Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Ive looked a little for a book that is a dialog between two Buddhists from different traditions but havent had any luck. Im sure there would be a ton of agreement but I cant help but think of that legendary discussion in Tibet between the Indian Vajrayana master and the Chinese Chan master. Ive never found a transcipt or anything close of this discussion. I always thought something like this would be great for people just getting into Buddhism so they could at least get a feel for which tradition which would fit them best. The only thing similar are discussions about different schools from a single person's perspective and rarely do they know enough about several different schools to really get deep into it.
I did actually come across a transcript or at least an account of the talk, and interestingly the Chan Master apparantly 'won', and for that reason was none too welcome in Tibet at that time. I can't though think of where to get hold of a copy but I'll keep trying.
If anyone is interested I found some interesting information about this debate in a book by Reginald Ray called Indestructible Truth: The Living Spirituality of Tibetan Buddhism. He talks about the debate on page 99. He calls them the Samye Debates. They were called by King Trisong Detsen. On the Indian side was Kamalashita, disciple of Shantarakshita, while the Chinese side was headed by Hua-shang Mahayana.
Apparrently the debate wasnt really China vs India but about the two major Mahayana approaches to the dharma that existed throughout both countries. These were conventinal Mahayana monasticism - arguing for the gradual path of study of classical texts, adherence to a moral life and practice of the six paramitas - and that of the unconventional yogin - arguing for a viewpoint close to Ch'an/Zen, that within each sentient being is present the ultimate nature of the awakened state, putting intellectual knowledge and ethics secondary and focusing on using meditation to realized enlightenment in this lifetime.
Traditional Tibetan monastic accounts say, not suprisingly, Kamalashita won; while other older and perhaps more reliable accounts say Hua-shang won. More interesting than who won is that, according to Ray, this debate has continued in Tibet to this day and has produced a tradition that has "both the depth of real attainment and the breadth and durability of an institutional religion."
I would still love to read some more details of the actual exchange. Ill keep looking around the internet, too.
Keith
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
Refractorist, one thing that often strikes me is how much Dzogchen practice is identical to Shikantaza. I've often wondered if it came about through contact between Chan and the Vajrayana.
Thats a curious idea Im going to look around and see what I can find. It would be very interesting if Dzogchen or Mahamudra, which are the highest practices in all four of the main Tibetan traditions, were influenced by Chan. Of course even without looking I can probably guess that they, Chan and Vajrayana, were both traditions in Indian and may have shared meditation practices then.
"In 90 A.B.B. (After Buddha's Birth), eight years after Buddha's Parirnirvana, the first emanation of the Buddha, Padmasambhava, came into this world and received the complete teaching from many enlightened masters. Padmasambhava taught the Dzogchen Khandro Nyingthig to numerous beings in India's eight great sacred places and China, and introduced and spread Buddhism throughout Tibet."
At least one scholar that I have read has serious doubts about the life story of Padmasambhava. However, this may indicate an early spreading of Dzogchen/Shikantaza-like teachings to China.
Red Pine, in the Zen Teachings of Bodhidharma, says, "As early as AD 65, a community of Buddhist monks was reported living under royal patronage in the northern part of Kiangsu Province, not far from the birthplace of Confucius, and the first monks had probably arrived a hundred years earlier."
This seems to contradict the first statement because according to Wikipedia the Buddha lived "from about 623 BCE to 543 BCE."
Then in an interview I found from Buddhadharma: The Practitioner's Quarterly, Spring 2004 (here). The interviewer asks: "If a student asked you to compare shikantaza, silent illumination, Dzogchen and Vipassana, how would approach that kind of question?
"TENZIN WANGYAL: There are a few issues we are mixing here. We are talking about formless meditation and we are also talking about the commonality in different traditions. In essence, formless meditation has got to be the same, because formless is formless. What makes the difference is the form, how one is introduced to the form, the development of the form, and how one enters into the formless from there. These are the things that create the differences.
"In the buddhadharma, there are many tenet systems, doctrinal systems, and as a result there are differences we have to acknowledge, for example between Madhyamika and Cittamatra. In the monastery, people study these for years and try to understand the fine points of difference. But these differences do not mean one is good and the other is bad. The point is to come to deeper understanding. For example, some aspects of Hinduism and Shaivism seem so similar to Dzogchen. Are they really similar or not? That’s a big question and it could be quite worthwhile to debate it.
"When it comes to the formless, every tradition has different ways to do it. I always encourage students to listen to other teachers and to gain more understanding, but it’s always important to have one thing that you follow completely. That’s not a question of one being better than another; it’s more a question of energy and time. If you’re focusing on too many things, you might not have anything in the end."
I had no idea that the different Buddhist traditions shared a similar meditation on formlessness. If this is so then there is no need to look any further for the origin of what the interview calls 'formless meditation'. It came from the Buddha himself. I guess this is an indication of how little I still know about Buddhism. There rest of that interview is pretty interesting and I suggest anyone interested to check it out.
No problem, its my pleasure and I definitely agree it is very fascinating. The interview itself is really great and just what I was looking for earlier. Im going to try to find more discussions involving advanced practicioners representing Zen, Theravada and Tibetan traditions. Ive heard of the Buddhadharma publication before but Ive never read anything except this interview. Maybe theyve published other similar discussions?
Yes, but you're doing the footwork and cutting down the time we have to spend researching. As much as I love research, for those of us who can't sit at the computer for long periods, this is wonderful, just wondeful. Thanks, Keith. You're a diamond.
I had no idea that the different Buddhist traditions shared a similar meditation on formlessness. If this is so then there is no need to look any further for the origin of what the interview calls 'formless meditation'. It came from the Buddha himself. I guess this is an indication of how little I still know about Buddhism. There rest of that interview is pretty interesting and I suggest anyone interested to check it out.
Keith
If I may also add that both mystical Islam and mystical Christianity have traditions of meditation on formlessness. In Christian terminology, the technical term "contemplation" is used for it. In Sufism the name of God is read as Al-lah, the Nothing. I imagine that mystical Judaism has a similar practice.
"Formlessness", shunyata, the Void appears to me to be the Golden Thread that links all the various Ways.
Woo Hoo! I'm an old friend of the site!!! I've been promoted once again!
*Thinking aloud*
Right that's it, in order to get promoted higher, I'll need to post more mundane and sometimes controversial drivel...that will will make me powerfull! hahah the POWER!!!
If I may also add that both mystical Islam and mystical Christianity have traditions of meditation on formlessness. In Christian terminology, the technical term "contemplation" is used for it. In Sufism the name of God is read as Al-lah, the Nothing. I imagine that mystical Judaism has a similar practice.
"Formlessness", shunyata, the Void appears to me to be the Golden Thread that links all the various Ways.
You're quite right, Simon. According to the Kabbalah, God is only ever referred to as the creator, and when referred to by name, He is referred to as YHVH, which is pronounced something like Yod-Heh-Vav-Heh. The name implies that the name of God is unpronounceable, and therefore unknowable. Each syllable also has affiliations with the four primordial elements: Yod- fire, Heh-water, Vav-air, and Heh- earth. These elements also refer to the process of creation, where fire is the inspirational spark, water is the emotional need for creation, air is the thought behind the creation process, and earth is the creation made physical.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited January 2006
Huh!! Everybody wants to get into the 'New Age' thang....! :crazy: :rolleyesc
Theres two ways of viewing Buddhism (and enlightenment). Some people say that one has to rush in and wave their arms around and huff and puff and struggle to reach their destination.
Others, watch this, sigh to themselves, and quietly shuffling along.
Buddhism, of late, has become highly complex. Today, to become a Buddhist, to become an Arhat, one has to have many teachers and follow a lifetime of struggling and ritual.
Back in the Buddhas time, some people just listened to his words and attained enlightenment, in just one sitting....
And today in this day and age, I'm yet to meet a person who has attained enlightenment.
When it comes to spiritual teachers, there are those who are safe, gentle, consoling, soothing, caring; and there are the outlaws, the living terrors, the Rude Boys and Nasty Girls of God realization, the men and women who are in your face, disturbing you, terrifying you, until you radically awaken to who and what you really are. And may I suggest: choose your teachers carefully.
- Ken Wilber
Hello all (especially genryu of course),
I've come across this quote before, and if I remember right, this is Ken Wilber describing Andrew Cohen.
Now, Andrew Cohen is definately a "bad boy", but also a highly suspect "Guru", who hasn't woken anybody up as far as I know.
Just to suggest that Rude doesn't have to be good.
And I'd entirely agree with you on this. I certainly wouldn't consider Cohen as ready to teach. That notwithstanding though, I do think there were valid points raised, allbeit that I wouldn't necessarily apply them to either Ken Wilber or Andrew Cohen. Now if they were talking about Jed McKenna... :buck:
And I'd entirely agree with you on this. I certainly wouldn't consider Cohen as ready to teach. That notwithstanding though, I do think there were valid points raised, allbeit that I wouldn't necessarily apply them to either Ken Wilber or Andrew Cohen. Now if they were talking about Jed McKenna... :buck:
I didn't know Jed McKenna, he sounds quite outrageous. :rocker:
But seriously, this has made me look at my own practice again. I have access to a teacher ( a zen monk), who is a pretty nice guy, lol.
And if I take a good, hard look inside, I'm left wondering if I'm not faking the whole thing.
Actually, I guess I am. :zombie:
Hmmmmm.
But seriously, this has made me look at my own practice again. I have access to a teacher ( a zen monk), who is a pretty nice guy, lol.
And if I take a good, hard look inside, I'm left wondering if I'm not faking the whole thing.
Actually, I guess I am. :zombie:
Hmmmmm.
Thanks for the shakeup.
Well, we all are to a certain extent, Eon. Buddhist practice isn't an all-or-none thing. It's a gradual awakening. That's why it's important not to be too hard on yourself, or, as my teacher says, on the other hand not to let yourself get away with murder. It's called the middle way for good reason because it's the way between extremes. Think of it like peeling an onion layer by layer. Takes a long time and a great deal of patience, but eventually we'll get there if we persist.
Theres two ways of viewing Buddhism (and enlightenment). Some people say that one has to rush in and wave their arms around and huff and puff and struggle to reach their destination.
Others, watch this, sigh to themselves, and quietly shuffling along.
Buddhism, of late, has become highly complex. Today, to become a Buddhist, to become an Arhat, one has to have many teachers and follow a lifetime of struggling and ritual.
Back in the Buddhas time, some people just listened to his words and attained enlightenment, in just one sitting....
And today in this day and age, I'm yet to meet a person who has attained enlightenment.
Just my personal observations...
Hope
How we view enlightenment is irrelevant. Being awake has nothing to do with views. As to teachers - even the Buddha had teachers, and I have met many who have awakened, not one of which did so without a teacher at some point. If you want to meet an awakened person - they are around today as they have always been, so I'm wondering what's prevented you.
I didn't know Jed McKenna, he sounds quite outrageous. :rocker:
But seriously, this has made me look at my own practice again. I have access to a teacher ( a zen monk), who is a pretty nice guy, lol.
And if I take a good, hard look inside, I'm left wondering if I'm not faking the whole thing.
Actually, I guess I am. :zombie:
Hmmmmm.
Thanks for the shakeup.
'I' is always faking. Fortunately, practice is not about 'I' or how I think I'm doing. Don't worry, as your practice continues, the nice guy will get considerably tougher with you if you are his student.
Buddhism, of late, has become highly complex. Today, to become a Buddhist, to become an Arhat, one has to have many teachers and follow a lifetime of struggling and ritual.
Back in the Buddhas time, some people just listened to his words and attained enlightenment, in just one sitting....
And today in this day and age, I'm yet to meet a person who has attained enlightenment.
Just my personal observations...
Hope
Buddhism is as complex or as simple as the individual wishes to make it.
Remember, 'Simple' does not always mean 'Easy'...
I am a 'Simple' person, ZM will vouch for this. I am cetrtainly not as well-versed in the Sutras or teachings of the Buddha, and have little or scant knowledge of the different schools or Disciplines which abound. But I hope he would recognise that I am a willing pupil, and dedicated and sincere in my practise as anyone would be. I am endlessly willing to learn. I am always open to correction and to instruction.
Maybe I never will attain the level of expertise that some have attained, but I do not, in any way, exclude myself from the possible experience of enlightenment in my life-time....
If you want Enlightenment, by just sitting and listening, (as you say "they" did in The Buddha's Lifetime) then do likewise...
Sit and Listen....
I would however, suggest that you be prepared for a long sit....
The Buddha took six years to Sit and Listen.....
Comments
Ive looked a little for a book that is a dialog between two Buddhists from different traditions but havent had any luck. Im sure there would be a ton of agreement but I cant help but think of that legendary discussion in Tibet between the Indian Vajrayana master and the Chinese Chan master. Ive never found a transcipt or anything close of this discussion. I always thought something like this would be great for people just getting into Buddhism so they could at least get a feel for which tradition which would fit them best. The only thing similar are discussions about different schools from a single person's perspective and rarely do they know enough about several different schools to really get deep into it.
Keith
Apparrently the debate wasnt really China vs India but about the two major Mahayana approaches to the dharma that existed throughout both countries. These were conventinal Mahayana monasticism - arguing for the gradual path of study of classical texts, adherence to a moral life and practice of the six paramitas - and that of the unconventional yogin - arguing for a viewpoint close to Ch'an/Zen, that within each sentient being is present the ultimate nature of the awakened state, putting intellectual knowledge and ethics secondary and focusing on using meditation to realized enlightenment in this lifetime.
Traditional Tibetan monastic accounts say, not suprisingly, Kamalashita won; while other older and perhaps more reliable accounts say Hua-shang won. More interesting than who won is that, according to Ray, this debate has continued in Tibet to this day and has produced a tradition that has "both the depth of real attainment and the breadth and durability of an institutional religion."
I would still love to read some more details of the actual exchange. Ill keep looking around the internet, too.
Keith
Keith
"In 90 A.B.B. (After Buddha's Birth), eight years after Buddha's Parirnirvana, the first emanation of the Buddha, Padmasambhava, came into this world and received the complete teaching from many enlightened masters. Padmasambhava taught the Dzogchen Khandro Nyingthig to numerous beings in India's eight great sacred places and China, and introduced and spread Buddhism throughout Tibet."
At least one scholar that I have read has serious doubts about the life story of Padmasambhava. However, this may indicate an early spreading of Dzogchen/Shikantaza-like teachings to China.
Red Pine, in the Zen Teachings of Bodhidharma, says, "As early as AD 65, a community of Buddhist monks was reported living under royal patronage in the northern part of Kiangsu Province, not far from the birthplace of Confucius, and the first monks had probably arrived a hundred years earlier."
This seems to contradict the first statement because according to Wikipedia the Buddha lived "from about 623 BCE to 543 BCE."
Then in an interview I found from Buddhadharma: The Practitioner's Quarterly, Spring 2004 (here). The interviewer asks: "If a student asked you to compare shikantaza, silent illumination, Dzogchen and Vipassana, how would approach that kind of question?
"TENZIN WANGYAL: There are a few issues we are mixing here. We are talking about formless meditation and we are also talking about the commonality in different traditions. In essence, formless meditation has got to be the same, because formless is formless. What makes the difference is the form, how one is introduced to the form, the development of the form, and how one enters into the formless from there. These are the things that create the differences.
"In the buddhadharma, there are many tenet systems, doctrinal systems, and as a result there are differences we have to acknowledge, for example between Madhyamika and Cittamatra. In the monastery, people study these for years and try to understand the fine points of difference. But these differences do not mean one is good and the other is bad. The point is to come to deeper understanding. For example, some aspects of Hinduism and Shaivism seem so similar to Dzogchen. Are they really similar or not? That’s a big question and it could be quite worthwhile to debate it.
"When it comes to the formless, every tradition has different ways to do it. I always encourage students to listen to other teachers and to gain more understanding, but it’s always important to have one thing that you follow completely. That’s not a question of one being better than another; it’s more a question of energy and time. If you’re focusing on too many things, you might not have anything in the end."
Keith
Keith
Keith
Smiles to everyone!
Keith
Keith
If I may also add that both mystical Islam and mystical Christianity have traditions of meditation on formlessness. In Christian terminology, the technical term "contemplation" is used for it. In Sufism the name of God is read as Al-lah, the Nothing. I imagine that mystical Judaism has a similar practice.
"Formlessness", shunyata, the Void appears to me to be the Golden Thread that links all the various Ways.
"Ive looked a little for a book that is a dialog between two Buddhists from different traditions but havent had any luck. "
Doesn't this happen every day with each other here on newbuddhist? and also within ourselves???-or if we don't, then perhaps we should...
:thumbsup:
*Thinking aloud*
Right that's it, in order to get promoted higher, I'll need to post more mundane and sometimes controversial drivel...that will will make me powerfull! hahah the POWER!!!
:winkc:
You're quite right, Simon. According to the Kabbalah, God is only ever referred to as the creator, and when referred to by name, He is referred to as YHVH, which is pronounced something like Yod-Heh-Vav-Heh. The name implies that the name of God is unpronounceable, and therefore unknowable. Each syllable also has affiliations with the four primordial elements: Yod- fire, Heh-water, Vav-air, and Heh- earth. These elements also refer to the process of creation, where fire is the inspirational spark, water is the emotional need for creation, air is the thought behind the creation process, and earth is the creation made physical.
Theres two ways of viewing Buddhism (and enlightenment). Some people say that one has to rush in and wave their arms around and huff and puff and struggle to reach their destination.
Others, watch this, sigh to themselves, and quietly shuffling along.
Buddhism, of late, has become highly complex. Today, to become a Buddhist, to become an Arhat, one has to have many teachers and follow a lifetime of struggling and ritual.
Back in the Buddhas time, some people just listened to his words and attained enlightenment, in just one sitting....
And today in this day and age, I'm yet to meet a person who has attained enlightenment.
Just my personal observations...
Hope
Hello all (especially genryu of course),
I've come across this quote before, and if I remember right, this is Ken Wilber describing Andrew Cohen.
Now, Andrew Cohen is definately a "bad boy", but also a highly suspect "Guru", who hasn't woken anybody up as far as I know.
Just to suggest that Rude doesn't have to be good.
Regards,
Eon
I didn't know Jed McKenna, he sounds quite outrageous. :rocker:
But seriously, this has made me look at my own practice again. I have access to a teacher ( a zen monk), who is a pretty nice guy, lol.
And if I take a good, hard look inside, I'm left wondering if I'm not faking the whole thing.
Actually, I guess I am. :zombie:
Hmmmmm.
Thanks for the shakeup.
Wow! What an honest post.
Very cool.
Brigid
Well, we all are to a certain extent, Eon. Buddhist practice isn't an all-or-none thing. It's a gradual awakening. That's why it's important not to be too hard on yourself, or, as my teacher says, on the other hand not to let yourself get away with murder. It's called the middle way for good reason because it's the way between extremes. Think of it like peeling an onion layer by layer. Takes a long time and a great deal of patience, but eventually we'll get there if we persist.
Palzang
How we view enlightenment is irrelevant. Being awake has nothing to do with views. As to teachers - even the Buddha had teachers, and I have met many who have awakened, not one of which did so without a teacher at some point. If you want to meet an awakened person - they are around today as they have always been, so I'm wondering what's prevented you.
'I' is always faking. Fortunately, practice is not about 'I' or how I think I'm doing. Don't worry, as your practice continues, the nice guy will get considerably tougher with you if you are his student.
I'm a little relieved. (O.K. A lot.)
Brigid
Buddhism is as complex or as simple as the individual wishes to make it.
Remember, 'Simple' does not always mean 'Easy'...
I am a 'Simple' person, ZM will vouch for this. I am cetrtainly not as well-versed in the Sutras or teachings of the Buddha, and have little or scant knowledge of the different schools or Disciplines which abound. But I hope he would recognise that I am a willing pupil, and dedicated and sincere in my practise as anyone would be. I am endlessly willing to learn. I am always open to correction and to instruction.
Maybe I never will attain the level of expertise that some have attained, but I do not, in any way, exclude myself from the possible experience of enlightenment in my life-time....
If you want Enlightenment, by just sitting and listening, (as you say "they" did in The Buddha's Lifetime) then do likewise...
Sit and Listen....
I would however, suggest that you be prepared for a long sit....
The Buddha took six years to Sit and Listen.....