Tibetan Buddhism is one of several Buddhist traditions

Arts & Sciences Religion & Spirituality
21

Soka Gakkai gives, for example:

three Dharma seals
[三法印] (Jpn samboin )
Also, three seals of Dharma. Three identifying principles of Buddhism: impermanence, nonself, and nirvana. Suffering is added to the above three to form the four Dharma seals. Impermanence means that nothing is lasting or fixed—all is temporary and changing. Non-self means that all things and phenomena are without self-nature, that they have no independent existence of their own. Nirvana is the highest state of calm and serenity, in which one is released from suffering. Suffering means that all existence is suffering. Dharma seals signify a guarantee of the authenticity of doctrines. The three Dharma seals were used as standards to determine whether or not a sutra or a doctrine was valid; if it met these three standards, it was determined to be a valid Buddhist teaching. Chinese Mahayana Buddhism regarded the three or four Dharma seals as a Hinayana concept; it established instead the one Dharma seal, which was the principle of the ultimate reality, or the true aspect of all phenomena. The Dharma seal of the ultimate reality is based on the Lotus Sutra, which sets forth the true aspect of all phenomena.

sgilibrary.org/search_dict.php?id=2314

22

Yangsi Rinpoche is aligned with the FPMT, which is responsible for stealing land from Indian peasants to build a giant Maitreya statue. It would serve them right if they were all deported to China, and Kopan confiscated for use as a museum of Communism.

23

(From the “Taiwanese Enlightenment Organisations” thread:)

[quote=“SauLan”]It would be interesting to note the date of the first such publication. On the Zhengjue YouTube vids, for example, it’s mentioned that in 2009 the Dalai Lama came to Taiwan to pray for the typhoon victims. There is footage of a bunch of NKT-style anti-Dalai Lama “protesting” at that time, with people carrying banners saying “Tibetan Buddhism isn’t Buddhism.”

On a different forum, a bunch of anti-Tibetan stuff erupted similarly in (or via) Ireland, when the Irish president met with some well-known Tibetan teachers. The PRC goes absolutely crackerdog, I’ve noticed, if any nation’s upper officials “dare” meet with the Dalai Lama.[/quote]

Allow me to quote myself from the “Tibetan Buddhism is not Buddism” thread (which I’m glad to see the moderators have had the good sense to now lock.)

[quote=“adikarmika”]Interesting to see the series of 18 articles entitled “Is Lamaism Buddhism?” at multipletext.com/listlama.htm
Most of it is so absurd and extreme that it makes Tantrismuskritik and buddhism look like voices of impartiality and sound reason.[/quote]
In total, there are 81 articles in the whole “Tibet and Lamaism” list. All the ones I’ve bothered to look at contain pro-China/ant-Tibet propaganda of the worst kind imagninable. (Actually, some of it might be beyond many people’s imagination - it has to be seen to be believed.)

Most of the articles date from 2008, in the months between the Lhasa riots and the Beijing Olympic games.

The fact that Zhengjue’s anti-Tibetan Buddhism campaign doesn’t have an internet presence until 2009 suggests that they took their cue from China.

24

Well, I’m aligned with America, which is currently bombing Iraqi, Afghan, Pakistani and probably soon Iranian children to death.

I think one has to be judged by ones own actions. I don’t know anything about land theft for the Maitreya statue, but I do know India generally takes no guff when it comes to foreigners misbehaving on Indian soil–I’ll definitely look into it, though. Yangsi Rinpoche is one of the kindest humans I have personally ever met.

With all due respect, while both suck, land theft isn’t quite as bad as human torture, which is undoubtedly what would happen to Yangsi Rinpoche if he were deported to China. No one deserves deportation to that thug regime (I say that as a member of another thug regime, as well as a former resident of China).

Frankly, aspersions cast on FPMT have me zooming straight over to NKT and Beijing aspersion-casters, to see if anything looks connected. But I will promise to keep an open mind.

25

That probably sounded a little harsh and glum overall–I’m not anti-USA, anti-NKT, anti-China or anything else, but I do weary (and occasionally vent) at the hypocrisy and suffering people in power are responsible for.

26

That he may personally come across as kind would not excuse him from his alliance with the FPMT. He takes their money, he is one of them.

“Land theft” is perhaps a misnomer, since the expropriative act in question is made possible by Indian law (a holdover from the British colonial period which human-rights activists have long sought to change). In this case, the FPMT petitioned (perhaps bribed) Indian officials to force Kushinagari farmers to sell their farmland so that the FPMT could build a giant statue of Maitreya. The justification given was that the statue would be a tourist attraction, and also that the FPMT would build schools or some such. This is why I asked you to imagine Kopan Monastery being expropriated and turned into a museum of Communism–the parallel is exact.

So if your Yangsi Rinpoche is sitting pretty in Seattle, he does so on the backs of poor Hindu farmers, about whom he cares nothing. He and the FPMT deserve nothing but our contempt. If sending them all to China would eliminate the threat to the Kushinagaris, I would happily sign the extradiction papers. They brought this on themselves, the bastards.

27

What evidence is there that the farmers were forced to sell, and that the officials were bribed? No offense, but I’m not going to swallow any allegation whole without evidence. How do we know that, if indeed farmers sold land, it was against their will?

A highway outside my town is being suddenly expanded…you wouldn’t believe the destruction. Huge trees and entire farmhouses being mowed down as we speak. Houses I have driven past for decades. I have definitely thought of looking into that issue in the past week, but I can’t assume that, just because I find it sad, it wasn’t voluntary or well-compensated.

Things change, and change is often sad.

You’re awfully passionate about FPMT! Do you have personal experience with them, or where is this story about farmers coming from? I have only had good experiences with FPMT, largely in the form of freely-given dharma translations which I have benefitted immensely from, as well as advice and practice information–again, all given free and with never an iota of pressure as far as recompensation. I am not a member of FPMT and have never given them a cent, though I well should have by now. I don’t know Yangsi Rinpoche in the context of FPMT; he was a resident teacher at my gompa for some time. I find his teachings exceptional.

28

They’ve been to court over this, and there have been political rallies in Uttar Pradesh, so the facts are reasonably well-established. (I can’t prove the bribery part, but this is India we’re talking about, after all.) Some families were willing to sell, others wanted more money, while still others refused out of attachment to their ancestral soil. You allude to the U.S. legal principle of eminant domain, but notice the religious purpose of the statue, and the lack of any public oversight over the project’s formulation.

Yes, I’ve gone to FPMT dharma events. I admit that they’re far from the worst-behaved, at least in terms of their public behavior. There’s really just this one glaring fault. However, it illustrates the basically authoritarian nature of Tibetan Buddhism, which is organized around the principle that lamas ought to be deferred to and obeyed. Why does the FPMT want this? Because it is a pet project of Thubten Zopa, who claims it will bring all kinds of spiritual benefits. Why should Zopa’s opinion matter more than his anybody else’s? Because the religion, and within it the FPMT, is structured that way.

See Jessica Falcone’s articles, “A Year in India: Questioning the Maitreya Project: What would the Buddha do?” and “A Year in India: What would the Buddha do? The debate continues…” (both Feb. 2008, Wild River Review), readable through the Wayback Machine (archive.org) at the following, now defunct addresses:
wildriverreview.com/ airmail_india-maitreya.php and
wildriverreview.com/airmail_india.php

Falcone was then a Yale anthropology student, and is now teaches at Kansas State University. She came to the subject by accident while doing fieldwork in Kushinagar.

29

A bit behind the most recent posts, I know, but I just wanted to make a couple of comments about Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche’s version of the “Four Seals”.

Tibetan: 'dus chas thams cad mi rtag pa
Dzongsar Khyentse’s translation is fine.

Tibetan: zag bcas thams cad sdug bsngal ba
“Emotions” is a very liberal translation.
zag bcas = sāsrāva (sa + āsrāva)
It literally means “having (sa) what leaks out (āsrāva)”.

Early Buddhists believed that the unenlightened state was characterised by an uncontrolled flow of engagement with objects of attachment and aversion, with the result that the unenlightened person continually underwent the sufferings of birth, aging and death over and over. An enlightened arhat is one who has managed to “dry up” (kṣīṇa) his or her out outflows. As Buddhists gradually developed more and more sophisticated soteriological theories (in which the path extended over numerous lifetimes - perhaps in order to explain why so few people seemed to be getting enlightened, or perhaps to indefinitely postpone enlightenment and protect the doctrines from challenges from those claiming to be enlightened - I don’t know), āsrāva became synonymous with kleṣa, which is sometimes translated as “affliction”, or even “delusion”. Anyway, whatever you call it, it was still the thing that you had to get rid of in order to become an arhat. In some Mahayana systems kleṣas were completely abandoned by a seventh level bodhisattva, in other systems complete abandonment did not occur until Buddhahood.

Apologies for lecturing, but “āsrāva” is actually a very technical term. “Emotions” could mean a whole range of things, few of which are likely to be understood as something that must be “dried up” in order to become enlightened.

Tibetan: chos thams cad bdag med pa
Nothing here about being without inherent existence. This is purely an interpretation of the Prāsaṅgika (Consequentialist) school which would imply that Chan Buddhism is not Buddhism.

On this point Konchog Jigme Wangpo says:
“the selflessness of the four seals refers to the absence of a permanent partless, independent self”
In other words, Jigme Wangpo is making a point of admiting the Vātīsputrīya sect, who asserted the existence of a substantially existent or self-sufficient self (rang rkya thub pa’i rdzas yod pa’i bdag).

Tibetan: mya ngan 'das pa zhi ba
Actually, it is “nirvana is peace”.

Again, Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche seems to be putting an unwarranted Prāsaṅgika spin on the seals.

Konchog Jigme Wangpo lists the four seals in order to distinguish Buddhist philosophical systems from non-Buddhist systems. In his view, this has got nothing to with being or not being a Buddhist. You can be a Buddhist merely by taking refuge in the Three Jewels. You don’t need to subscribe to any particular philosophical system. He even seems to imply that you can be a Buddhist yet subscribe to a philosophical system not characterised by the four seals (e.g., Jainism, etc.)
On the other hand, you can subscribe to a Buddhist philosophical system yet not take refuge in the Three Jewels, in which case you would not (in Jigme Wangpo’s view) be a Buddhist.

30

[quote=“adikarmika”](From the “Taiwanese Enlightenment Organisations” thread:)

[quote=“SauLan”]It would be interesting to note the date of the first such publication. On the Zhengjue YouTube vids, for example, it’s mentioned that in 2009 the Dalai Lama came to Taiwan to pray for the typhoon victims. There is footage of a bunch of NKT-style anti-Dalai Lama “protesting” at that time, with people carrying banners saying “Tibetan Buddhism isn’t Buddhism.”

On a different forum, a bunch of anti-Tibetan stuff erupted similarly in (or via) Ireland, when the Irish president met with some well-known Tibetan teachers. The PRC goes absolutely crackerdog, I’ve noticed, if any nation’s upper officials “dare” meet with the Dalai Lama.[/quote]

Allow me to quote myself from the “Tibetan Buddhism is not Buddism” thread (which I’m glad to see the moderators have had the good sense to now lock.)

[quote=“adikarmika”]Interesting to see the series of 18 articles entitled “Is Lamaism Buddhism?” at multipletext.com/listlama.htm
Most of it is so absurd and extreme that it makes Tantrismuskritik and buddhism look like voices of impartiality and sound reason.[/quote]
In total, there are 81 articles in the whole “Tibet and Lamaism” list. All the ones I’ve bothered to look at contain pro-China/ant-Tibet propaganda of the worst kind imagninable. (Actually, some of it might be beyond many people’s imagination - it has to be seen to be believed.)

Most of the articles date from 2008, in the months between the Lhasa riots and the Beijing Olympic games.

The fact that Zhengjue’s anti-Tibetan Buddhism campaign doesn’t have an internet presence until 2009 suggests that they took their cue from China.[/quote]

Thanks for this…I will check it out. I have noticed several other “abusive Buddhist” splash pieces that came out in April 2008. Disturbingly, several of them were written by westerners, but contain telltale terminology. This subject is so new to most overseas writers, in my opinion, that that don’t realize just how specialized and obvious terms like “serf” and “Lamaist” are to some readers.

I suppose you could call these particular running dogs Melvyn Goldstein’s red-headed stepchildren :wink: And the god parents none other than Victor and Victoria Trimondi. Talk about an unholy alliance.

Thanks very much for the link–I will read the articles and see if they match up to the plethora of YouTube vids posted by sutraenlighten.

31

[quote=“adikarmika”](From the “Taiwanese Enlightenment Organisations” thread:)

[quote=“SauLan”]It would be interesting to note the date of the first such publication. On the Zhengjue YouTube vids, for example, it’s mentioned that in 2009 the Dalai Lama came to Taiwan to pray for the typhoon victims. There is footage of a bunch of NKT-style anti-Dalai Lama “protesting” at that time, with people carrying banners saying “Tibetan Buddhism isn’t Buddhism.”

On a different forum, a bunch of anti-Tibetan stuff erupted similarly in (or via) Ireland, when the Irish president met with some well-known Tibetan teachers. The PRC goes absolutely crackerdog, I’ve noticed, if any nation’s upper officials “dare” meet with the Dalai Lama.[/quote]

Allow me to quote myself from the “Tibetan Buddhism is not Buddism” thread (which I’m glad to see the moderators have had the good sense to now lock.)

[quote=“adikarmika”]Interesting to see the series of 18 articles entitled “Is Lamaism Buddhism?” at multipletext.com/listlama.htm
Most of it is so absurd and extreme that it makes Tantrismuskritik and buddhism look like voices of impartiality and sound reason.[/quote]
In total, there are 81 articles in the whole “Tibet and Lamaism” list. All the ones I’ve bothered to look at contain pro-China/ant-Tibet propaganda of the worst kind imagninable. (Actually, some of it might be beyond many people’s imagination - it has to be seen to be believed.)

Most of the articles date from 2008, in the months between the Lhasa riots and the Beijing Olympic games.

The fact that Zhengjue’s anti-Tibetan Buddhism campaign doesn’t have an internet presence until 2009 suggests that they took their cue from China.[/quote]

Thanks for this…I will check it out. I have noticed several other “abusive Buddhist” splash pieces that came out in April 2008. Disturbingly, several of them were written by westerners, but contain telltale terminology. This subject is so new to most overseas writers, in my opinion, that they don’t realize just how specialized and obvious terms like “serf” and “Lamaist” are to some readers.

I suppose you could call these particular running dogs Melvyn Goldstein’s red-headed stepchildren :wink: And the god parents none other than Victor and Victoria Trimondi. Talk about an unholy alliance.

Thanks very much for the link–I will read the articles and see if they match up to the plethora of YouTube vids posted by sutraenlighten.

32

[quote=“Zla’od”]Actually the debate is very formulaic, and follows a set sequence of topics from Dharmakirti. Stuff like “The subject, a pot (or sound), is impermanent because of being a product.” But they really get into it, and compete with each other like sports fans. I know of one case in which a particularly fearsome debater was beaten up by another monastery’s “team” in an attempt to keep him out of the match.

Interestingly, sky burial is also practiced by the Parsees of Bombay (though they are apparently having trouble getting the birds to do their job, garbage being plentiful in that city).[/quote]

The vultures are at risk of local extinction as the pain relief drug diclofenac is very poisonous to them and their eggs don’t hatch. Not so much the garbage as the drugs…

33

What does Melvyn Goldstein have to do with Zhengjue and the Trimondis?

34

For starters, all four are infected with serfitis communistis.

This is a rare condition causing violent spasms in both the lips and fingers, which, in the presence of money, results in uncontrolled uttering and typing of the word “serf.”

35

I think your allegations are misplaced. Goldstein’s writings are of the highest academic quality, and politically balanced, representing (and critiquing) both PRC and Tibetan exile government perspectives. His description of pre-1950’s Tibet as a feudal theocracy (complete with serfs) is fair, I’m sorry to say. Yes, his research into nomadism and oral folklore demands a certain political discretion, but this is a common problem, and a far cry from what you have alleged. Incidentally, I believe he is married to a Tibetan.

36

In response to Goldsteins all-but-utter gloss over the Tibet war of 1917-18, Alastair Lamb has described Goldstein’s work as akin to writing a history of modern Europe and leaving out the First World War.

Leaving out an entire, major conflict, Goldstein instead focuses on small, “titillating” events, exaggerating them to National Enquirer standards.

Jamyang Norbu adds, “There was little account of honourable service, sacrifice or courage, even where it would be not only have been relevant, but perhaps necessary to provide an accurate and balanced picture as it were, of events and personalities. Goldstein’s focus was fundamentally on events that could only be described as degenerate, fratricidal, or reprehensible – even shameful. He devotes nearly sixty pages to the Reting conspiracy and the subsequent Sera rebellion. The sub-headings in this chapter such as “ the Sera Che War” and “the Massacre at Reting Monastery” patently overstate what really happened. When it is now politically incorrect, or at least controversial, in American academic circles to use the term “massacre” to describe the killing of some thousand students and civilians at Tiananmen in 1989, the death of a dozen odd Tibetan soldiers at Reting monastery should perhaps be explained in a less sensational manner than as a “massacre”.” (Black Annals: Goldstein & The Negation of Tibetan History, Part I)

No offense, my dear Zla’od, but we may have to agree to disagree on “Melvyn the Historian,” lol.

37

These are disagreements of interpretation and emphasis (e.g. Lhasa over Chamdo), not evidence of bad faith on Goldstein’s part. Incidentally, you complain about Goldstein’s leftism (but much of mainstream anthropology reads like this), while neglecting to comment on the rather more explicit political commitments of Jamyang Norbu.

38

Huh? Where have I complained about anyone’s leftism? I don’t consider leaving out an entire war leftism…simply, leaving out a significant war. Only he knows why he did it. As for Lhasa vs. Chamdo, it’s a simple matter of proportion–history emphasizes an event with greater deaths over one with fewer. Chamdo represented thousands dead; Lhasa, a handful. One doesn’t have to be political to count bodies.

39

Well you did mumble something about serfs, but I can’t be sure what it was, since it was in Latin!

I am not enough of a historian to judge such nuances, though it seems to me that the importance of battles does not go strictly according to the number of casualties. But I was questioning whether Goldstein has really been compromised by Chinese money, as you seem to suggest, and am struggling to figure out why his focus on the failings of Lhasa elites over a battle in Kham would be a sign of PRC influence. Whatever comfort they may take from the former would be negated by his description of a Tibet which is effectively independent prior to 1950.

40

[quote=“Zla’od”]Well you did mumble something about serfs, but I can’t be sure what it was, since it was in Latin!

I am not enough of a historian to judge such nuances, though it seems to me that the importance of battles does not go strictly according to the number of casualties. But I was questioning whether Goldstein has really been compromised by Chinese money, as you seem to suggest, and am struggling to figure out why his focus on the failings of Lhasa elites over a battle in Kham would be a sign of PRC influence. Whatever comfort they may take from the former would be negated by his description of a Tibet which is effectively independent prior to 1950.[/quote]

I didn’t actually suggest Goldstein was compromised by Chinese money, just that strangely, like political revisionists of Russia, North Korea, China and other communist regimes he for some reason uses the bizarre “serf” designation to generalize impossibly large swaths of the pre-communist population. Nor did I say the book was written in thrall to the PRC. As for Lhasa/Kham, the point was not comparison of two specific incidents, but simply that in his self-proclaimed “history,” less-important, more-titillating incidents are often on to the exclusion of major historical events. Rather like devoting an entire chapter to the Hatfields and McCoys and omitting the Battle of Gettysburg. That fact stands on its own regardless of whether, in addition to the obvious bump in sales that racy stories bring, there may have been political motivations for such missteps. Anyone is of course totally free to devote chapters to Lhasa intrigue or southern American feuds, but if you claim your work to be a serious history of a certain period of time and then omit major events, no one can be blamed for calling your scholarship into question.

One doesn’t have to ask what Goldstein’s motivations were (or even if he had any) to question the oddities in his Tibet pennings. Asking that, though, is an engaging pursuit in its own right.