The Bodhi Way (三乘菩提)

[Buddhism]

Dear Adikarmika, for your reference, the proposed debate was meant for "doctrinal debate"法義, and the terms of "Tibetan Buddhism is not Buddhism" is entirely irrelevant to this case. Besides, it was called an "open" debate which meant everyone, including non-Buddhists, is allowed to participate to debate over the Buddha dharma.

All right then. State your thesis, and if I disagree, I'll debate with you.

BTW, I don't think the issue of whether Tibetan Buddhists are Buddhists or not is, as you say, "entirely irrelevant to this case".
I mean, if you start citing scripture to support your thesis (as I imagine you would), you may be implying that your opponent in the debate is a Buddhist.
After all, you can't expect a non-Buddhist to accept scriptural authority as valid reason for anything.
(It's not even a valid reason for some Buddhists (e.g., Dharmakīrti and his school.))

You are cute and full of energy; you do love challenge!
We have discussed so many different points over lots of pages already on both threads, you had better exercise something truly useful to facilitate your Buddhist cultivation if I were you. Time and energy are very important for all of us.

Why don't you try to challenge the exercise of "Entering the Dharma-door of Buddha-remembrance without appearance"?
(I am going to reply to Confuzis)

[Buddhism]

3. You are mostly correct with Zhengjue's teachings, which combine Chan prajna wisdom and Pure land (concentration method).

You mean, like (almost) every other form of Chinese Buddhism since the Ming Dynasty, they like to call themselves Chan (ahem), yet go around and chant "amitofo" for hours on end in order to be reborn in paradise (much to Huineng's chagrin).

No, not the same; I will explain why and you can judge for yourself.

If a practitioner recites the Buddha-name with his mouth, his mind can still be occupied with discursive thoughts arising from anger, delusion, and daily routines. (We all have such experiences in daily life)

He is busy with his mouth; each letter represents a change of sound to the ears, movement of tongue and lips, wondering of eyes, etc. The perceiving mind keeps various functions constantly, how could it work with the inner tranquility and concentration?

The concentration practice that Zhengjue has is called Buddha-remembrance without appearance and without using names 無相憶佛. This is a must practice for Zhengjue beginners in order to train the zoom-lens mind.

We do not recite the Buddha-name, only with a thought of concentrating on the Buddha, without image or name. This is a very tough training at the very start, one really has to fully focus on one’s thought.

I have not mentioned this practice method yet, I deem it too difficult to be understood merely through reading for a practitioner. Nevertheless, if anyone is interested in this cultivation method, please visit the website for detailed practice:
http://www.a202.idv.tw/English/Book1007.htm

Any visitors for the practice are welcomed to ask questions.

[adikarmika]

Dear Adikarmika, for your reference, the proposed debate was meant for "doctrinal debate"法義, and the terms of "Tibetan Buddhism is not Buddhism" is entirely irrelevant to this case. Besides, it was called an "open" debate which meant everyone, including non-Buddhists, is allowed to participate to debate over the Buddha dharma.

All right then. State your thesis, and if I disagree, I'll debate with you.

BTW, I don't think the issue of whether Tibetan Buddhists are Buddhists or not is, as you say, "entirely irrelevant to this case".
I mean, if you start citing scripture to support your thesis (as I imagine you would), you may be implying that your opponent in the debate is a Buddhist.
After all, you can't expect a non-Buddhist to accept scriptural authority as valid reason for anything.
(It's not even a valid reason for some Buddhists (e.g., Dharmakīrti and his school.))

You are cute and full of energy; you do love challenge!
We have discussed so many different points over lots of pages already on both threads, you had better exercise something truly useful to facilitate your Buddhist cultivation if I were you. Time and energy are very important for all of us.

Why don't you try to challenge the exercise of "Entering the Dharma-door of Buddha-remembrance without appearance"?

Cut the patronising, and just state your thesis.

According to the traditional rules of debate amongst Buddhists, I will either accept your thesis or reject it.

If I reject it, I will ask you to back up what you say with a reason.

I will then have three options:
(1) accept your reason, in which case I will be compelled to accept your thesis;
(2) claim your reason is not established as fact (in which case, your reason becomes a new thesis to be proven by the same process);
(3) accept that your reason is established as fact, but that there is no entailment, i.e., your thesis does not logically follow from your reason (in which case, you must state a new reason to show why entailment exists, which I will either accept or reject, and so on.)

For over 1500 years, this (or something similar) has been the standard procedure for debate amongst Buddhists in the Indo-Tibetan tradition.

So what is it exactly that you seek to to establish (or refute) by means of debate?

[Zla'od]

I think you also have to make a big show of twirling your mala around, and slapping your palm whenever you make a point.

And don't forget to pepper your comments with humorous insults. That's considered good form.

If you're afraid you might lose, you can always send some people to go beat her up. (That's why Georges Dreyfuss's front teeth are so out of whack.)

[Buddhism]

So what is it exactly that you seek to to establish (or refute) by means of debate?

With you, nothing really. Thank you.

Throughout all these pages, you have already made your points loud and clear:
You do not consider the Prajñāpāramitā Sutras and the Vijnana-only Sutras to be authentic as the Mahayana teachings, though you still keep reading the Prajñāpāramitā Sutras; you do not belive in the existence of the Alayavijnana.

Whatever sutras I presented, you just flatly denied them, even the very basic Angulimala Sutra from the Four Agamas 四阿含經 of the first round of dharma transmission.

I do admire your bravery and creativity though, if you insist, you can always pick out any Dharma viewpoint from my writings that you do not agree with and debate, provided that the issue has to be dharma related and not a 炒冷飯 case. I do need some proper rest for my aging eyes.

By the way, what do you think about the Surangama Sutra? Do you perhaps happen to read it or not?

[Buddhism]

I think you also have to make a big show of twirling your mala around, and slapping your palm whenever you make a point.

And don't forget to pepper your comments with humorous insults. That's considered good form.

If you're afraid you might lose, you can always send some people to go beat her up. (That's why Georges Dreyfuss's front teeth are so out of whack.)

Do you think we are lamas?
Thanks for your tips, I prefer everyone stays intact!

[Buddhism]

(2) Purely religious disagreements (such as Madhyamaka vs. Cittamatra). These can be discussed most fruitfully in academic fora (such as scholarly journals) or, if the two sides basically respect one another, interfaith dialogue events. However, such questions typically boil down to matters of opinion which no amount of dialogue can resolve.]

As I mentioned earlier on the other thread, true Buddhist cultivation is not merely via paper works as scholarly researches; it will take quite some time to have Buddhist scholars agree upon Zhengue's viewpoint. We know it is difficult.

(3) Ethical violations (that are recognized to be such by Tibetan tradition), such as monk-lamas who sleep with their disciples. There is not much that can be done about this. Tibetan Buddhism is decentralized, and lacks effective judicial mechanisms to punish offenders. Many such scandals turn out to be "he said, she said" disputes, and it is unclear to what extent the entire tradition is responsible. Zhengjue has chosen to publicize such scandals, but has not done so in a careful, even-handed, or balanced way; as a result, your publications are not taken very seriously.

Zhengjue had indeed looked into so many books of the Tibetan Tantric teachings, from the ancient Padmasambhava, Tsongkhapa and the Dalai Lama, and their ultimate cultivation method is the sexual union. Zhengjue is telling a fact that is too ludicrous to be taken seriously.

As long as someone has ears, hopefully, it would be similar to that of a little child in the story of "The Emperor's New Suit." It will take time, we know.

[SauLan]

(2) Purely religious disagreements (such as Madhyamaka vs. Cittamatra). These can be discussed most fruitfully in academic fora (such as scholarly journals) or, if the two sides basically respect one another, interfaith dialogue events. However, such questions typically boil down to matters of opinion which no amount of dialogue can resolve.]

As I mentioned earlier on the other thread, true Buddhist cultivation is not merely via paper works as scholarly researches; it will take quite some time to have Buddhist scholars agree upon Zhengue's viewpoint. We know it is difficult.

(3) Ethical violations (that are recognized to be such by Tibetan tradition), such as monk-lamas who sleep with their disciples. There is not much that can be done about this. Tibetan Buddhism is decentralized, and lacks effective judicial mechanisms to punish offenders. Many such scandals turn out to be "he said, she said" disputes, and it is unclear to what extent the entire tradition is responsible. Zhengjue has chosen to publicize such scandals, but has not done so in a careful, even-handed, or balanced way; as a result, your publications are not taken very seriously.

Zhengjue had indeed looked into so many books of the Tibetan Tantric teachings, from the ancient Padmasambhava, Tsongkhapa and the Dalai Lama, and their ultimate cultivation method is the sexual union. Zhengjue is telling a fact that is too ludicrous to be taken seriously.

As long as someone has ears, hopefully, it would be similar to that of a little child in the story of "The Emperor's New Suit." It will take time, we know.

Buddhism, I think many people are mistaken in this respect: sexual union is not a requirement to practice tantra, nor to achieve enlightenment. Tsongkhapa was said to have achieved enlightenment, and it was not via sexual yoga.

What's so sad about these discussions is that they perpetuate the idea that sex (of any kind, for pleasure or for other purposes) is somehow "bad." Sex is the most basic function of any species; none of us would be here without it. It only makes sense that in the highest philosophical discussions, the highest spiritual endeavors, this most basic building block of a species would possibly play some part. To say it's "bad" or "dirty" is rather like suggesting breathing is "bad" or "dirty." Sex is not bad, and it never has been. In fact, since all of life on earth requires "sex" of some kind, it's not going too far, in my mind, to suggest that sex itself is sacred (even though regular sex is not referred to as sacred in Tibetan Buddhism). I'll say it again - sex is not bad.

Nonetheless, sex is not required for enlightenment on the Tibetan Tantric path. That is a mistaken belief. It may be strongly recommended, but it is not the only way.

And the purpose of tantric practices which seem to us like "sex," are not for sexual purposes, they are for bringing changes to the mind and to the mind's energy. To say that this form of tantric yoga is about "sex" is the same mistake as saying sitting meditation is about "cushions" or about "being cross-legged." Yes, you use a cushion, you sit in a certain way, but only because it's helpful for your mediation. The sexual yoga instructions exist for the same reason: they are helpful for your meditation.

[adikarmika]

Throughout all these pages, you have already made your points loud and clear:
You do not consider the Prajñāpāramitā Sutras and the Vijnana-only Sutras to be authentic as the Mahayana teachings, though you still keep reading the Prajñāpāramitā Sutras; you do not belive in the existence of the Alayavijnana.

Whatever sutras I presented, you just flatly denied them, even the very basic Angulimala Sutra from the Four Agamas 四阿含經 of the first round of dharma transmission.

On the contrary, I do accept that the Prajñāpāramitā Sutras and the Vijñānamātra are authentic Mahāyāna teachings.
It's just that we have a different definition of "authenticity".
For you, an "authentic" sutra is one that records the teachings of the the historical Buddha.
But for me, such a defintion would mean that there would be no way of establishing any sutra as authentic, so I when I call a sutra "authentic" it simply means that the sutra in question was composed in India.

Thus, for example, I do not consider the Śūraṃgama-sūtra to be "authentic", since it was composed in China (as I have already pointed out on page 15 of this thread and elsewhere). Which is not to say that the Śūraṃgama is not worthy of my attention; it's just not what I would call "authentic".

I think it should be clear to you that I consider the concept of "authenticity" (however you wish to define it) to be of little relevance.
I certainly do not see why our differing definitions on the matter should prevent us from debating other issues.


Here, I'll make it easy for you.
You be the defender and I'll be the challenger.
I'll state a thesis, and all you have to do is accept it or, if not, request me to supply a reason that supports my thesis. You may then deny the factuality of my reason or deny the entailment of the thesis. And so on, as I have outlined above.

Thus, I put to you the following thesis (which you may like to respond to on the other thread):

"Tzu Chi (慈济) is not Buddhism."

Do you :
A) Accept this statement
B) Not accept this statement (In which case, I will supply a reason to back it up.)

[Zla'od]

Can I play? I choose B.