason. Once again, I've supplied your expected responses in brackets. However, if you disagree with any of them, we can always backtrack.)


I put it to you that whatever contradicts the core teachings of Shakyamuni, according to the best historical evidence, contradicts the teachings of Buddhism.

[I accept this statement.]

I therefore put it to you that the practice of killing contradicts the teachings of Buddhism since, according to the best historical evidence, it contradicts the core teachings of Shakyamuni. (You accepted the pervasion.)

[I accept this statement.]

I put it to you that this cannot be.

[Why?]

Because, based on the best historical evidence, it is not established that, killing contradicts the core teachings of Shakyamuni.

[Your reason is not established.] (i.e., the claim that "based on historical evidence, it is not established that killing contradicts the core teachings of Shakyamuni" is itself not established)

It is not established that killing contradicts the core teachings of Shakyamuni because there exists no valid reason, based on historical evidence, for saying that killing contradicts the core teachings of Shakyamuni.

[Your reason is not established.]

There exists no valid reason, based on historical evidence, for saying killing contradicts the core teachings of Shakyamuni because
(1) the fact that it is contrary to the teachings of Shakyamuni as recorded in the sutras is not a valid reason, and
(2) there is no other reason.



sandman wrote:I apologise. You're right. I'm sorry for painting you all with the "Buddhism" brush...
mei guanxi
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 Zla'od » 16 May 2012, 16:42

There exists no valid reason, based on historical evidence, for saying killing contradicts the core teachings of Shakyamuni because
(1) the fact that it is contrary to the teachings of Shakyamuni as recorded in the sutras is not a valid reason, and
(2) there is no other reason.


Dak nyiba ma drup. (Reason # 2 not established)

[Shog!]

Killing is contrary to the teachings of Shakyamuni Buddha, because according to scholarly consensus among historians of early Buddhism (who approach the sutras critically, as historical sources), Shakyamuni Buddha taught the precept against killing (and the rest of the Five Precepts).

Note: Adikarmika is trying to reduce "best historical evidence" to a mere reading of the sutras, treating them all equally, while I intend to introduce a role for scholarly interpretation of them, in order to distinguish between more or less reliable portions. This is because, as we both know, scholarly consensus is more favorable to the proposition that "Shakyamuni taught the Four Noble Truths and Five Precepts" than the proposition that he taught highest yoga tantra.

Homey:
You guys really don't need to go through this charade. We all know how it's going to end.


I honestly don't. Probably in my humiliation (as punishment, perhaps I should be made to engage in highest yoga tantra!), but I will try my best to make Zhengjue proud! Although I have already departed from their probable views on several points. (For example, they would probably not distinguish among sutras the way I have.) Anyway, I look forward to seeing a write-up of this in their newsletter!
“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: 1067
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 08:36
76 Recognized(s)



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

Postby ādikarmika » 16 May 2012, 18:28

Zla'od wrote:Killing is contrary to the teachings of Shakyamuni Buddha, because according to scholarly consensus among historians of early Buddhism (who approach the sutras critically, as historical sources), Shakyamuni Buddha taught the precept against killing (and the rest of the Five Precepts).


I therefore put it to you that if a practice is (1) contrary to a certain teaching attributed in the scriptures to Shakyamuni, and (2) scholarly concensus among historians of Buddhism holds that the teaching in question was indeed what Shakyamuni taught, then that practice is necessarily contrary to the core teachings of Shakyamuni.
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 Zla'od » 16 May 2012, 19:38

Ma khyap. (No pervasion.)

Note: Not every teaching of Shakyamuni (as judged by scholarly consensus) is necessarily a core teaching of Shakyamuni (as judged by scholarly consensus), like the Four Noble Truths and the Five Precepts. I am worried about elevating incidental teachings of Shakyamuni (like the time he predicted the downfall of Buddhism in 500 years if he ordained nuns) to the status of dogma.
“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: 1067
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 08:36
76 Recognized(s)



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

Postby ādikarmika » 16 May 2012, 21:23

Zla'od wrote:Ma khyap. (No pervasion.)

Note: Not every teaching of Shakyamuni (as judged by scholarly consensus) is necessarily a core teaching of Shakyamuni (as judged by scholarly consensus), like the Four Noble Truths and the Five Precepts. I am worried about elevating incidental teachings of Shakyamuni (like the time he predicted the downfall of Buddhism in 500 years if he ordained nuns) to the status of dogma.


Well then, if you're going to insist on a distinction between core and non-core teachings of Shakyamuni, I'm going to have to ask you to restate your response (preferably in terms of pervasion) to my earlier statement:

Zla'od wrote:
adikarmika wrote:There exists no valid reason, based on historical evidence, for saying killing contradicts the core teachings of Shakyamuni because
(1) the fact that it is contrary to the teachings of Shakyamuni as recorded in the sutras is not a valid reason, and
(2) there is no other reason.


Dak nyiba ma drup. (Reason # 2 not established)

[Shog!]

...



(Your initial response did not mention why killing contradicts the "core teachings" of Shakyamuni, though strictly speaking, it should have.)
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)



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 2 visitors

The swift years slip and slide adown the steep;
The slow years pass; neither will come again.
-- WILLIAM SHARP