Tibetan Buddhism is not Buddhism; Lamas are not Buddhists

[Buddhism]

[quote=“Zla’od”]Here’s a little something that Zhengjue will find useful in confirming all its worst prejudices:

globalpost.com/dispatch/asia … vel-bhutan [/quote]
Bhutan does preserve Tibetan Tantrism tradition quite well.
Here is an supplement to your info for someone who is able to read Chinese (much too long to translate into English).
a202.idv.tw/a202-big5/Book60 … 2-0-18.htm
An interview with Juba Jimiya Bulmo, a Bhutan buddha-mother, who was chosen as a consort by Juba Vajra at 14.
She was first offered to Juba’s Vajra guru, performing the ritual as described in Tsongkhapa’s texts, really incredible.
Decades later, she realized females were actually badly abused, Jimiya did submit a petition to Bhutan king to abolish the legal common practice of Highest Yoga Tantra in the sixties; this petition did work out.

Jimiya candidly recounts her extraordinary life experience, indeed, she is a very courageous and wise lady.

[Buddhism]

downthecrookedpath-meditation-gurus.blogspot.tw/

Blowing the Whistle on Sexual Abuse at Buddhist Monasteries
BY JOSEPH HOOPER
August 2012 issue

“Most of the time, they just came alone,” he says. “They just banged the door harder, and I had to open. I knew what was going to happen, and after that you become more used to it.” It wasn’t until Kalu returned to the monastery after his three-year retreat that he realized how wrong this practice was. By then the cycle had begun again on a younger generation of victims, he says. Kalu’s claims of sexual abuse mirror those of Lodoe Senge, an ex-monk and 23-year-old tulku who now lives in Queens, New York. “When I saw the video,” Senge says of Kalu’s confessions, “I thought, ‘Shit, this guy has the balls to talk about it when I didn’t even have the courage to tell my girlfriend.’” Senge was abused, he says, as a 5-year-old by his own tutor, a man in his late twenties, at a monastery in India…"

[Buddhism]

@adikarmika

[quote=“buddhism”]I will come back to you about Nagarjuna’s middle way view when I manage with my time.

I really don’t know [color=#0000FF]why you think anyone cares about your interpretation of the “middle way”.[/color]Just look at The Bodhi Way thread – one long post after another, all by you, full of dogmatic mumbo-jumbo.
Nobody responds, and no one is interested. Even I don’t bother to read them, and I’m actually someone who has some idea what you’re talking about.[/quote]
Yes, for the ones who are truly interested in Mahayana Buddhism, Nagarjuna’s statements are concise and right to the point of the middle way, provided that a correct interpretation of the Buddhist sutras is needed.

Whatever I wrote here regarding the Buddha dharma are based on the Buddhist sutras, and my personal level of realization of the Buddha dharma, apart from the contemporary terms of a zoom lens mind or an airplane to faciliate my explanation.

This subject is not a market place offering or some sorts of pop music, as long as one person is interested and silently keep reading, his prajna knowledge will certainly increase without noticing, which will be stored in his Buddha nature to nourish his wisdom-life of the dharmakaya 法身慧命 in the future lives to come, so he will never be misguided into Tantrism or any other form of fake Buddhism.

If my English writings were as good as yours, I am sure I would have written the posts even longer. Thank you.

[Buddhism]

[quote=“adikarmika”][quote=“buddhism”]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.[/quote]
[color=#0000FF]This is just a highly contrived interpretation invented by your fringe Buddhist sect.[/color][/quote]
Nagarjuna is one of the most famous Mahayana bodhisattvas in history, and his statements are all in line with the Buddha’s teachings which based on the theory of eight vijnanas.

The true essence of “Treatise on the Middle-Way” cannot be literally interpreted by speculation of the perceptive mind (the theory of six vijnanas); it has to be understood in the same way as that of the Prajñāpāramitā Sūtras, because they are describing the same subject – the Buddha nature (Tathagatagarbha).

Only with the theory of eight vijnanas and its prajna wisdom that could liberate us from the fetters of the three realms; otherwise, we will still be bound within the world of the conscious mind, which belongs to a dharma of arising and ceasing.

In fact, the theory of six vijnanas is exactly non-Buddhist nihilism, because our conscious minds cannot proceed to future lives; every life we do start with a new mind. (they did not come from previous lives, and can indeed only exist for one lifetime.)

For your information, Zhengjue’s annotations are accurate and fully conform to the Mahayana teachings.

There is no mention whatsoever of ālayavijñāna anywhere in Nāgārjuna’s writings.

The title of the book already speaks for itself; the middle way refers to ālayavijñāna, as I have explained on the other thread. Besides, there are many terms to describe ālayavijñāna, including the Buddha nature, Tathagatagarbha, true mind, eternity, ultimate origin, basic vijnana, diamond mind, etc. Even more names were given to it by Chan masters during koan dialogues.

The whole texts of the Diamond Sutra doesn’t have a word “diamond” in it either, but still pointing to the same subject - ālayavijñāna - which is the core essence of Buddhism, indeed,it is not easy to understand. It took the Buddha around 20 years to reiterated on this subject.

[usrabbit]

Hello, I am new to this thread. I would like to offer some comments on this topic. I have already engaged in a discussion in the comments section of the following article (which can be found on the Tantrismuskritik blog, or via Google search):

“Tantrismuskritik: True Heart News: Does Couple-Practice Tantra of Tibetan Buddhism conform the Buddha’s teaching?”

The following is a quote from that discussion, followed by my further response.

oldnerdguy August 25, 2012 5:14 PM

Yes, of course. It was Forumosa that led me to this blog. Reading further, I see that others have raised similar points of discussion as mine. To summarize my points thus far:

1. As I have already mentioned, I agree with condemning the deceptions and abuse that have occurred in some religious groups.

2. While it is reasonable that a person may follow a particular faith, religion, sect or tradition in order to find self-realization, ultimate truth, or whatever purpose (and possibly even achieve that), it is a mistake to claim that your way is the only true way and that other ways are false. The reason this is a mistake is that others may have achieved such results in their own way, outside of your experience, so you lack the authority to deny their claims of their experience. You may have found nirvana through Buddhism, and someone else may have achieved the equivalent through Jesus, tantric sex, or staring at a flower. Until you can show how your claim of authority over the experience of others is legitimate, it is a mistake for you to comment on their experience as if you had that authority. (In fact, making such a claim implicitly legitimizes their choice to claim that authority over you. If “A” can do it to “B”, then “B” can do it to “A”.)

3. There is also Direct Realization Tantra which has nothing to do with tantric sex. In your haste to condemn tantra, you seem to have condemned everything connected with tantra (again, without having authority). This is a mistake.

4. Various traditions have teachings that tell you what is true about people, life, the universe and everything. Unfortunately, they state their principles as absolutes, thereby denying the possibility of conflicting descriptions of truth. For example, Christians say that Jesus is the only way, therefore other religions are false. In order to be objective, it is necessary to say that their principles are true within some context. In some context, yes, Jesus is the only way. In some other context, the Buddha is the only way. An example of this mistake: you said, “One who has to have sex is because he or she is limited in his/her perceptions.” First of all, it can be reasonably argued that there is no person who “has to have sex”, although it is clear that they are strongly motivated, but they still know it’s a choice. Another example of a mistake: “If one day he/she knows exactly the perceptional senses are unreal, he/she will give the desires up.” I can present to you a person who knows exactly what is real and unreal and still engages such desires, and this would directly disprove your assertion. If you want, you can fix this mistake by saying, “the following is true within the context of our tradition” or “the following is true within the context of my own nature and people I have come to know.” What is true outside of your tradition, and what is true for people you have never met, is not within your scope of authority.

I present the above simply as information, and to help point out mistakes, which may be helpful to you, in the interest of logic, objectivity, and truth.

If I have any further comments, I may be more likely to post them in Forumosa as it may be more convenient. Regards.

TK August 25, 2012 10:22 PM

May I ask:

1. Are you a Buddhist?
2. Do you read Buddhist Sutras?
3. What are you looking for by Buddhist teachings?
4. How to definite “true” or “false”?

Since you came from Forumosa, you have read the Buddhist teachings which were/are posted there. It seems you are not interested in them? Thus, I have nothing more to say. Thanks for you message.

In order to respond to the above questions, I would like to say that the topic of discussion is the material that you presented in your blog, and it appears that you were inviting feedback on that material. The quality and usefulness (if any) of my feedback stands on its own, it cannot be made more useful or less useful by adding information about my background. It is simply offered as-is. As my background is a separate topic, I might like to discuss it at some other opportunity.

The purpose of my feedback was to offer information, that is, to point out instances where there may be logical flaws and other mistakes in your material. Although you seem to disagree with some of my feedback, you have not stated specific reasons for disagreeing with any specific assertions. Therefore, I suggest that you consider my feedback more carefully.

Thanks for your attention to the information I have provided to you. I hope it is helpful in some way.

[adikarmika]

@buddhism

In fact, the theory of six vijnanas is exactly non-Buddhist nihilism, because our conscious minds cannot proceed to future lives; every life we do start with a new mind.

In fact, early Buddhists generally believed that it was just vijñāna (consciousness) in general that transmigrated from lifetime to lifetime. (Several relevant references to passages in the Pali canon can be found in the endnotes to Waldren’s excellent article. gampoabbey.org/documents/Inn … ijnana.pdf)

Later, the Sarvāstivādin Abhidharma theorists explained that, among the six types of vijñāna, it was the manovijñāna (mental consciousness, as opposed to the five sensory consciousnesses) that transmigrated. This is explicitly stated by Vasubandhu in his famous and influential work, the Abhidharmakośa (III 42b-c):

cyutyupapattayaḥ manovijñāna eveṣṭāḥ… “Death and birth are properly regarded to be [moments of] mental consciousness.”

Thus, it is clear that that the theory of six vijñānas was (and continues to be) a very mainstream and widely-held Buddhist doctrine.
One therefore has to wonder what purpose could possibly be served by your maintaining that such a theory is non-Buddhist.
Could it have anything to do with the fact that most Tibetan schools also subscribe to the six vijñānas theory, and that, for reasons which you will not openly state, but which are nevertheless quite obvious, you will shamelessly say anything, no matter how far-fetched and ridiculous, in order to exclude Tibetans from the Buddhist church?

@buddhism

[quote=“adikarmika”]There is no mention whatsoever of ālayavijñāna anywhere in Nāgārjuna’s writings.

The title of the book already speaks for itself; the middle way refers to ālayavijñāna, …[/quote]
So you claim. But to support your claim, can you cite me just one Indian commentator of the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā who actually agrees with you and states that madhya in the title means ālayavijñāna?
I mean, seeing as you are supposed to uphold the “true teachings” of Buddhism and all, I’d just like to be reassured that there is an Indian antecendent for your interpretation, and that you’re not really just a fringe sect trying to impose a Taoist interpretation on one of the fundamental texts of Mahayana Buddhism.

Not that there’s anything wrong with that per se. There are, for example, certain scholars who think that Nāgārjuna and Wittgenstein were saying the same thing, but AFAIK, none goes so far as to assert that all other interpretations are non-Buddhist.

It’s only you and your disgraceful organisation that makes such absurd claims.

@buddhism

as I have explained on the other thread. Besides, there are many terms to describe ālayavijñāna, including the Buddha nature, Tathagatagarbha, true mind, eternity, ultimate origin, …

Well, since heterodox interpretations of Buddhism appeal to you so much… how about “Brahman” or “Ātman”? How about “Dao”?

@buddhism

… ālayavijñāna - which is the core essence of Buddhism,

You mean the core essence of your particular brand of heterodox Chinese Buddhism.

[Buddhism]

Dear Usrabbit:
Thank you for taking your time to write and offer your views.
I fully understand your good intention and your logic.

Your reasoning reminded me of a very interesting piece in the Lankavatara Sutra (maybe also interesting for some to read). A Brahman Lokayatika brought many questions to the Buddha, including: is all created or is all uncreated, is all non-eternal, or that all is eternal, or that all is born, or that all is unborn, and is all one or is all different, etc. , dozens of philosophical questions.

The Buddha’s reply is excerpted as “Brahman, whatever said are the worldly phenomena; these are not my teachings, and these are your worldly philosophy. I only state that the existence of the three realms has its cause in the habitual illusory thinking going on since beginningless time on account of error reasoning: for discerning takes place. Brahman, it is because beings do not realize the fact that there is no external world but the Citta itself and are deluded and cling to a seemingly external world.

The Braham did ask a good question though, he asks the Buddha “Gautama, is there anything beyond the worldly phenomenon? All the truth that is taught by all the philosophers by means of varieties of words and phrases, by means of reasons, examples, and conclusions, by general consent, Gautama, belongs to me.”
“There is something that does not belong to your understanding … Brahman, if there is any coming-and-going of the vijnanas, a vanishing-and-appearing, an attachment, an intense affection, a philosophical view …these are all worldly phenomena of yours but not my teachings,” the Buddha replies.
《楞伽阿跋多羅寶經》卷3〈一切佛語心品〉：「我時報言：『婆羅門！如是說者，悉是世論。非我所說，是汝世論。我唯說無始虛偽妄想習氣種種諸惡，三有之因，不能覺知自心現量而生妄想，攀緣外性」(CBETA, T16, no. 670, p. 503, c23-27)

In brief, [color=#0000FF]whatever worldly arguments brought forth are all within the state of our physical body and the perceptive mind.[/color] All your logic are reasonable, of course; those are what we have studied during this lifetime.

As I stated from the start, [color=#0000FF]Buddhist teachings focus on transcending the three realms [/color](to break free from the cyclic births and deaths), and the key issue relies on [color=#0000FF]the Citta which is beyond worldly phenomena and objects[/color]. The Citta (Alayavijnana/Buddha nature/True Reality) is too profound to explain in a few lines here (please refer to my other posts, if possible)

Buddhist Chan Ko’an are the vivid examples to demonstrate the successful empirical Buddhist cultivation; the Chan masters who personally achieved direct perception of enlightenment. For the general public, their dialogues are weird or insane because those do not belong to the worldly common sense, however, the ones with wisdom- eye are able to comprehend their messages. (I will elaborate more on the ko’an subject on the other thread).

Again, I respect your viewpoints.
Just to remind you, I am stating from a Buddhist practitioner’s standpoint, and I am writing about my personal experiences.

For your information, your posts here are new to me, so I simply reply to the parts I know about. Thank you.

[Buddhism]

[quote=“adikarmika”]There is no mention whatsoever of ālayavijñāna anywhere in Nāgārjuna’s writings.

[color=#0000FF]The title of the book already speaks for itself; the middle way refers to ālayavijñāna, [/color]…

So you claim. But to support your claim, can you cite me just one Indian commentator of the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā who actually agrees with you and states that madhya in the title means ālayavijñāna?
It’s only you and your disgraceful organisation that makes such absurd claims. [/quote]
Leaving aside the book title of Nagarjuna, or just one Indian commentator
I will give you the Buddha’s own word.

@buddhism

as I have explained on the other thread. Besides, there are many terms to describe ālayavijñāna, including the Buddha nature, Tathagatagarbha, true mind, eternity, ultimate origin, …

@adikarmika

Well, since heterodox interpretations of Buddhism appeal to you so much… how [color=#0000FF]about “Brahman” or “Ātman”? How about “Dao[/color]”?..

You do read the Lankavatara Sutra, you must have encountered the chapter, “Mahamati, I have three incalculable hundred thousands names in this Saha world, the unwise ones hear my names and accordingly call my different names but do not know the true essence of them. Mahamati, some call me Tathagatagabha, some call me Buddha, some call me Savior, some call me Self-enlightened, some call me Leaders … some call me Atam…some call me Emptiness… some call me True-Suchness…”. You certainly know the statement by the Buddha that Buddhists should depend upon the true meaning but not the words 依義不依語.
《楞伽阿跋多羅寶經》卷4〈一切佛語心品〉：「如是，大慧！我於此娑呵世界，有三阿僧祇百千名號，愚夫悉聞，各說我名，而不解我如來異名。大慧！或有眾生，知我如來者，有知一切智者，有知佛者，有知救世者，有知自覺者，有知導師者，有知廣導者，有知一切導者，有知仙人者，有知梵者….有知無生者，有知無滅者，有知空者，有知如如…」(CBETA, T16, no. 670, p. 506, b4-14)

Before the Buddha’s time, the ancient Indian sages already knew the impermanent nature of the worldly phenomena, and they were seeking the true eternity with all sorts of speculations. Not until the Buddha’s teachings, which have brought them to validate and realize true nirvana and the bodhi way. Logically, the Buddha did face enormous challenges, especially those sages possessed super nature powers and the cultivation levels of four-dhyanas-eight-samadhis, the Buddha had to prove his superiority over that of theirs both in wisdom and level of realization in order to tame the non-Buddhist. (Buddha is the founder of Buddhism, so before his time, all people were non-Buddhist)

Languages and terms are only to convey the meanings of the said subjects. As I mentioned several times earlier, the ancient Buddhist Chan masters oftentimes stated, “I point with my finger to show you the moon up there, you should grasp the moon (truth), not my finger!”

It is understandable that language and words are very limited when they come to explain the concept of the true buddha-dharma.

@buddhism

… ālayavijñāna - which is the core essence of Buddhism,

@adikarmika

There ou mean the core essence of your particular brand of heterodox Chinese Buddhism.

For your own sake, please do be very careful with your words while you are dealing with the true Buddha dharma. Negative verbal activity is so easy to commit, but the future retribution is definitely not simple to get rid off.
I am obliged to remind you the fact, though whatever languages you use would not bother me the least.

[adikarmika]

[quote=“adikarmika”][quote=“buddhism”][quote=“adikarmika”]
There is no mention whatsoever of ālayavijñāna anywhere in Nāgārjuna’s writings.[/quote]
The title of the book already speaks for itself; the middle way refers to ālayavijñāna, …[/quote]
So you claim. But to support your claim, can you cite me just one Indian commentator of the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā who actually agrees with you and states that madhya in the title means ālayavijñāna?
I mean, seeing as you are supposed to uphold the “true teachings” of Buddhism and all, I’d just like to be reassured that there is an Indian antecendent for your interpretation, and that you’re not really just a fringe sect trying to impose a Taoist interpretation on one of the fundamental texts of Mahayana Buddhism.[/quote]

[quote=“buddhism”]Leaving aside the book title of Nagarjuna, or just one Indian commentator
I will give you the Buddha’s own word…[/quote]
In typical fashion, you have avoided the question completely. Your repsonse is not in the slightest way relevant.

Obviously, there is no Indian antecedent to your claim that the expression “middle way” in the title of Nāgārjuna’s treatise refers to ālayavijñāna. In fact, you have yet to support anything you have said about your interpretation of the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā with citations from the Indian exegetical tradition.

Your interpretation of Nāgārjuna seems to be a peculiarly Chinese one.

Not that there’s anything at all wrong with interpreting Nāgārjuna in your own way. No doubt, Taoist-inspired interpretations of Nāgārjuna can probably be quite enriching for Chinese people.

There’s a wonderful little book you should read by Andrew Tuck in which he shows how Nāgārjuna’s various modern interpreters reveal as much about about their own underlying philosophical viewpoints as they do about Nāgārjuna’s.
amazon.com/Comparative-Philo … 019506156X

Your insistence that only your interpretation is correct (while all Indian and Tibetan interpretations are incorrect) I think says quite a lot about you.

@buddhism

Languages and terms are only to convey the meanings of the said subjects. As I mentioned several times earlier, the ancient Buddhist Chan masters oftentimes stated, “I point with my finger to show you the moon up there, you should grasp the moon (truth), not my finger!”

So your self-contradictory, blatently false, and unsubstantiated statements should be actually taken as indicating some sort of non-verbal Chan Buddhist truth. Thanks, but if it’s all the same to you, I’ll base my enquiries into truth on observation and reason.

@buddhism

[quote=“adikarmika”]You mean the core essence of your particular brand of heterodox Chinese Buddhism.

For your own sake, please do be very careful with your words while you are dealing with the true Buddha dharma. Negative verbal activity is so easy to commit, but the future retribution is definitely not simple to get rid off.
I am obliged to remind you the fact…[/quote]
It’s not a “fact”. It’s just your belief that criticizing Zhengjue creates negative karma (which, BTW, you are under no obligation to “remind” me of.) To the extent that I believe in the rather dubious concept, I’d say that my criticisms of your organisation actually create good karma.

Anyway, Zhengjue doesn’t uphold the true Buddha dharma. Just a Buddha dharma.

“Heterodox” is indeed an accurate description of your sect. I have chosen my words carefully.
It’s not a derogatory term anyway. Virtually all Buddhist traditions nowadays are heterodox to some degree. The only tradition that might have any claim to orthodoxy is Theravada (notwithstanding the fact the way it is practiced by some of the SE Asian middle classes owes much to Western ways of thinking.)
It’s just that you can’t see that because you’ve been indoctrinated to believe that only Zhengjue has a monopoly on Buddhist “truth”.

At least half of the world’s conflicts would be solved immediately if people stopped behaving as if they had a monopoly on religious truth.
(Perhaps its you who should be careful with your words.)

[usrabbit]

Dear Friends:

It is my observation that if we continue to post in this thread, it will cause continued unnecessary promotion of its rather unfriendly and undiplomatic title (“Tibetan Buddhism is not Buddhism; Lamas are not Buddhists”). In order to avoid causing feelings of persecution, or loss of face, I have created another thread for the purpose of continuing this discussion:

[url=http://tw.forumosa.com/t/tibetan-buddhism-is-one-of-several-buddhist-traditions/73904/1 Buddhism is one of several Buddhist traditions.[/url]

I respectfully suggest that you [color=#FF0000]please post further comments there, and not in this thread[/color].

Thank you.