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.
Beginners make the mistake of assuming that right speech, of the Ariyan Eightfold Path, is for them. It is not. It is only for ariyasavakas. Period. Unless your are a current-winner (P., sotapanna) you can't really understand what right speech means.
Beginners make the mistake of assuming that right speech, of the Ariyan Eightfold Path, is for them. It is not. It is only for ariyasavakas. Period. Unless your are a current-winner (P., sotapanna) you can't really understand what right speech means.
Well, this is news. Silly us, all this time we thought that being mindful about speech was constructive and helped further our practice. Could you elaborate a) on your sources for this, and b) what right speech means? That would be helpful and informative.
Yes the eightfold path doesn't start until the noble view. That is what my teacher has said. The noble aryan view is a insight that unhinges the ordinary samsaric view of gain and loss and so forth.
But until then it is a good way to live life.
Buddha taught that the dharma was good in the beginning, good in the middle, and good at the end.
@Songhill could you mention some of the preliminaries during the effort towards the noble view?
Beginners make the mistake of assuming that right speech, of the Ariyan Eightfold Path, is for them. It is not. It is only for ariyasavakas. Period. Unless your are a current-winner (P., sotapanna) you can't really understand what right speech means.
;D
Interestingly enough, the only ones qualified enough to make the assessment of whether or not you are a ariyasavaka and are capable of understanding right speech are stream winners , but since they are beyond discrimination and discriminatory thought, they cannot make this assessment either. Therefore, no one can tell you whether or not the doctrine of right speech is something that you can comprehend. lol
Beginners make the mistake of assuming that right speech, of the Ariyan Eightfold Path, is for them. It is not. It is only for ariyasavakas. Period. Unless your are a current-winner (P., sotapanna) you can't really understand what right speech means.
Sorry for the bad news. Yes, the Buddha was an elitist (but spiritually so). He made a sharp distinction between worldlings (puthujjanas) and his favorites (ariya-savaka/ariya-puggala). For more information on the ruck & rabble vs the elitists I suggest reading Peter Masefield's book, Divine Revelation in Pali Buddhism.
could you mention some of the preliminaries during the effort towards the noble view?
Always one sign (sort of a secret among Theravadins) is when you enter the current you sense lots of radiant, light-like energy (I mean lots!). Your senses can't detect it. It is not connected with the five khandhas/skandhas (they belong to Mara the Buddhist devil). Let's just say, Mind (not ordinary mind) has found itself. And this is only the beginning of the path — but it is enough of a start to clue you in to the fact that the Buddha was one mystical, kick-ass dude!
P.S. Notice I didn't address how you get here. That is still somewhat of a mystery in Buddhism. The teachings of the old Zen masters about Mind are really a help. Looking for pure Mind within your own mind helps too. It's there — but it is not awareness or mindfulness — not by a long shot.
No bad news here. I may not be a stream winner, but since I started to get some control over what comes out of my mouth I've had less conflict and less guilt. I was fairly self righteous and belligerent in my younger days. My interpretation of right/wrong speech is good enough for me. When I get it wrong it's obvious.
:rolleyes: Oh my gosh, I assure you, that if he seemed this way, it was only to provide sanctuary to those with affinity for the way. calling the sakyamuni buddha an elitist (in any sense of the word) is like calling hitler a humanitarian.
For more information on the ruck & rabble vs the elitists I suggest reading Peter Masefield's book
well yes, of course, we hardly need to think for ourselves anymore, since there are PhDs around to show us the way... they never have personal interests involved in their writings, and they are never interested in meaningless circular coffee shop philosophy arguments in which they make sure to get a good distance between themselves and the buddha, because hey, lets face it , he's just not cynical and biting enough to be a really good position to adopt. I love these guys who swear up and down that " in this day and age we are more advanced than the buddha, we can look back and see how he was inferior and naive, especially from the pulpit of our divine university program."
I was fortunate to find the remnants of hakuin ekaku, a monk truly and utterly dedicated to the way, selfless, generous, disciplined in the extreme. He has a few nice things to say about such people as masefield, trungpa, etc
".........If, on the other hand, you follow the trend of the times, when you gain entry into the eighth consciousness's dark cave of unknowing you will begin crowing about what you have achieved. You will go around telling one and all how enlightened you are. You will proceed to accept, under false pretenses, the veneration and charity of others, and become one of those arrogant creatures who declares he has attained realization when he has not.
If that is the course you follow, a horrifying future lies before you. Every grain of rice that you have received as a donation will turn into a red-hot particle of iron or a burning grain of sand. Every drop of water you have received will become a speck of molten bronze or boiling excrement. Each thread of the cloth you have accepted will become part of a flaming wire net or white-hot chain.
Ahh! Hoping to free yourseIves from the press of birth and death you men have your heads shaved. You put on a black robe. But then you make the mistake of falling under the spell of a false teacher. You live out the rest of your life like this as an irresponsible, no-account man of the Way. If you die with your eyes in this unopened state, you are destined for harrowing retribution. You will head straight back to your old home in the three evil paths -- as though you had not suffered enough already! You, who have worn the surplice of a Buddhist priest, will sink to the bottom of a loathsome hellish mire and experience unending agonies. No more horrible fate is conceivable than to fall victim to the delusions these false teachers serve up to you."
seem harsh? well rightfully so. bear in mind that he did have an excellent sense of humor as well as being practically a saint.
:rolleyes: Oh my gosh, I assure you, that if he seemed this way, it was only to provide sanctuary to those with affinity for the way. calling the sakyamuni buddha an elitist (in any sense of the word) is like calling hitler a humanitarian.
I think he meant in the way that he made the distinction between the skillfull and the unskillful.
There's a story in the Bible about chicks who needed to take some lamps somewhere, and some of them forgot to bring their lamps. Jesus told them to bugger off. That could be seen as being elitist, but in reality he just didn't have time for the people who couldn't be bothered to behave properly, and to take responsibility for themselves. There's nothing you can teach people who refuse to be taught.
There's a story in the Bible about chicks who needed to take some lamps somewhere, and some of them forgot to bring their lamps. Jesus told them to bugger off. That could be seen as being elitist, but in reality he just didn't have time for the people who couldn't be bothered to behave properly, and to take responsibility for themselves. There's nothing you can teach people who refuse to be taught.
You've got it. There is no doubt that the Buddha spoke about the puthujjanas (worldlings) and ariya (the spiritual) and explained how they are different. The Buddha was no monk lover either. If you were an ariya who was a mother or just a simple farm dude, you were a member of the Triple Gem Sangha. Not even monks could become members. They had first to be ariya. It all boils down to the spiritually blind vs those who can see.
The Saviour answered and said to them, "Why do I not love you like her? When a blind man and one who sees are both together in darkness, they are no different from one another. When the light comes, then he who sees will see the light, and he who is blind will remain in darkness. ~ Gospel of Philip
I think he meant in the way that he made the distinction between the skillfull and the unskillful.
Well, that's true, sakyamuni did explain that people have varying degrees of capabilities and understanding. But he does his best to help people of all skill levels, with various methods of teachings for the various levels of capability. You could say that he gives special gifts to those with greater affinity and skillfulness, but to characterize him as an elitist.. it's just not right. Even worse is to go around trying to put people in the box of streamwinner, non streamwinner, etc. We cannot possibly know about the nature of these things.
Look, all i'm saying is, i'm fairly well read and I consider myself a buddhist and have for many years... I would never ever go around telling people what applies to them and what doesnt, what they can understand and what they cant, whether they are streamwinners or not. All these half cocked modern book salesmen love to encourage you to ingrain all these distinctions.. they love to tell you, a caustic, sarcastic, cynical,, attitude, thats what wins you the most coffee shop arguments, so that is what is the most wise. and more than anything, they love to tell you: "you cannot understand without me, and i have a better understanding because i'm tibetan, or i have a phd or whatever". Doesnt anyone else notice how rotten that is??
What if someone reads that and thinks, well the 8fold path doesnt apply to me....its only for those who have been ordained by some guru as streamwinners... how horrendous! the noble eightfold path is for everyone. If you are a beginner, NO ONE can close doors for you on this path of enlightenment. No one.. not even a buddha himself. the buddha way is as wide open as the sky. If someone tries to impose some limitation on you, or create some unnecessary difficulty for you on this path.. introduce them to Hakuin, who will bash them with his staff.
ocean, if the eightfold path IS for aryas then why would we hide that?
Clearly we can practice even if our view is not right view. But we shouldn't pretend. Actually before right view the eightfold path is no different from cognitive behavioural therapy. It is good, but we shouldn't falsely say that it is right view.
Most of us probably aren't even 'hearers - shravakas' let alone aryas or bodhisattvas.
Clearly we can practice even if our view is not right view. But we shouldn't pretend. Actually before right view the eightfold path is no different from cognitive behavioural therapy. It is good, but we shouldn't falsely say that it is right view.
well, this makes sense, and i really do understand what you mean here.
But at the same time, we should take great care not to place limitations on people who are starting on the way. and in any case, it is not our place to say, and it does us no good to draw up such concrete distinctions and hold on to them... and also other people will come to rest on such things even more so than a limited understanding of the the depth eightfold way. do you see where I'm coming from?
I don't think we should discourage effort into taming the mind. Yet we need to keep purity of teaching. As in fact the eightfold path is the noble eightfold path.
But it's like some dharma talk where they say to first cultivate bodhicitta. If we could do that we wouldn't need to hear the talk.
So the eightfold path is like: do everything right. Is that all there is to it?
So the eightfold path in some lineages is not the first ground stages and in these lineages it is keeping the purity of the teachings to make a distinction.
I don't think we should discourage effort into taming the mind. Yet we need to keep purity of teaching. As in fact the eightfold path is the noble eightfold path.
So the eightfold path is like: do everything right. Is that all there is to it?
So the eightfold path in some lineages is not the first ground stages and in these lineages it is keeping the purity of the teachings to make a distinction.
I completely understand what you're saying here, i really do. this is a good point. but look, as far as discouraging effort in taming mind, the other side of the coin is, that if you beat it into someones head that there are all these barriers in the way, all these stages, all these definitions, you are really really being inhibitive..for a few reasons, not least of all because you are subtly encouraging the mind to continue labeling and discriminating.
I don't think we should discourage effort into taming the mind. Yet we need to keep purity of teaching. As in fact the eightfold path is the noble eightfold path.
So the eightfold path is like: do everything right. Is that all there is to it?
So the eightfold path in some lineages is not the first ground stages and in these lineages it is keeping the purity of the teachings to make a distinction.
I completely understand what you're saying here, i really do. this is a good point. but look, as far as discouraging effort in taming mind, the other side of the coin is, that if you beat it into someones head that there are all these barriers in the way, all these stages, all these definitions, you are really really being inhibitive..for a few reasons, not least of all because you are subtly encouraging the mind to continue labeling and discriminating.
But that's the point of the middle path, right? Not too much one way or the other.
The initial steps requires alot of discipline and be clear about what is "right and wrong". Otherwise we'd just be like your average teenager talking about "being opened minded about all experiences".
I don't think we should discourage effort into taming the mind. Yet we need to keep purity of teaching. As in fact the eightfold path is the noble eightfold path.
So the eightfold path is like: do everything right. Is that all there is to it?
So the eightfold path in some lineages is not the first ground stages and in these lineages it is keeping the purity of the teachings to make a distinction.
I completely understand what you're saying here, i really do. this is a good point. but look, as far as discouraging effort in taming mind, the other side of the coin is, that if you beat it into someones head that there are all these barriers in the way, all these stages, all these definitions, you are really really being inhibitive..for a few reasons, not least of all because you are subtly encouraging the mind to continue labeling and discriminating.
Yeah I see what you mean in my own sangha. I asked my Lama about the 8fold path and she said that it was about the right view, at least what Buddha was talking about. But she pointed out that all of her teaches in the sangha about meditation and cultivating a good mindset for practice mesh with right view.
We are not only dealing with discouragement to practice, but we are also dealing with people who make some accomplishment and then they become ego-maniacs. So it's important to know that the eightfold path is not just meaning you meditate 30 minutes a day or read some books or whatever.
And yes the inhibitions (remarks) are valid. My lama doesn't give a list on a piece of paper of all the steps and stages. Rather our teaching comes from our own questioning and the materials talks and so forth are there to ask you to examine your own experience.
But that's the point of the middle path, right? Not too much one way or the other.
Well actually thats absolutely right.. i mean if you look at the scriptures, you can see that there was balance struck between describing stages and so on and yet not creating more confusion. And after thinking about it a bit, i can see how lack of structure can be bent to be deceptive as well. Perhaps i just have a bit of a personal vendetta because i see some modern schools and literature using terms to screw people and subjugate them.. its very disconcerting. I suppose i have forgotten about the 60's where loose and selective interpretation of buddhism created some equally strange monsters.
I suppose i have forgotten about the 60's where loose and selective interpretation of buddhism created some equally strange monsters.
It's damaged the introduction of Buddhism in Western countries is a very great manner. Destroyed many aspect of the teaching that could help people, instead it's hijacked by many wrong views that extends to today to lead people down the wrong path.
I suppose i have forgotten about the 60's where loose and selective interpretation of buddhism created some equally strange monsters.
It's damaged the introduction of Buddhism in Western countries is a very great manner. Destroyed many aspect of the teaching that could help people, instead it's hijacked by many wrong views that extends to today to lead people down the wrong path.
And yet.... many might claim this sort of thing is exactly what is needed; being a natural "evolution" that keeps religions culturally relevant and 'alive'. ::shrugs:::
As HHDL says, "Just because someone travels a road [somewhat] different than yours, does not mean he's on the wrong road...."
The only way to understand the 8fold path is to live the 8fold path so to say that you need to be such and such before commencing is poppycot. Anyone who declares having reached any kind of accomplishment or level of wisdom is a liar. Anyone that genuinely has grown in wisdom would never display the ego to declare it and wave it as a banner of superiority. The uneducated person that treats all others with respect and as a teacher is much further along the path than someone who thinks they have a full intellectual grasp of the teachings and then will argue to defend their position is too bound by ego to have moved an inch towards enlightenment. Give me someone who delights in a moment of clarity during their meditations over someone who is bound in terminology anyday. Metta Andy
It's also a matter of personal bias regarding the damage to western Buddhism. To some Trungpa is a patriarch of Shambala organized Buddhism as well as a huge author introducing to even those readers on the fringe of Buddhism. Chalk up Pema Chodron, the author, as a disciple of Trungpas. Between them there must be 30+ books.
So some people say he was a hero. And then some think he trashed Buddhism because he drank alcohol and was promiscuous and/or is not of their sect/view.
It's also a matter of personal bias regarding the damage to western Buddhism. To some Trungpa is a patriarch of Shambala organized Buddhism as well as a huge author introducing to even those readers on the fringe of Buddhism. Chalk up Pema Chodron, the author, as a disciple of Trungpas. Between them there must be 30+ books.
So some people say he was a hero. And then some think he trashed Buddhism because he drank alcohol and was promiscuous and/or is not of their sect/view.
Im sorry friend. I must do this. My brother and I do not hold bias against choygam because he drank or slept around. Rather we have read disconcerting stories about him that indicate that he imposes his will on others, is deceptive, and drunkenly agitates people and runs away calling it wisdom. Being promiscuous is not so bad, but running a sex cult is unacceptable. Drinking is not so bad, but being a drunken asshole is unacceptable.
His terrible behavior aside, as far as his sayings go, we strongly disagree. The way we see it, he was a predator in the hen house. He could have said just about anything with that robe on and had people follow him at that time and place. His 'wisdom' is a mash up of buddhist phrases, daoist sayings, fortune cookies, and various offensive phrases designed to evoke a simple emotional response. IMO he is a fraud of the worst order. I must admit that I have not read volumes of trungpa..mostly because i must hold my nose at even the most brief of his original phrases. It's when he tries to originate his own phrases that we witness monumental stupidity at it's most classical state. The fact that this person has his own cult and following is nightmarish to say the least. I have yet to read or listen to Pema Chodron much, although my brother informs me that the legacy of bullying ignorance has continued there. It requires a great act of courage for me to even read a few sayings of Trungpa, as the foul fecal stench around his 'crazy wisdom' is violently unbearable. I have dealt with street people and violent drunks for 7 years, and I have heard far more insightful phrases from people in the gutter. My assessment as a professional dealing with drunks: choygam is just another alcoholic adult-child bully with a big ego and a bigger mouth and a tiny little brain. My assessment as a collector and admirer of buddhist wisdom: choygam is just a common fake, borrowing phrases and deceiving anyone who is not educated. The things he says about buddhism are often very off. Christian churches are filled to the brim with these types btw.. your pat robertsons et al
Please friend, I beg you, if you don't want to read the scriptures, read Lin Chi [866 CE,] read Hakuin Ekaku [1686-1769], read Hui-Neng [638–713AD] read Bodhidharma [6th century CE].
The reason I'm being so mean about this is because my brother and I watched a friend who was just becoming a seeker run afoul of this miscreant choygam and the shambala cult.. by the time we got to him he was so heavily indoctrinated that we could not extricate him despite our best efforts. Over time he has become increasingly unhappy, conflicted, selfish, immoral, and unstable.. to the point where no one wants to be around him. Worst of all, the scriptures are forever lost to him because he now views them as being 'inconsequential'.. or they 'dont apply to this day and age'. Why? Because thats what his teachers told him. Why? SO THEY CAN SELL BOOKS full of trite garbage disguised as wisdom. To hell with these book salesmen!
In case you're wondering, neither I nor my brother belong to any sect or school or tradition. I love the buddhas words and i dont need an interpretation or framework.
Im sorry for being so inflammatory, but the truth is that choygam and his foul ilk like to use that nasty sardonic, condescending, shocking method of intimidation. In my experience, the only hope against that vile crap is an unstoppable bulldozer, pushing back the bullies. My intention is not to be offensive to members of this board, and I really mean that.
The reason I'm being so mean about this is because my brother and I watched a friend who was just becoming a seeker run afoul of this miscreant choygam and the shambala cult
I'll add that correlation doesn't prove causality.
If Chogyam Rinpoche is even partially responsible for the teachings of Pema Chodron, which he clearly is, that alone is a great gift to many students. Humans have both gifts and flaws, and life moves on. I'd guess some of Pema Chodron's great gifts, in fact, come from examining both her teacher's gifts, and his flaws. Take what works for you personally, and leave aside what doesn't. Always remember that what doesn't work for you, may work for others; they can decide. We don't need to (and probably shouldn't) decide for them.
I joined this forum a few months ago, and this article was the primary reason why. It spoke directly about some issues in my life at the time and I found that this article helped me gain some perspective on those issues. Thanks, AMH. I'm still working on it! :thumbsup:
If Chogyam Rinpoche is even partially responsible for the teachings of Pema Chodron, which he clearly is, that alone is a great gift to many students. Humans have both gifts and flaws, and life moves on. I'd guess some of Pema Chodron's great gifts, in fact, come from examining both her teacher's gifts, and his flaws. Take what works for you personally, and leave aside what doesn't. Always remember that what doesn't work for you, may work for others; they can decide. We don't need to (and probably shouldn't) decide for them.
I agree, but I want people to know that not everyone thinks that choygam and his legacy is wise, well informed, or even positive. I have looked through a few dozen Pema Chodron quotes, mostly they seem much the same. . soundbyte machine; condescension intimidation and a very deceptive and circular line of instruction.
"WE ALREADY HAVE everything we need. There is no need for self-improvement. All these trips that we lay on ourselves—the heavy-duty fearing that we’re bad and hoping that we’re good, the identities that we so dearly cling to, the rage, the jealousy and the addictions of all kinds—never touch our basic wealth. " -Pema Chodron
Here is a great example; this sounds on the surface to be quite enlightened.. insightful. Actually it's a nice little saying that might help some. But this is not Buddhism, this is not Sakyamuni. And worse it doesnt point back to the source directly..it passes itself off as the teaching of the buddha. Its like a nasty virus.
The correct way to teach is to say: There is nothing substantial of self, thus nothing which can be improved or left alone. These objects, 'self', 'improvement' and the corresponding negatives 'no-self' and 'non-improvement' are without inherent substance. The descriptions of good and bad are inherently without substance, as well as any object real or imagined that they describe. Basic wealth is this knowledge of self lacking substance.
The difference between the two paragraphs here is light years wide. One leads maybe to a fleeting, warm feeling, perhaps i little boost of superiority. The other leads to an unimaginable sublime state which defies description.
Look I just want to direct people back to the more difficult to understand remnants of the aforementioned masters and sakyamuni. I want to provide a little gateway, a little suggestion to examine the old stuff a little closer.. not to give in to soundbyte machines and condescension intimidation. If you disagree with me, thats fine. Im not forcing anyones opinion. But these people have had a unquestioned pulpit for years, and this is my little protest.
The reason I'm being so mean about this is because my brother and I watched a friend who was just becoming a seeker run afoul of this miscreant choygam and the shambala cult
I'll add that correlation doesn't prove causality. This is true, it doesnt automatically imply causality. and we considered many factors when we looked at the problems and worsening condition of our friend.
@oceancaldera207, different sects interpret the sutras/oral tradition and Buddha differently all down the line. Chodron is yogacara teacher which teaches buddhanature as something to be uncovered. Shentong - emptiness of other as opposed to rangtong.
These teachers are bringing a lineage tradition and putting it into english.
Chodron is of an established teaching lineage.
The quote is about Buddhanature and shunyata being our basic wealth. In Tibetan Buddhism traditionally the mind is regarded as clear, luminous, and unimpeded. It is how we can follow the path.
I am sorry that you disregard this quotation, but in any case a lot of people gravitate to both Pema and Trungpa.
Your analysis of the quotation is quite good. But Pema is making an upadesha pointing out instruction. She is showing how to look in your own experience. Kagyu is a yogic practice very much based on a guru. Some other sects of TB are more scholarly like your analysis.
The quote is about Buddhanature and shunyata being our basic wealth. In Tibetan Buddhism traditionally the mind is regarded as clear, luminous, and unimpeded. It is how we can follow the path.
I didn't simply arbitrarily disregard the quotation. Nor do i arbitrarily criticize the choygam legacy... ie have good reason. I am well aware that this was an attempt to reference buddha nature and sunyata, I'm saying its a train wreck of bad instruction from a well renowned instructor with a questionable level of understanding.
Did you read what i offered after my criticism? It is in direct correlation to the quote, (which i picked fairly randomly btw)
I have very good reasons for calling foul here. I'm saying its a lot of cleverly disguised fluff which doesnt accurately represent the principles that sakyamuni left us. All i'm saying is, if you're just beginning, and youre reading this, and you have an affinity ; read the scriptures attributed to the buddha sakyamuni. Read them faithfully. Read them all. Have lots of suspicion for so called teachers, renowned or otherwise. Think for yourself. I was lucky enough to have this advice early on, and it has served me well.
It's like you can go around criticizing gurus. And this is rhetoric by the way, I mean it is legitimate to ask questions about gurus on a Buddhist beginners website.
Anyhow you go around criticizing gurus and it's like they all have a home dug well. So you go up to each of their sanghas and say "oh that's well water. Look at the rusty tap".. "I've got a better tap in the emerald city"
So all the students go off to Oz to meet you at your emerald fountain in Oz. And then they look behind the curtain and see that the water is what's important. What I find in my experience is more important. And if I have a great relationship with a guru, a flowing of samaya back and forth...
We just all end up as occultists in Oz if we nit pick.
Incorrigibles cannot tell the difference between what is skilfull or not and so they take a long time to be enlightened. Occultists learn on their own. Mutable learn as according to their Guru. Hinayanists and Mahayanists have those respective motivations to practice.
This is the view of the Kagyu sect which you are criticizing. We can all become Buddhas.
This discussion boils down to sectarianism and anti-guru rhetoric in my opinion.
I hope your friend finds comfort from his difficulties!
Look I just want to direct people back to the more difficult to understand remnants of the aforementioned masters and sakyamuni. I want to provide a little gateway, a little suggestion to examine the old stuff a little closer.. not to give in to soundbyte machines and condescension intimidation. If you disagree with me, thats fine. Im not forcing anyones opinion. But these people have had a unquestioned pulpit for years, and this is my little protest.
Serva Mangalam. May those who enjoy your view find the profound wisdom of Hakuin and Shakyamuni.
I love the story of Hakuin saying "is that so?" when accused of fathering a child.
A well-known anecdote took place in this period:
A beautiful Japanese girl whose parents owned a food store lived near Hakuin. One day, without any warning, her parents discovered she was pregnant. This made her parents angry. She would not confess who the man was, but after much harassment at last named Hakuin.
In great anger the parents went to the master. "Is that so?" was all he would say. After the child was born it was brought to Hakuin. By this time he had lost his reputation, which did not trouble him, but he took very good care of the child. He obtained milk from his neighbors and everything else the child needed. A year later the girl could stand it no longer. She told her parents the truth - the real father of the child was a young man who worked in the fish market. The mother and father of the girl at once went to Hakuin to ask forgiveness, to apologize at length, and to get the child back. Hakuin willingly yielded the child, saying only: "Is that so?"[3
The reason I love Pema Chodron's teachings is that they force me to confront my own pleasantly-disguised fluff.
I don't see how Pema Chodron can be called a soundbyte machine, because I've never heard anyone put things the way she does.
We can promote our own favorite teachers without denigrating others', I hope. And however bitter one is towards a particular human, it is unfair to extend that criticism to other humans based only on association. We must judge individual behavior--not who's hand someone shook. I shook Ed Gein's hand once. Didn't know who he was at the time, but whatever.
I see absolutely nothing in Pema Chodron's actions which justify anyone flagellating her for someone else's behavior. She is very open about Chogyam Rinpoche's flaws. Are we as open about our own?
"WE ALREADY HAVE everything we need. There is no need for self-improvement. All these trips that we lay on ourselves—the heavy-duty fearing that we’re bad and hoping that we’re good, the identities that we so dearly cling to, the rage, the jealousy and the addictions of all kinds—never touch our basic wealth. " -Pema Chodron
Here is a great example; this sounds on the surface to be quite enlightened.. insightful. Actually it's a nice little saying that might help some. But this is not Buddhism, this is not Sakyamuni. And worse it doesnt point back to the source directly..it passes itself off as the teaching of the buddha. Its like a nasty virus.
I must respectfully disagree. It cannot possibly be a nasty virus to suggest we all have buddha nature; the Buddha himself said we have tathagatagarbha, Buddha nature, the buddha seed. That's her point, imo.
Westerners--Americans, at least, speaking from experience--are so overwhelmed with guilt and self-doubt that ofttimes we can't even get off the starting block. Her point is that it's unnecessary to drown ourselves in this kind of heavy-duty self-condemnation; this stylish seeking for "self-improvement." She doesn't mean we don't have room for improvement; rather that the Western concept of self-improvement, which means looking outside ourselves, is flawed; the true path to self-improvement is already in our nature. We have to reveal it, not siphon it into ourselves from someone else.
If you can't say something nice ... don't say anything at all.
haha
All right, well as always I have taken your viewpoints to heart. You guys are good people and I appreciate you very much. I promise not to be so negative in the future, but I felt that I had a serious bone to pick with these people.. now ive done it, and i'm satisfied. I just wanted to put out some opposition out there, and encourage focus on scripture. Thanks for listening. m
Are you experiencing an unimaginable sublime state which defies description?
Sometimes yes absolutely. Ive said it before in other threads, but yea, it's pretty amazing. Very very pleasurable really. Thats part of the reason why i'm so adamant about people sticking with the sutras; the payoff is incredible.. and you don't have to be a saint to benefit from them btw. correct understanding is key. despite appearances, the teachings are utterly positive, and they can and will blast you into powerful, lucid, and ecstatic states of a thousand flavors, some of which never really completely go away.big joy my friend. makes drugs look weak.
And this, mind you, is coming from a person who works a lot, has a girlfriend and has lots of everyday stresses, and not a huge amount of personal discipline...if i can find it, and use it, you probably can too.
Here's another teacher who says basically what Pema Chodron says:
"Right now, with this very mind and in this very moment, you have the potential for all temporary and ultimate happiness, even up to the peerless happiness of full enlightenment." (Lama Zopa Rinpoche, How to be Happy)
I think the teaching that we all have tathagatagarbha is clearly a valid one; I'm not sure how it can be construed as false.
"Beginners make the mistake of assuming that right speech, of the Ariyan Eightfold Path, is for them. It is not. It is only for ariyasavakas. Period. Unless your are a current-winner (P., sotapanna) you can't really understand what right speech means. "
I find this statement dangerously liable to misinterpretation, Songhill. The practice of right speech is for anyone at any level, is it not? The understanding of it is for later, of course, as you say, but these words might be interpreted as the suggestion that right speech can be crossed off the beginner's 'to do' list, which would be an absurd idea. I read it in this way the first time.
As far as I know it may be true that only current-winners can really understand what right speech means. Only current-winners could know this, just as only a current-winner could know what a current-winner is.
It seems an uncontentious point though, a bit like saying that we can't really understand the world until we are a Buddha.
The difference between the two paragraphs here is light years wide. One leads maybe to a fleeting, warm feeling, perhaps i little boost of superiority. The other leads to an unimaginable sublime state which defies description.
Yes Pema Chodron teaches that meditation is not to reach states. In her CD, Pure Meditation, she says 'meditation is not to attain pleausre.....I can hear the shockwaves going through the room and out into the corridor...' She teaches five points that she emphasizes:
Being a friend to yourself Seeing what is there Staying with difficult states Attending to the present moment No big deal
(I've listened to her CD as my main practice for maybe 3 months)
Trungpa teaches that there are three Lords of Materialism: Lord of Material, Lord of Beliefs, and Lord of States of Mind..
The meditation Pema teaches is not Dzogchen but it is 'opening outward into Dzogchen'...
The present moment is attended to but it is attended to 'as it is' whether it is pain or pleasure..
Shunryu Suzuki taught that the meditation can be painful, neutral, or pleasurable but the important point was to be there with the meditaiton..
Me: All of those teachers contradicting your point might give you pause that your understanding of the Buddha differs. I know you are convinced that your way is better, but it is no surprise that others will differ from your own interpretation.
Soto Zen (Suzuki) and Kagyu Tibetan Buddhism (Trungpa/Pema's) differ in meditation and interpretation of scripture from your own emphasis. These are whole lineages. Appeal to majority is a logical error of course but at the same time I hope you can appreciate the differences and have gentle words to have a discussion. I can assure you that my own teacher, Shenpen Hookham, has studied the scriptures during her time as a nun though of course she only has one lifetime and is not familiar with every piece.
I think the teaching that we all have tathagatagarbha is clearly a valid one; I'm not sure how it can be construed as false.
Welll, I read your last two points and considered them for a while. I also re-read the chodron quote a few more times...It seems that in the context of the tathatagharba teaching it is not incorrect..we certainly have a very good debate topic here. but I still disagree with it.. mostly because it can be far too easily misunderstood, and even in the context of the tathagatagarbha teaching it isn't quite right to say that there isn't any need for self improvement, unless you also explain that expedient means are required to remove the 'kleshas' or deluded mind states (one of which is attachment) that cover or cloud over the tathagatagarbha, or buddha mind. Ie, for gods sake dont fall down that well of 'everything is fine as is'...the kind of thing Hakuin railed against. I think a still very legitimate fear of mine is that people see this and dont intuit the deeper meaning..taking it to be another self-help phrase. and there is a very deep meaning here; the storehouse is no small deal, no cheap trinket. And I still think that my commentary here is very useful in clarification preventing misunderstanding.. although it may not be perfect either.
There is nothing substantial of self, thus nothing which can be improved or left alone. These objects, 'self', 'improvement' and the corresponding negatives 'no-self' and 'non-improvement' are without inherent substance. The descriptions of good and bad are inherently without substance, as well as any object real or imagined that they describe. Basic wealth is this knowledge of self lacking substance.
Anyways, @Sile, i appreciate that you called me to task on this, and I learned a lot from this. thank you.
If there were a quote button, @oceancaldera207, I would've quoted your worry about the danger that people might brush Pema's words off as a self-help phrase, and said, I agree!
Comments
But until then it is a good way to live life.
Buddha taught that the dharma was good in the beginning, good in the middle, and good at the end.
@Songhill could you mention some of the preliminaries during the effort towards the noble view?
Interestingly enough, the only ones qualified enough to make the assessment of whether or not you are a ariyasavaka and are capable of understanding right speech are stream winners , but since they are beyond discrimination and discriminatory thought, they cannot make this assessment either. Therefore, no one can tell you whether or not the doctrine of right speech is something that you can comprehend. lol
P.S. Notice I didn't address how you get here. That is still somewhat of a mystery in Buddhism. The teachings of the old Zen masters about Mind are really a help. Looking for pure Mind within your own mind helps too. It's there — but it is not awareness or mindfulness — not by a long shot.
Oh my gosh, I assure you, that if he seemed this way, it was only to provide sanctuary to those with affinity for the way.
calling the sakyamuni buddha an elitist (in any sense of the word) is like calling hitler a humanitarian. well yes, of course, we hardly need to think for ourselves anymore, since there are PhDs around to show us the way... they never have personal interests involved in their writings, and they are never interested in meaningless circular coffee shop philosophy arguments in which they make sure to get a good distance between themselves and the buddha, because hey, lets face it , he's just not cynical and biting enough to be a really good position to adopt. I love these guys who swear up and down that " in this day and age we are more advanced than the buddha, we can look back and see how he was inferior and naive, especially from the pulpit of our divine university program."
http://members.optushome.com.au/davidquinn000/Hakuin folder/Hakuin03.html
I was fortunate to find the remnants of hakuin ekaku, a monk truly and utterly dedicated to the way, selfless, generous, disciplined in the extreme. He has a few nice things to say about such people as masefield, trungpa, etc
".........If, on the other hand, you follow the trend of the times, when you gain entry into the eighth consciousness's dark cave of unknowing you will begin crowing about what you have achieved. You will go around telling one and all how enlightened you are. You will proceed to accept, under false pretenses, the veneration and charity of others, and become one of those arrogant creatures who declares he has attained realization when he has not.
If that is the course you follow, a horrifying future lies before you. Every grain of rice that you have received as a donation will turn into a red-hot particle of iron or a burning grain of sand. Every drop of water you have received will become a speck of molten bronze or boiling excrement. Each thread of the cloth you have accepted will become part of a flaming wire net or white-hot chain.
Ahh! Hoping to free yourseIves from the press of birth and death you men have your heads shaved. You put on a black robe. But then you make the mistake of falling under the spell of a false teacher. You live out the rest of your life like this as an irresponsible, no-account man of the Way. If you die with your eyes in this unopened state, you are destined for harrowing retribution. You will head straight back to your old home in the three evil paths -- as though you had not suffered enough already! You, who have worn the surplice of a Buddhist priest, will sink to the bottom of a loathsome hellish mire and experience unending agonies. No more horrible fate is conceivable than to fall victim to the delusions these false teachers serve up to you."
seem harsh? well rightfully so. bear in mind that he did have an excellent sense of humor as well as being practically a saint.
Oh my gosh, I assure you, that if he seemed this way, it was only to provide sanctuary to those with affinity for the way.
calling the sakyamuni buddha an elitist (in any sense of the word) is like calling hitler a humanitarian.
I think he meant in the way that he made the distinction between the skillfull and the unskillful.
There's a story in the Bible about chicks who needed to take some lamps somewhere, and some of them forgot to bring their lamps. Jesus told them to bugger off. That could be seen as being elitist, but in reality he just didn't have time for the people who couldn't be bothered to behave properly, and to take responsibility for themselves. There's nothing you can teach people who refuse to be taught.
You could say that he gives special gifts to those with greater affinity and skillfulness, but to characterize him as an elitist.. it's just not right. Even worse is to go around trying to put people in the box of streamwinner, non streamwinner, etc. We cannot possibly know about the nature of these things.
Look, all i'm saying is, i'm fairly well read and I consider myself a buddhist and have for many years... I would never ever go around telling people what applies to them and what doesnt, what they can understand and what they cant, whether they are streamwinners or not. All these half cocked modern book salesmen love to encourage you to ingrain all these distinctions.. they love to tell you, a caustic, sarcastic, cynical,, attitude, thats what wins you the most coffee shop arguments, so that is what is the most wise. and more than anything, they love to tell you: "you cannot understand without me, and i have a better understanding because i'm tibetan, or i have a phd or whatever". Doesnt anyone else notice how rotten that is??
What if someone reads that and thinks, well the 8fold path doesnt apply to me....its only for those who have been ordained by some guru as streamwinners... how horrendous! the noble eightfold path is for everyone. If you are a beginner, NO ONE can close doors for you on this path of enlightenment. No one.. not even a buddha himself. the buddha way is as wide open as the sky. If someone tries to impose some limitation on you, or create some unnecessary difficulty for you on this path.. introduce them to Hakuin, who will bash them with his staff.
Clearly we can practice even if our view is not right view. But we shouldn't pretend. Actually before right view the eightfold path is no different from cognitive behavioural therapy. It is good, but we shouldn't falsely say that it is right view.
Most of us probably aren't even 'hearers - shravakas' let alone aryas or bodhisattvas.
But at the same time, we should take great care not to place limitations on people who are starting on the way. and in any case, it is not our place to say, and it does us no good to draw up such concrete distinctions and hold on to them... and also other people will come to rest on such things even more so than a limited understanding of the the depth eightfold way. do you see where I'm coming from? please dont look at things this way..., its not like this... this is how labels become impediments
But it's like some dharma talk where they say to first cultivate bodhicitta. If we could do that we wouldn't need to hear the talk.
So the eightfold path is like: do everything right. Is that all there is to it?
So the eightfold path in some lineages is not the first ground stages and in these lineages it is keeping the purity of the teachings to make a distinction.
We are not only dealing with discouragement to practice, but we are also dealing with people who make some accomplishment and then they become ego-maniacs. So it's important to know that the eightfold path is not just meaning you meditate 30 minutes a day or read some books or whatever.
And yes the inhibitions (remarks) are valid. My lama doesn't give a list on a piece of paper of all the steps and stages. Rather our teaching comes from our own questioning and the materials talks and so forth are there to ask you to examine your own experience.
Perhaps i just have a bit of a personal vendetta because i see some modern schools and literature using terms to screw people and subjugate them.. its very disconcerting. I suppose i have forgotten about the 60's where loose and selective interpretation of buddhism created some equally strange monsters.
As HHDL says, "Just because someone travels a road [somewhat] different than yours, does not mean he's on the wrong road...."
Anyone who declares having reached any kind of accomplishment or level of wisdom is a liar. Anyone that genuinely has grown in wisdom would never display the ego to declare it and wave it as a banner of superiority.
The uneducated person that treats all others with respect and as a teacher is much further along the path than someone who thinks they have a full intellectual grasp of the teachings and then will argue to defend their position is too bound by ego to have moved an inch towards enlightenment.
Give me someone who delights in a moment of clarity during their meditations over someone who is bound in terminology anyday.
Metta
Andy
So some people say he was a hero. And then some think he trashed Buddhism because he drank alcohol and was promiscuous and/or is not of their sect/view.
I think I love you, Andy. :thumbsup:
"Give me someone who listens to me and speaks with me about things, over someone who cuts off my words with memorized scriptures any day."
My brother and I do not hold bias against choygam because he drank or slept around. Rather we have read disconcerting stories about him that indicate that he imposes his will on others, is deceptive, and drunkenly agitates people and runs away calling it wisdom. Being promiscuous is not so bad, but running a sex cult is unacceptable. Drinking is not so bad, but being a drunken asshole is unacceptable.
His terrible behavior aside, as far as his sayings go, we strongly disagree. The way we see it, he was a predator in the hen house. He could have said just about anything with that robe on and had people follow him at that time and place. His 'wisdom' is a mash up of buddhist phrases, daoist sayings, fortune cookies, and various offensive phrases designed to evoke a simple emotional response. IMO he is a fraud of the worst order.
I must admit that I have not read volumes of trungpa..mostly because i must hold my nose at even the most brief of his original phrases. It's when he tries to originate his own phrases that we witness monumental stupidity at it's most classical state. The fact that this person has his own cult and following is nightmarish to say the least. I have yet to read or listen to Pema Chodron much, although my brother informs me that the legacy of bullying ignorance has continued there. It requires a great act of courage for me to even read a few sayings of Trungpa, as the foul fecal stench around his 'crazy wisdom' is violently unbearable. I have dealt with street people and violent drunks for 7 years, and I have heard far more insightful phrases from people in the gutter. My assessment as a professional dealing with drunks: choygam is just another alcoholic adult-child bully with a big ego and a bigger mouth and a tiny little brain. My assessment as a collector and admirer of buddhist wisdom: choygam is just a common fake, borrowing phrases and deceiving anyone who is not educated. The things he says about buddhism are often very off. Christian churches are filled to the brim with these types btw.. your pat robertsons et al
Please friend, I beg you, if you don't want to read the scriptures, read Lin Chi [866 CE,] read Hakuin Ekaku [1686-1769], read Hui-Neng [638–713AD] read Bodhidharma [6th century CE].
The reason I'm being so mean about this is because my brother and I watched a friend who was just becoming a seeker run afoul of this miscreant choygam and the shambala cult.. by the time we got to him he was so heavily indoctrinated that we could not extricate him despite our best efforts. Over time he has become increasingly unhappy, conflicted, selfish, immoral, and unstable.. to the point where no one wants to be around him. Worst of all, the scriptures are forever lost to him because he now views them as being 'inconsequential'.. or they 'dont apply to this day and age'. Why? Because thats what his teachers told him. Why? SO THEY CAN SELL BOOKS full of trite garbage disguised as wisdom. To hell with these book salesmen!
In case you're wondering, neither I nor my brother belong to any sect or school or tradition. I love the buddhas words and i dont need an interpretation or framework.
Im sorry for being so inflammatory, but the truth is that choygam and his foul ilk like to use that nasty sardonic, condescending, shocking method of intimidation. In my experience, the only hope against that vile crap is an unstoppable bulldozer, pushing back the bullies. My intention is not to be offensive to members of this board, and I really mean that.
And my teacher says scripture is frozen bodhicitta whereas a guru is living bodhicitta. Is this an issue you have with all of Tibetan Buddhism?
The correct way to teach is to say: There is nothing substantial of self, thus nothing which can be improved or left alone. These objects, 'self', 'improvement' and the corresponding negatives 'no-self' and 'non-improvement' are without inherent substance. The descriptions of good and bad are inherently without substance, as well as any object real or imagined that they describe. Basic wealth is this knowledge of self lacking substance.
The difference between the two paragraphs here is light years wide. One leads maybe to a fleeting, warm feeling, perhaps i little boost of superiority. The other leads to an unimaginable sublime state which defies description.
Look I just want to direct people back to the more difficult to understand remnants of the aforementioned masters and sakyamuni. I want to provide a little gateway, a little suggestion to examine the old stuff a little closer.. not to give in to soundbyte machines and condescension intimidation.
If you disagree with me, thats fine. Im not forcing anyones opinion. But these people have had a unquestioned pulpit for years, and this is my little protest.
This is true, it doesnt automatically imply causality. and we considered many factors when we looked at the problems and worsening condition of our friend.
These teachers are bringing a lineage tradition and putting it into english.
Chodron is of an established teaching lineage.
The quote is about Buddhanature and shunyata being our basic wealth. In Tibetan Buddhism traditionally the mind is regarded as clear, luminous, and unimpeded. It is how we can follow the path.
I am sorry that you disregard this quotation, but in any case a lot of people gravitate to both Pema and Trungpa.
Did you read what i offered after my criticism? It is in direct correlation to the quote, (which i picked fairly randomly btw)
I have very good reasons for calling foul here. I'm saying its a lot of cleverly disguised fluff which doesnt accurately represent the principles that sakyamuni left us. All i'm saying is, if you're just beginning, and youre reading this, and you have an affinity
; read the scriptures attributed to the buddha sakyamuni. Read them faithfully. Read them all. Have lots of suspicion for so called teachers, renowned or otherwise. Think for yourself.
I was lucky enough to have this advice early on, and it has served me well.
Anyhow you go around criticizing gurus and it's like they all have a home dug well. So you go up to each of their sanghas and say "oh that's well water. Look at the rusty tap".. "I've got a better tap in the emerald city"
So all the students go off to Oz to meet you at your emerald fountain in Oz. And then they look behind the curtain and see that the water is what's important. What I find in my experience is more important. And if I have a great relationship with a guru, a flowing of samaya back and forth...
We just all end up as occultists in Oz if we nit pick.
Incorrigibles
Mutable
Occultists
Hinayanists
Mahayanists
Incorrigibles cannot tell the difference between what is skilfull or not and so they take a long time to be enlightened. Occultists learn on their own. Mutable learn as according to their Guru. Hinayanists and Mahayanists have those respective motivations to practice.
This is the view of the Kagyu sect which you are criticizing. We can all become Buddhas.
This discussion boils down to sectarianism and anti-guru rhetoric in my opinion.
I hope your friend finds comfort from his difficulties!
I love the story of Hakuin saying "is that so?" when accused of fathering a child.
I don't see how Pema Chodron can be called a soundbyte machine, because I've never heard anyone put things the way she does.
We can promote our own favorite teachers without denigrating others', I hope. And however bitter one is towards a particular human, it is unfair to extend that criticism to other humans based only on association. We must judge individual behavior--not who's hand someone shook. I shook Ed Gein's hand once. Didn't know who he was at the time, but whatever.
I see absolutely nothing in Pema Chodron's actions which justify anyone flagellating her for someone else's behavior. She is very open about Chogyam Rinpoche's flaws. Are we as open about our own?
I must respectfully disagree. It cannot possibly be a nasty virus to suggest we all have buddha nature; the Buddha himself said we have tathagatagarbha, Buddha nature, the buddha seed. That's her point, imo.
Westerners--Americans, at least, speaking from experience--are so overwhelmed with guilt and self-doubt that ofttimes we can't even get off the starting block. Her point is that it's unnecessary to drown ourselves in this kind of heavy-duty self-condemnation; this stylish seeking for "self-improvement." She doesn't mean we don't have room for improvement; rather that the Western concept of self-improvement, which means looking outside ourselves, is flawed; the true path to self-improvement is already in our nature. We have to reveal it, not siphon it into ourselves from someone else.
If you can't say something nice ... don't say anything at all.
All right, well as always I have taken your viewpoints to heart. You guys are good people and I appreciate you very much. I promise not to be so negative in the future, but I felt that I had a serious bone to pick with these people.. now ive done it, and i'm satisfied. I just wanted to put out some opposition out there, and encourage focus on scripture. Thanks for listening.
m
And this, mind you, is coming from a person who works a lot, has a girlfriend and has lots of everyday stresses, and not a huge amount of personal discipline...if i can find it, and use it, you probably can too.
"Right now, with this very mind and in this very moment, you have the potential for all temporary and ultimate happiness, even up to the peerless happiness of full enlightenment." (Lama Zopa Rinpoche, How to be Happy)
I think the teaching that we all have tathagatagarbha is clearly a valid one; I'm not sure how it can be construed as false.
I find this statement dangerously liable to misinterpretation, Songhill. The practice of right speech is for anyone at any level, is it not? The understanding of it is for later, of course, as you say, but these words might be interpreted as the suggestion that right speech can be crossed off the beginner's 'to do' list, which would be an absurd idea. I read it in this way the first time.
As far as I know it may be true that only current-winners can really understand what right speech means. Only current-winners could know this, just as only a current-winner could know what a current-winner is.
It seems an uncontentious point though, a bit like saying that we can't really understand the world until we are a Buddha.
Being a friend to yourself
Seeing what is there
Staying with difficult states
Attending to the present moment
No big deal
(I've listened to her CD as my main practice for maybe 3 months)
Trungpa teaches that there are three Lords of Materialism: Lord of Material, Lord of Beliefs, and Lord of States of Mind..
The meditation Pema teaches is not Dzogchen but it is 'opening outward into Dzogchen'...
The present moment is attended to but it is attended to 'as it is' whether it is pain or pleasure..
Shunryu Suzuki taught that the meditation can be painful, neutral, or pleasurable but the important point was to be there with the meditaiton..
Me: All of those teachers contradicting your point might give you pause that your understanding of the Buddha differs. I know you are convinced that your way is better, but it is no surprise that others will differ from your own interpretation.
Soto Zen (Suzuki) and Kagyu Tibetan Buddhism (Trungpa/Pema's) differ in meditation and interpretation of scripture from your own emphasis. These are whole lineages. Appeal to majority is a logical error of course but at the same time I hope you can appreciate the differences and have gentle words to have a discussion. I can assure you that my own teacher, Shenpen Hookham, has studied the scriptures during her time as a nun though of course she only has one lifetime and is not familiar with every piece.
This is nothing new to have sectarian disputes.
but I still disagree with it.. mostly because it can be far too easily misunderstood, and even in the context of the tathagatagarbha teaching it isn't quite right to say that there isn't any need for self improvement, unless you also explain that expedient means are required to remove the 'kleshas' or deluded mind states (one of which is attachment) that cover or cloud over the tathagatagarbha, or buddha mind. Ie, for gods sake dont fall down that well of 'everything is fine as is'...the kind of thing Hakuin railed against.
I think a still very legitimate fear of mine is that people see this and dont intuit the deeper meaning..taking it to be another self-help phrase. and there is a very deep meaning here; the storehouse is no small deal, no cheap trinket.
And I still think that my commentary here is very useful in clarification preventing misunderstanding.. although it may not be perfect either. Anyways, @Sile, i appreciate that you called me to task on this, and I learned a lot from this. thank you.
Here is the Tathagatagharbha Sutra, which is really a very beautiful text btw
http://huntingtonarchive.osu.edu/resources/downloads/sutras/02Prajnaparamita/Tathagatagarbha.doc.pdf