Tibetan Buddhism is not Buddhism; Lamas are not Buddhists

[adikarmika]

@Buddhism

Jonang school and its “other-empty” doctrine was indeed touching the core of Buddhism;…

It looks like you accept that the Jonangpa sect are Buddhists.
Doesn’t that contradict your “Tibetan Buddhism is not Buddhism” slogan?
Please clarify.

@Buddhism

The key difference between scharlors and true Buddhist cultivators, the former are doing plenty of research works, while the latter are putting into practice and ultimately realizing in person in accordance with the Sutra’s description.

Are you trying to privilege the experience of the Buddhist practitioner over the knowledge of the academic researcher?
It would be more credible if your addressed the arguments and the evidence they bring to bear.

What exactly is wrong with Williams’ statement that (1) arguments based on “an essentialistic notion of what Buddhism ‘really is’” are misleading or that (2) we “must be sensitive to the immense diversity within Mahayana Buddhism.”?

Can you please address these claims and not dismiss them because they made by an academic.
(And have a look at his latest book,The Unexpected Way, in which Williams describes his own personal spiritual journey.)

[quote=“Buddhism”]Once an individual have the concept that “consciousness is the Buddha nature (Tathagatagarbha; Alaya vijnana),” he/she will never get further to the enlightenment level of Buddhism.
Consciousness is the sixth vijnana, and the Alaya vijana is the eighth vijnana. A Buddhist shall be cultivating his/her consciousness to a sharp (zoom lens) condition in order to detect his/her eighth vijnana. [/quote]
You really have to tell us what you think the bare term vijñāna means in English and come up with a literal translation of ālaya-vijñāna.

[quote=“Buddhism”]From the viewpoint of Buddhahood-Way, you are a very good demo case for people to understand many Buddhist terms, for which I do appreciate very much.

1. For example, from the start, you mentioned Buddhism is emptiness eventually, [/quote]
   I did? Where was that?
   I may have said that the Prajñāpāramitā sūtras are about emptiness, but that is just one Buddhist tradition.

@Buddhism

now you concluded that consciousness is the Buddha nature, this view is called eternalism (常見).

I’m pretty sure I didn’t say “consciousness is the Buddha nature”
What I did was repeat what you said, i.e., that the ālayavijñāna equals tathāgatagarbha, and say that this was a doctrine of your sect. It is not my own view.
Then, I simply translated ālayavijñāna as “consciousness that is the basis of everything”.
I also stated that Buddha nature was a very loose, but common translation of tathāgatagarbha.

[quote=“Buddhism”] in Buddhism, in fact, this is the Budhha’s very first teaching, to eliminate self-view (我見, Self-view refers to considering the mind associated with seeing, hearing, perceiving, and knowing as the “everlasting and indestructible self.”)
Actually, nobody’s consciousness can carry on to the next life, or we will be able to remember our past lives’ events, won’t we? [/quote]
I think you may have confused yourself (not to mention other readers of this thread) with your inconsistent use of terminology.

When speaking of aṣṭa-vijñānā (八識) eight consciousnesses, you translate vijñānā as “consciousness”.
But you object to translating vijñānā as “consciousness” in the context of ālaya-vijñāna.
On the other hand, you also translate the sixth vijñāna as “consciousness”.

Let’s stop mixing up the two terms mano-vijñāna and vijñānā, shall we?
I propose we use the following standard English translations:

eight consciousnesses; aṣṭa-vijñānā; 八識

1. visual consciousness; cakṣur-vijñāna; 眼識
2. auditory consciousness; śrota-vijñāna; 耳識
3. olfactory consciousness; ghrāṇa-vijñāna; 鼻識
4. gustatory consciousness; jihvā-vijñāna; 舌識
5. tactile consciousness; kāya-vijñāna; 身識
6. mental consciousness; mano-vijñāna; 意識
7. thought; manas; 末那識 (BTW, I admit manas is very difficult to translate. I’m not sure about your “habitual tendancy”. As Monier-Williams says, it means “mind (in its widest sense as applied to all the mental powers), intellect, intelligence, understanding, perception, sense, conscience, will.”)
8. store consciousness (substratum consciousness, etc.); ālaya-vijñāna; 阿賴耶識

I am happy to debate with you using Sanskrit or English (or Chinese or Tibetan, for that matter).
But please stop using “consciousness” to refer to both mano-vijñāna and vijñānā.
It’s not helpful.

@Buddhism

2. You have persistently assumed that this whole subject is politically motivated, …

I admit that was indeed my initial reaction.
However, if you look back to my post of a couple of days ago I said that I accept that, at a personal level at least, your objections to Tibetan Buddhism are purely religious.
I admit my suspicions (not “assumptions”) about Zhengjue as an institution are another matter.

@Buddhism

You definitely believe in “your own conception,” this view is called “self-attachment” (我執) in Buddhism; a person strongly holds on to his/her own opinion, in other word, strongly grasp at self-view.

拜托!
Holding an particular opinion in a debate has nothing to do with 我執 (ahaṃ-kāra = the attachment to the notion of an enduring, inherent self; the basis for the activity of all the kleśas).
I’m simply arguing that Tibetan Buddhism should be regarded as Buddhism.
I hardly think this is my own peculiar conception.

@Buddhism

I wonder, did Buddhist study make any improvement in your daily life, apart from all the scholarly names and phrases?

It has given me a deeper understanding of a number of existential, ontological and soteriological problems.
It has also freed me from blindly following dogma, so yes, I would consider that an improvement.
You should try it sometime.

@Buddhism

4. For someone who has studied Buddhism over 20 years and even knows sanskrit yet claims that “who knows what the Budhha actually did say or teach?” Isn’t it ironic or rather sad?

It is neither sad not ironic.
It’s common sense, and in accordance with the available historical evidence.
I consider all religious literature on its own merit.
I have no need to attribute any teachings to the Buddha or any other authority in order to consider them valid or not.
Who uttered the words recorded in the sūtras is not important.
To me they are just a record of what some anonymous Buddhist philosophers of the past thought (or wanted others to think).

@Buddhism

5. Your fierce attitude to pro Tibetan Buddhism or Tibetans due to your sentiment for them;

Actually, I am pro tolerance and inclusivism due to my sentiment to these virtues.

@Buddhism

have you ever thought of the consequence that if we cover up the truth without giving any warnings, just let the future generations find out or discover by themselves, how many more victims would there be to face the cruel reality? Mind you, all the reported cases are only the tip of the iceberg, let alone the diseases that have caused and spread around.

Have you thought about the consequences of calumny and religious intolerance?