Buddhism, New Kadampa Tradition, Religion

by tenpelMarch 24, 201410:53 am

New Kadampa Tradition, Shugden and the Dangers of an Exclusivist Attitude

GUEST POST by Joanne Clark

Recently, I sat for long hours throughout the night and day beside my mother’s bed as she lay dying. I sang her hymns. I read her verses from the bible. My mala was around my wrist, ready, but it remained mostly unused. Instead, I entered my mother’s devout Christian world in order to better help her. Not only did this give her comfort, it comforted me as well to know that she could be helped. I felt a strong gratitude towards Christianity for that fact.

Unfortunately, this was not the case eleven years before, when I sat beside my father’s deathbed. All I could do then was recite mantra. I lacked the courage and insight to see what he might find comforting and what his unique needs were. I dared not enter his theistic world to better help him die and provide him comfort—because I was Buddhist. I was exclusively Buddhist, “pure” Buddhist, born-again, Kagyu Buddhist. I had taken a vow to help all sentient beings, down to the smallest insect, until every one is totally helped—yet I lacked a perspective broad enough to help my own father.

I was also psychologically damaged at that time, a cult-follower. I dressed, acted, decorated my house and spoke in ways that divorced me from my family and friends. I thought in ways that divorced me from my greater intelligence. My life had become narrowed to a single, totalistic view of the world, a simplistic menu of mantra, devotion and puja practice—nothing like the vast expanse of the Buddha’s wisdom—of Nagarjuna and Tsongkhapa’s teachings. I did not read or commune with any views outside of my single Tibetan Buddhist lineage of the time. I was a nice person, but I was unprepared for reality, unable to help a soul. This is what I call cultism—and sectarianism—at their very worst.

When I turned away from my last Dharma center and decided to study and practice in exile, through the guidance of HH Dalai Lama, it took me many years to break free of that exclusivist, narrow outlook. I wanted one practice, one thought, one “pure tradition” that would help me get better. Instead, I found myself in a nuanced, multi-dimensional, contextual, complex reality—the Buddha’s reality. There was this approach to a bad day—and that approach—and yet another approach still. I kept my vows and commitments strictly, but I discovered that they also were vast and inclusive of many realities and approaches. This new outlook became the source of my mental health and my ability finally to sit beside my mother’s deathbed and provide some small assistance in her greatest time of need.

In this context, whenever I hear protestors accusing the Dalai Lama of limiting their religious freedom, I am always shocked. That is very far from my own experience! The Dalai Lama’s approach to dharma gave me back my religious freedom—it freed me from deep biases and exclusivism. In those dark, early days of my recovery, the words that penetrated most deeply were his instructions to “read more books,” to “become a 21^st century Buddhist,” to “know the reality” and “study, study, study.” By this, he did not mean his own books—he meant the texts by the Nalanda scholars and Buddha himself and many other great Buddhist scholars, such as Kamalashila and Tsongkhapa. He also meant books by scientists and leaders of other religions. He meant that we live in a world of mass communication and interdependence and it is no longer appropriate or wise or compassionate to hide away and practice in a narrow, exclusive reality.

Recently, my courage in this regard was challenged when I found myself engaged in debate with bloggers on the website Dialogue Ireland. The comments there were full of vitriol and venom towards my teacher, the Dalai Lama, accusing him of deceit and evil intentions, of being the mastermind of a great conspiracy to take over the minds of millions of human beings. They called him a “lamaist cult leader.” Despite the fact that their comments were mostly silly, illogical and childish, they seemed to have a momentum and power and so I took upon myself the job of checking on their allegations to see if they contained any truth.

I read widely. I read Tibetan history according to legitimate mainstream scholars—and also according to biased reports such as the Trimondis, Chinese propaganda and Dalai Lama devotees. I read from the Dalai Lama’s autobiographies. I read from the websites that were quoted on Dialogue Ireland. I discovered that their allegations were all either complete fabrications, statements and facts taken out of context, or flagrant exaggerations.

Later, I discovered that there was a strong possibility these commenters had some connection to Geshe Kelsang Gyatso—because he was the only Tibetan Buddhist lama they refused to criticize. So I started reading his books as well. I have been surprised to find within them an exclusivist approach to the Dharma that is very different from the approach of my own teacher. So today I am asking how far that exclusivism goes? I ask if those protestors shouting themselves hoarse outside a Dalai Lama teaching would allow themselves the freedom to do as I am doing? Would they read the Dalai Lama’s two autobiographies? Would they read his Buddhist teachings and books on secular topics? Would they attend his conferences with scientists and religious leaders? Would they read histories of Tibet by peer-reviewed scholars? If not, how can they give themselves the right to shout?

Last October, I attended a teaching with the Dalai Lama in New York city. While waiting in line, I was subjected to a small band of protestors, shouting over and over “Dalai Lama go home.” I smiled to myself, thinking how silly that sounded, thinking to myself, “The Dalai Lama would love to go home.” But then I noticed the elderly Tibetan woman in front of me. She looked hurt and bewildered by the shouting. I wondered about her life in Tibet before leaving, whether she had suffered badly. I wondered whether she had family still in Tibet whom she worried about.

I write this only to remind Shugden protestors that reality is much bigger than their one narrow view, that there are suffering human beings involved and so, it is their duty to read widely and objectively—to know all the details and complexities of the reality they are claiming to know.

In this context, I question the exclusivist approach to dharma being taken within the NKT study program. I question its potential danger to students and to others. I question whether it is realistic—or does it limit students’ ability to help others and honor their bodhisattva vows? With only one teacher interpreting the entire Buddhist canon, with very few exceptions, I believe that the NKT study program risks being biased and dangerously limited. In his commentary on Lamrim, Geshe Kelsang writes:

If possible, we should study Nagarjuna’s Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way and Chandrakirti’s Guide to the Middle Way together with their commentaries, especially the commentaries by Je Tsongkhapa. A commentary to the Guide to the Middle Way can be found in the book Ocean of Nectar [by Geshe Kelsang himself]. The texts by Nagarjuna and Chandrakirti are like doors that open the meaning of the Perfection of Wisdom Sutras, and Je Tsongkhapa’s texts are like keys to those doors. However, if we cannot study so extensively we should study and practice according to the following Lamrim instructions because they contain the essential meaning of all the other great texts. (p. 518)

Given that “the following Lamrim instructions” are Geshe Kelsang’s own interpretation of Lamrim, and given that he lists another of his commentaries in the list of important texts students should read, it would seem that he is telling students that his teachings are sufficient and all that they need to read in order to tread on the Buddhist path.

I have never read such a statement from any teacher before. One trouble with this statement is that it might easily feed laziness and wrong views in a practitioner. For example, we in the West are prone to searching for that quick fix, that pill, that easy, cheap, fast path to enlightenment. If someone says we don’t need to work as hard as Milarepa or other great masters of the past, we might not want to argue!

I have learned from hard experience myself that the greatest, most precious of freedoms is the freedom to be informed. The first step in any totalitarian effort, whether of governments or cults, is to limit access to information. This can be blatant or very subtle—externally imposed or internally imposed. Robert Lifton (1986), who is still quoted today in discussions about cultic characteristics in groups, listed “milieu control” as the first of eight such characteristics:

Milieu Control. This involves the control of information and communication both within the environment and, ultimately, within the individual, resulting in a significant degree of isolation from society at large.

http://www.csj.org/studyindex/studymindctr/study_mindctr_lifton.htm

Ex-NKT students claim that milieu control exists in the NKT culture. They say that it is subtle in the early years of students’ involvement, but by the time a student becomes a teacher, the milieu control is blatant and rigid. They claim that teachers are not allowed to study from texts other than Geshe Kelsang’s prescribed texts—and are expelled if they bring texts from outside into NKT premises. Is that true? I cannot judge myself, but I think NKT students need to ask it—again and again.

Recently, I read a comment by an NKT student on this website which alarmed me:

… the Heart Commitment of Dorje Shugden is to follow one tradition purely without mixing while respecting everyone else’s spiritual path as appropriate for them. So individually, we choose to not mix, but externally we respect everyone’s freedom to practice as they wish.

Is this true? What does it mean to make this “Heart Commitment” (with capital letters) and not mix? I would ask Shugden worshippers if this heart commitment means any of the following:

Not reading the texts or scriptures from other religious traditions.
Not singing hymns or chanting from another tradition in order to provide comfort to another human being or bring a spirit of religious tolerance within one’s community.
Not finding out about other Buddhist traditions, such as other Tibetan Buddhist lineages, Zen, Theravada etc., in order to deepen one’s own understanding and ability to help others.
Not investigating the words of one’s teacher and being prepared to question them if necessary.
Not doing any of these things because of fear. Not reading a Nyingma text or a text by the Dalai Lama because the thought of doing so brings fear.

If Shugden supporters answer yes, would that be milieu control? Is the NKT approach to dharma exclusive and sectarian? Here is another passage from Geshe Kelsang’s commentary on Lamrim, that demonstrates his perspective on this:

If we know how to practice the whole Lamrim, we shall know how to practice all other scriptures. Whenever we receive any other teaching, we shall know where to place it within Lamrim. In this way, each new instruction we receive will amplify and reinforce those we have already learnt. Suppose someone is given a handful of rice that he or she cannot use immediately. If that person has nowhere to store the rice he will not be able to put it to good use and will have to throw it away, but if he has built a storeroom to hold bags of different cereals he will be able to put the rice in the appropriate bag and increase his store. When the time is right he will be able to put the rice to good use. Lamrim is like such a storeroom. For example, Hinayana teachings can be stored amongst the stages of the path of a person of intermediate scope. Mahayana teachings can be stored amongst the stages of the path of a person of great scope, Vajrayana teachings can be stored amongst the stages of Secret Mantra within Lamrim, teachings on dependent relationship and the middle way can be stored within the stage of superior seeing, and so forth. Without studying the entire Lamrim we may receive many different instructions and still be wondering what to do, like a person standing with a handful of rice wondering where to put it. If we are like this, we shall waste most of the instructions we receive.

Indeed, this simile lays a broad outline for Lamrim, one that could easily incorporate a non-sectarian and inclusive approach to dharma practice and study. However, in the next paragraph, Geshe Kelsang narrows this perspective down dramatically:

While the great Tibetan Master Kyabje Phabongkha was living in Kham in eastern Tibet, a Geshe arrived there from one of the great Gelug monasteries and went to receive practical instructions from a Nyingma Lama. The local people concluded that the Gelugpas had no practice since such a great Geshe needed to go looking for one. When Kyabje Phabongkha heard of this he said that it was a great shame that this Geshe had wasted so many years of instruction by failing to realize that all his previous study was to be put into practice. It was possible for the Geshe to lose so much time because he had not built the storeroom of Lamrim within his own mind. (p. 21)

Would Tsongkhapa agree with such a sectarian division carved into Lamrim? Though he was often critical of unethical practices within other lineages, he himself studied and received vows from teachers of different Tibetan Buddhist lineages. In fact, Atisha’s lineage of Lamrim spread throughout Tibet and not only to the Gelug lineage. HH Dalai Lama states in his commentary on Lamrim Chenmo:

Following Atisha’s arrival in Tibet and composition of the Lamp for the Path to Enlightenment, each of the four main schools of Tibetan Buddhism in some way adopted the pattern and structure of the stages of the path teachings. For example, in the Nyingma tradition, Longchenpa’s Mind at Ease presents the path in a way that follows the basic structure of Atisha’s approach. The same is true of Sakya Pandita’s Clear Elucidation of the Buddha’s Intent, which could be seen as a fusion of the stages of the path teachings with mind-training (lojong) teachings. Similarly, in the Kagyu tradition, Gampopa’s Jewel Ornament of Liberation presents the basic structure of the path in a manner just like what Atisha lays out. Sometimes, slightly different sequences are adopted, but basically in all of these traditions the stages of the path are very similar. For example, the Jewel Ornament of Liberation speaks of turning one’s mind away from four things. If you look at these four turnings of the mind, they echo teachings in the stages of the path tradition. (p.20)

Historically, it has been a tradition among Tibetan masters to study and also to practice all the lineages—Sakya, Kagyu, Gelug, Nyingma—and Jonang as well. This is an excellent model. We should adopt a nonsectarian approach, not just studying all of these lineages but also putting all of their teachings into practice. (p. 24)

Why couldn’t the great, inclusive “storehouse” of Lamrim that Geshe Kelsang describes be used to store “grains” from other religious traditions? Why does he use the simile to exclude? Here is what Tsongkhapa says in Lamrim Chenmo about how inclusive students need to be in their practice:

Bodhisattvas make it their goal to accomplish the good of the world [all living beings]. Since bodhisattvas must take care of students who are followers of all three lineages [those of sravakas, pratyekabuddhas, and bodhisattvas], they must train in the paths of these lineages…

By stating, ‘Those benefactors of beings who accomplish the good of the world through the knowledge of paths…’ Ajita indicates in the Ornament for Clear Knowledge that knowing the paths of the three vehicles is the method for bodhisattvas to achieve the goal they have set. Also the Mother of Conquerors [The Eighteen-Thousand-Verse Perfection of Wisdom Sutra] says:

Bodhisattvas should produce all paths—whatever is the path of a sravaka, a pratyekabuddha,or a Buddha—and should know all paths. They should also perform the deeds of these paths and bring all of them to completion. (Vol. 1: pp. 46-47)

This is in line with the words of HH Dalai Lama, who states,

… Tsong-kha-pa cites many texts, including the Perfection of Wisdom sutras, where the Buddha states that a practitioner must study, understand and actually practice all aspects of the path. If you really aspire to help many billions of living beings with diverse mental dispositions, then you have to understand and practice many diverse teachings and approaches. This is what prepares you.

Later in his commentary on Tsongkhapa’s Lamrim Chenmo, His Holiness furthers his inclusive and pluralistic viewpoint by quoting from the Buddha:

For example, in Lankavatara sutra, (Descending Into Lanka sutra), there is a statement where the Buddha identifies various types of vehicles and he calls them the vehicles of the celestial beings, vehicles of the humans, and vehicles of the disciples, vehicles of the bodhisattvas and so on– and where the point is made that as long as there would exist, among the sentient beings, tremendous diversity of mental dispositions and spiritual inclinations, there will evolve tremendously diverse forms of vehicles, spiritual vehicles. So in this sutra, the spirit of pluralism is very clearly presented. (Day Four am: HH Dalai Lama; Teaching on Tsongkhapa’s Great Treatises on the Stages of the Path; 2008, Pennsylvania, USA http://www.dalailama.com/webcasts/post/301-great-treatise-on-the-stages-of-the-path-to-englightenment

The Dalai Lama bases his nonsectarian, inclusive approach on quotes from the Buddha and Tsongkhapa. Where are the scriptural sources for the heart commitment of Shugden? Where are the scriptural sources for the claim that Shugden is a Buddha and not a mundane spirit? If one looks at the bibliographies provided in the three volumes of Tsongkhapa’s great text on Lamrim, one will find pages and pages, listing a great number of sources. However, if one looks at the bibliography of Geshe Kelsang’s commentary on Lamrim, one will find only book titles from Tharpa Publications—only books (with one exception) that are authored by Geshe Kelsang himself! Is this a subtle milieu control?

HH Dalai Lama’s main objection to the worship of Shugden is that it promotes sectarianism. NKT claim that they are not sectarian, that they practice “one tradition purely” while respecting others’ rights to practice as they please. Sectarianism is a big term, one that includes many meanings, such as partisanship, exclusivism and prejudice. Here, I have primarily focused on its meaning of exclusivism, in order to start addressing the issue in meaningful ways. I suggest that respecting others’ rights to practice as they please is limited if it does not include the freedom to share, understand and learn about others’ traditions. When you don’t permit yourself to better understand and experience another person’s reality, then it is difficult to do anything but lip service to the idea of respecting his/her religion. It is also difficult to benefit that being!

Ignorance in our world is clearly the source of intolerance, sectarian violence and hatred. Without full access to knowledge about other religions and cultures, intolerance and sectarianism cannot be combatted. This is my belief, gained through hard experience. By all means, it is important for us to embrace our own religious traditions fully and single-pointedly. However, doing this cannot be done in a narrow chamber. It cannot be done at the expense of broad knowledge and understanding. Otherwise, over time, prejudice and bias creep in and real trouble starts.

So my question to NKT students is finally this: If your mother was a devoted Nyingma practitioner, would you be able to help her if she needed you? Would your heart commitment to Dorje Shugden allow you to step into the role of a true bodhisattva and chant her Nyingma mantras and prayers?

240Comments

Add yours

1

Joanne on March 24, 2014 at 2:03 pm
Reply

I want to just comment with an apology because there are two errors in this post. The first is a page number for my first quote from Geshe Kelsang– it should be p. 518 instead of p.18. The second is my statement that there are no book titles in the bibliography to GKG’s commentary on Lamrim Chenmo. In fact, there are book titles– all of them published by Tharpa– and all of them, except one, authored by Geshe Kelsang himself.
- 2
  
  tenpel on March 24, 2014 at 3:03 pm
  Reply
  
  Thank you. I will make a correction in the post if you send me the passages highlighted and what I should replace with what content.
  - 3
    
    Joanne on March 24, 2014 at 3:46 pm
    Reply
    
    I will do!
    - 4
      
      tenpel on March 24, 2014 at 5:22 pm
      Reply
      
      Ok, done.
5

jigje on March 24, 2014 at 4:17 pm
Reply

Very well written and well said. I couldn’t agree more. Thank you, Joanne.
- 6
  
  john6747 on March 24, 2014 at 6:21 pm
  Reply
  
  I cannot deny your experience.
7

Lawrence on March 24, 2014 at 7:02 pm
Reply

Joanne – what a wonderful opinion piece. So much insight. Clearly the way to practice dharma is the way you have indicated. Buddha Shakyamuni demonstrated the same example, when he incorporated the beliefs of the Samkhyas, ascetics, Hindu Vedic scriptures, and others into his own teachings. Buddha listened extensively to the discourses and opinions of as many spiritual and non-spiritual teachers as he could find, so that he could learn from them and mix that knowledge with his own. Similarly, the great Tibetan yogi Milarepa did the same. He wisely followed Buddha Shakyamuni’s example and attained enlightenment in that very life. If fact, all the masters since the time of Buddha became masters through this non-sectarian method of practice. It is so fortunate you have came to this understanding, and hopefully you to will attain enlightenment as quickly and as easily as those before you. Ironically, you will have to ‘hold your nose’ and work to free the ignorant and deluded Shugdens from their samsaric existence. How weird is that? Keep up the research going into these matters, for it shall help free all those who hold the opposing ignorant view.
- 8
  
  Joanne on March 25, 2014 at 10:42 am
  Reply
  
  Thanks, Lawrence. You are so right when you talk about the life stories of all those great masters of the past– those biographies should be required reading for all of us (born-again?) Western Buddhists!
9

dharmaanarchist on March 24, 2014 at 8:54 pm
Reply

“Recently, my courage in this regard was challenged when I found myself engaged in debate with bloggers on the website Dialogue Ireland.”

Haha, been there, done that.

I stopped posting there when it became apparent that this is not a cult awareness site but a tantric buddhism bashing site.

Simply walk away from this type of fanatics on the war path. In German there is a saying: ` don’t engage in discussions with idiots, they will pull you down on their level and then beat you there with their years of experience`

I recently had a look at the site because I too had posted there a little when I became aware of what was going on around Sogyal Rinpoche, and it seems most reasonable people just followed that line of action, as there is hardly outsider posting there anymore. In a little corner of the internet they are stewing in their own private nastiness with a few equally fanatic followers and that’s about it. Luckily they are not very intelligent about there scheme against tantric buddhism and lamas, because their claims are so outlandish and aggressively, fanatically communicated that anyone with 7 intact brain cell will notice that this is a hate site (not unlike some nasty anti muslim blogs/websites) , not something to be taken for actual fact.
- 10
  
  tenpel on March 24, 2014 at 9:01 pm
  Reply
  
  For me its still sad that they allowed themselves to be carried away by illogical and ill informed approaches … The cult issue needs people who are able to inform others in a reasonable and factual correct manner.
  - 11
    
    john6747 on March 24, 2014 at 9:12 pm
    Reply
    
    Just some information.
    http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08026a.htm
  - 12
    
    Joanne on March 25, 2014 at 10:57 am
    Reply
    
    Dharmaanarchist and Tenzin, I am particular sad that the owner of DI, Mike Garde, has allowed himself to be carried away in this direction– anti-cult activities becoming very cult-like to my mind. Because I know him a little personally, I felt the need to try to sway him. To no avail!
    
    As for NKT chaplains, thank you John for bringing that up– I didn’t know about it. Do these chaplains receive official certification from anyone (in this country, there’s certification)? Do you know if their mission is evangelical? And what about the “Heart commitment” of Shugden– would it forbid respect and involvement in another person’s lineage or religion?
    - 13
      
      tenpel on March 25, 2014 at 11:04 am
      Reply
      
      As for the anti-cult issue, indeed former cult members (including me of course) are in danger to do the same cult stuff (with all those narrow black and white thinking, elite attitude, looking down on others who are perceived as not possessing “the truth” etc) under a new guise which is an anti-cult-group. Its just the same pattern in a different suit or cloth.
      
      As for the NKT chaplaincy I would be interested myself to learn more but based on my own experiences within NKT and prison/drug addict work as a NKT monk I am highly sceptically and worried about NKT chaplaincy work.
      - 14
        
        Joanne on March 25, 2014 at 1:03 pm
        Reply
        
        Thank you Dorje and Tenzin for putting the issues into this broader perspective. I agree with most of what you say, but would only add one point, which is the fact that Tsongkhapa was teaching to a 14th century monogamous (almost all-Buddhst) culture hidden away in the Himalayas. One aspect of the Dalai Lama’s choice to bring in a strong inclusive outlook is what he calls our need to be “21st century Buddhists.” We cannot hide in caves anymore– and whether we chose to limit our knowledge or not, google and TV make information hard to avoid! Also, the Tibetan Buddhist and Indian Buddhist practices of renunciation, of leaving for forests and caves is no longer as feasible as it was– so there seems to be a need for charitable works out in the greater community that wasn’t there in Tsongkhapa’s day. Further, it would be very difficult to find a community in today’s world that was monogamous, that believed in one’s own exclusive outlook, so one would be at odds with one’s community unless one embraced a more pluralistic outlook. So one question about exclusivism would be whether or not it is even practical in today’s world? Anyway, that is how I view the Dalai Lama’s commitment to rimed, one based on today’s reality.
        
        As for Tsongkhapa, I think he left the door open on this issue. On one hand, he was attempting to address very real troubles of unethical conduct within the monasteries and the lack of serious learning and practice occurring– so in that way, he sort of had to put strict boundaries in place. On the other hand, all of his teachings are very broad. In them, issues are viewed from many different angles, with nuances and exceptions. There’s a real inclusiveness there. In this way, he is very like the Dalai Lama. Neither he nor the Dalai Lama would ever advise students to just let themselves be swayed by this teaching or that teaching.
        
        15
        
        tenpel on March 25, 2014 at 3:10 pm
        Reply
        
        I wouldn’t go so far as to claim “the Tibetan Buddhist and Indian Buddhist practices of renunciation, of leaving for forests and caves is no longer as feasible as it was”, because it is still feasible and maybe more necessary than ever to go into solitude and to leave TV, computer and the financial world behind. It is not only feasible, there are still many who exactly do that and give a proper example of a renunciate be it in the forest tradition of Thailand or a Tibetan master like Mingyur Rinpoche and other Tibetan or Indian yogis …
        
        It is not that others have to be convinced in any way, people will see and understand true spiritual practitioners’ genuine example and qualities and these don’t depend upon an inclusive or exclusive approach but practice and inner transformation. You are not at odds with anybody if you have genuine qualities or attained Arhatship or the paths of seeing – True Cessations. It doesn’t matter how you attained those be it with an inclusive or exclusive approach, it only matters that there are people who have true cessations in their mind stream, that there is an actual Sangha Jewel. The Dalai Lama said that faith in the Dharma comes from meeting such Sangha Jewels, and from seeing their excellent and exceptional qualities also the faith in the Buddha arises. So, I think, it is not wise to place an inclusive over an exclusive approach because what counts is the realization.
        
        There are also people who like very much an exclusive approach because it has benefit, like being more focused, getting more easily into understanding etc., avoiding confusion by too many approaches (which is not the fault of an inclusive approach but the fault of a lack of wisdom) etc …
        
        I totally object to place the Dalai Lama’s approach over other approaches, this would be easily go into the direction of sectarianism. There are genuine lamas from all four Tibetan school who exclusively practice their own lineage without the slightest trace of sectarianism. Let them and their followers do that!
        
        I agree that Tsongkhapa is very much open minded and that the Dalai Lama is a perfect heir of his approach. Tsongkhapa had no worries to give the same student in one session first the Sakya Lamdre teachings and then the Kagyue Mahamudra teachings. (you find this in the biography of him by a Mongolian Gelug lama, this bio has been translated into German*, I don’t know if it exists in English, but it is one of the main sources about Tsongkhapa’s life and of course such inclusive accounts are not mentioned or told at all in the NKT) Allow yourself and others to be inspired by an inclusive approach or even praise it for your own practice but I would be hesitant to place that approach over and exclusive, non-sectarian approach.
        
        »And from this day on in every life, with the special motivation that holds others dearer than self, bless me to protect the Buddha’s teaching like my life, as you Mahatma, have done.
        
        And you in whose heart or pure appearance there is no sectarian prejudice please clear away the trouble to the Buddha’s teaching raised by the specter of sectarianism in those who become partisan when they hold you as supreme.«
        
        (The final two verses of Taktsang Lotsawa’s Biography of Tsongkhapa, Sarnath 1967, p. 619)
        
        * Das Leben des lamaistischen Heiligen Tsongkhapa Blo-bzaṅ-grags-pa (1357-1419), dargestellt anhand seiner Vita „Quellort allen Glückes“1. Teil: Übersetzung und Kommentar, XIII u. 340 S., 2. Teil: Faksimiles, 607 Tafeln. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz 1971 (Asiatische Forschungen, Band 32)
        
        16
        
        tenpel on March 25, 2014 at 3:40 pm
        Reply
        
        We cannot hide in caves anymore– and whether we chose to limit our knowledge or not, google and TV make information hard to avoid!
        
        I think Dharma will only survive if there are also those who meditate in caves and solitude and avoid google and TV. All those distractions are detrimental to cultivating calm abiding and special insight the door entry to supra mundane attainments. This doesn’t mean that social work or charity cannot be a part of peoples’ spiritual path as the Buddha-to-be has shown in his earlier lives as a Bodhisattva but at the end this Bodhisattva, the Buddha-to-be, attained enlightenment ONLY in solitude, in the forest without google and without TV – and also without Shugden 😉
        
        —
        I corrected both comments.
        
        17
        
        Dorje on March 25, 2014 at 7:48 pm
        Reply
        
        I’m afraid I don’t agree, Joanne. Tsongkhapa lived in an almost exclusively Buddhist culture with little contact with other traditions, but so did Jamyang Khyentse Wangpo and Jamgon Kongtrul, the two main lamas behind the Rimed tradition.
        I agree that work in the community could be good, but one can surely engage in that whether one is Rimed or exclusively Gelug?
        I don’t agree that Tsongkhapa’s tradition was broad in that it had a single view (Tsongkhapa’s special version of Madhyamaka) which he held to be supreme. Rimed lamas had several versions of Madhyamaka, including Tsongkhapa’s, each of which was viewed as useful and possibly interchangeable.
        Are we sure there were “very real troubles of unethical conduct within the monasteries and the lack of serious learning and practice occurring?” This might be a bit of Gelug revisionism based on a sectarian view of other traditions.
        
        18
        
        tenpel on March 25, 2014 at 9:38 pm
        
        Thank you Dorje. Your input is much appreciated. Indeed, also the claims of unethical conduct and the claim of the “total destruction of Dharma” by Lang Dharma and the degeneration claimed to the time after Lang Dharma are a part of Gelug propaganda that have a taste of sectarianism and might be Gelug revisionism.
        
        Although Tsongkhapa had a known Nyingma Lama his writings on Nyingma practices seem to be very few (I asked a known Gelug lama about this, he said there is a very tiny volume only). Please continue to shake our views.
        
        19
        
        Joanne on March 25, 2014 at 11:44 pm
        
        Tenzin, I don’t think I was doing any of the things you were saying I was doing. I think you’re taken some of my comments out of context. For example, I said renunciation practices were not AS feasible as they once were– I didn’t say they weren’t feasible at all (or not important to do). In fact, I had in mind a simple mathematical fact when I wrote that– increasing numbers of people versus dwindling numbers of forests. My entire comment was simply about context, not about whether exclusivism or inclusivism is better. I agree that both approaches have risks. All the things you say about the value of an exclusivist approach– and the value of finding one of those dwindling forests– are totally valid. They have nothing to do with what I was trying to say.
        
        I am simply observing in the Dalai Lama’s approach that he is responding to unique and rapidly changing times– distracting times, times of mass communication and information. There has never been a time in the history of Buddhism anything like this one and it has unique and big challenges. I was observing both the Dalai Lama and Tsongkhapa as leaders and reflecting on their approaches to their particular world. I was NOT prescribing what I think is right or wrong! And if you read my comment again, you will see that I conclude by saying,
        “So one question about exclusivism would be whether or not it is even practical in today’s world? Anyway, that is how I view the Dalai Lama’s commitment to rimed, one based on today’s reality.”
        
        I’m questioning and exploring different perspectives on this issue, not prescribing one or the other. There are many perspectives!
        
        As such my comment does not seem to warrant this reply from you: “I totally object to place the Dalai Lama’s approach over other approaches, this would be easily go into the direction of sectarianism.”
        
        I don’t think I was doing that.
        
        20
        
        tenpel on March 26, 2014 at 12:31 am
        
        Sorry, that I misunderstood you. True, you wrote “as feasible as it was”, I didn’t get that when I went through your comment.
        
        However, I was observing that we are praising an inclusive approach and that I started to write “exclusivist/sectarian” as if they would be the same or follow each other (also in your post at a point – when I remember correctly – both terms followed each other.)
        
        In your comment it appeared to me that you stress strongly the inclusive approach and seeing the exclusive approach as not really suited “Further, it would be very difficult to find a community in today’s world that was monogamous, that believed in one’s own exclusive outlook, so one would be at odds with one’s community unless one embraced a more pluralistic outlook. So one question about exclusivism would be whether or not it is even practical in today’s world?”. Then I was thinking, oh lets go into another direction and let’s questions our own way of thinking.
        
        I do apologize, I think I missed to take the needed time to read carefully what you said and to reply carefully. My fault. I might have done some shadow boxing: arguing with my own projections that have nothing to do with what you said.
        
        21
        
        Joanne on March 26, 2014 at 10:12 am
        
        Thank you, Tenzin. It’s difficult, though, isn’t it, because as I think about it, I also want to argue strongly for my own viewpoint! (so you have justification for responding as you have). Nonsectarian doesn’t mean not having a point of view! (But with an ability to listen to the other’s viewpoint and acknowledging its validity) So I do admit some of what you see, which is that overall I favor an inclusive outlook as being most relevant for today’s world– mainly because the risk is so scary, as seen in situations such as the NKT where exclusive means to listen only to one teacher– exclusive means to have a faith-based, born again fundamentalist approach.
        
        Anyway, I had two thoughts this morning. One is that the Dalai Lama’s inclusive approach is grounded really firmly on the Nalanda tradition– that’s his deal breaker, his way of avoiding the pitfall in inclusivism of “anything goes.” Anything doesn’t go for him! We study broadly in order to deepen our own practice and understanding, but in terms of practice and approach, the measure of this is in the Buddha’s sutras and the teachings of the Nalanda masters. We can’t just grab this practice and that practice. In this, Lamrim is very relevant. I think he has done this because as Tibetan Buddhism becomes disseminated through the world, it really risks corruption, so we need some marker, some deal breaker.
        
        In this way, I also wanted to comment that he backs his inclusive approach entirely on sound scriptural sources. It isn’t just a new approach he’s made up, but Buddha himself was extraordinarily inclusive.
        
        22
        
        Dorje on March 26, 2014 at 9:44 am
        
        Again, I’m afraid I don’t agree, Joanne. I think HH Dalai Lama’s approach comes from his predecessors and his historic inclination to practice dzogchen rather than any 21st century concerns. The fifth and thirteenth Dalai Lamas shared this (maybe others did too but they were often killed before they lived long enough to make an impact.)
        Rimed practitioners can take practices from any tradition but dzogchen is often at the heart of it. This is what Pabongkha objected to in the example kelsang gyatso gave that you quoted.
        Tsongkhapa’s approach isn’t only characterised by its exclusivism. It is a gradual path and as such is at odds with the ‘sudden’ dzogchen approach, which is why it excludes dzogchen. Arguably, with dzogchen you don’t need the study and discipline that Tsongkhapa emphasised. Hence the arguments from Gelugpas about bad morality and no study of others. For Gelugpas, the ‘others’ are dzogchen yogis and crazy tertons. In the stereotype they’re not monks and they don’t study sutras for years so they can’t be trusted. But some Gelugpas like
        HH Dalai Lama value dzogchen, that’s why the conservatives write books saying their protector will kill him.
        
        23
        
        Joanne on March 26, 2014 at 11:14 am
        
        I disagree, Dorje. Your statement is so baseless, it reminds me of some of the statements I have read by Shugden supporters! I have studied extensively from Dalai Lama 14– and I studied from Sogyal Rinpoche as well– their approaches are vastly different. I have listened to many many hours of the Dalai Lama’s teachings and I can only remember a few minutes of teachings on Dzogchen. He actually seems to favor Mahamudra over Dzogchen because he teaches a Mahamudra approach, (as one of several) when he teaches shamatha– but I can’t remember him teaching Dzogchen in that context. The vast majority of his teachings are about Lamrim, madyamaka (as explained by Nagarjuna etc.), analytical meditation (as taught by the masters Kamalashila, Tsongkhapa and Shantideva etc.), compassion (as taught by Shantideva,Tsongkhapa etc.), secular ethics and religious tolerance.
        
        The Dalai Lama never advocates a “sudden approach,”– in fact, he wept once in Australia while recounting the story of Milarepa and Gampopa saying good-bye on the bridge, in order to impress upon students the importance of viewing Dharma in the context of long, arduous eons of work. He said in that teaching, (after blowing his nose) “So don’t think quickest, easiest, cheapest– think eons, think eons!”
        
        In this context, he has criticized Dzogchen practitioners for their shallow understanding of Dzogchen in particular– and the Dharma in general. I agree that there are two texts with his commentary on Dzogchen available (mainly due to the efforts of Sogyal R). However, there is also a text with his commentary on Mahamudra available– and several on meditation (not Dzogchen), Lamrim, tantra, madyamaka, many on compassion, several on secular ethics etc. etc. There are also several texts on scientific issues, such as “The Universe in a Single Atom”. To say, as you have said,
        
        “HH Dalai Lama’s approach comes from his predecessors and his historic inclination to practice dzogchen rather than any 21st century concerns”
        
        is totally groundless and shows no understanding of his teachings and activities. Have you listened to any of his many many hours of discussions with modern scientists, global leaders, religious leaders, psychologists etc.? He’s pretty concerned and involved with 21st century!
        
        24
        
        tenpel on March 26, 2014 at 11:29 am
        
        I wouldn’t agree to posit Tsonkhapa of having an exclusive approach because he had an inclusive approach according to my knowledge, however, both of his main disciples Khedrubje and Gyaltsab Je seem to have been mainly worried to keep the heritage of Tsongkhapa as he transmitted it, as far as I got it they had an exclusive approach (I remember passages of comments by both in certain texts that indicated this to me, though I cannot say it was for sure like this.)
        
        Pagbongkha practiced in the beginning himself Dzogchen but it seems it didn’t work for him. The Dalai Lama mentioned in one of his talks that Pagbongkha was open minded in the beginning of his life but became more and more exclusive in the later parts of his life.
        
        I think a 21st Century Buddhist can also be an exclusive Buddhist. This might work very well for some, who knows.
        
        Now with respect to the Dalai Lama.s The Dalai Lamas received most of their lives teachings from other schools which they practiced and taught, not just only Dzogchen as far as I got it from the biographies. So he seems to have a genuine inclusive approach though he is a minority in the Gelug school with this approach. I assume he sees dangers in an exclusive approach (easily tending to sectarianism) and he wants to encourage the rather very very conservative and somewhat old fashioned Gelug monks to become more open minded otherwise the tradition might dry out while those conservative monks still think the tradition will only survive if they do it the old ways …
        
        25
        
        tenpel on March 26, 2014 at 11:37 am
        
        Here a quote from Kay:
        
        The political policies of the Dalai Lamas have also been informed by this inclusive orientation. It can be discerned, for example, in the Great Fifth’s (1617-82) leniency and tolerance towards opposing factions and traditions following the establishment of Gelug hegemony over Tibet in 1642; in the Great Thirteenth’s (1876-1933) modernist-leaning reforms, which attempted to turn Tibet into a modern state through the assimilation of foreign ideas and institutions (such as an efficient standing army and Western-style education); and in the Fourteenth Dalai Lama’s promotion of egalitarian principles and attempts to ‘Maintain good relations among the various traditions of Tibetan religion in exile’ (Samuel 1993: 550). This inclusive approach has, however, repeatedly met opposition from others within the Gelug tradition whose orientation has been more exclusive. The tolerant and eclectic bent of the Fifth Dalai Lama, for example, was strongly opposed by the more conservative segment of the Gelug tradition. These ‘fanatic and vociferous Gelug churchmen’ (Smith 1970: 16) were outraged by the support he gave to Nyingma monasteries, and their ‘bigoted conviction of the truth of their own faith’ (Smith 1970: 21) led them to suppress the treatises composed by more inclusively orientated Gelug lamas who betrayed Nyingma, or other non-Gelug, influences. Similary, the Thirteenth Dalai Lama’s political reforms were thwarted by the conservative element of the monastic segment which feared that modernisation and change would erode its economic base and the religious basis of the state. His spiritually inclusive approach was also rejected by contemporaries such as Pabongkha Rinpoche (1878-1943) … As with his predecessors, the current Dalai Lama’s open and ecumenical approach to religious practice and his policy of representing the interests of all Tibetans equally, irrespective of their particular traditional affiliation, has been opposed by disgruntled Gelug adherents of a more exclusive orientation. This classical inclusive/exclusive division has largely been articulated within the exiled Tibetan Buddhist community through a dispute concerning the status and nature of the protective deity Dorje Shugden.
        
        David N. Kay: Tibetan and Zen Buddhism in Britain: Transplantation, Development and Adaptation, London and New York, published by RoutledgeCurzon, ISBN 0-415-29765-6, page 43
        
        About Khedrub Je
        
        The first successor of Tsongkhapa, Khedrubje (mKhas grub rje) (1385-1483) became “quite active in enforcing a stricter orthodoxy, chasting … disciples for not upholding Tsongkhapa’s pure tradition”. [Kay pages 39, 40 citing G. Dreyfus]
        
        … from this time, as is the case with most religious traditions, there have been those within the Gelug who have interpreted their tradition ‘inclusively’, believing that their Gelug affiliation should in no way exclude the influence of other schools which constitute additional resources along the path of enlightenment. Others have adopted a more ‘exclusive’ approach, considering that their Gelug identity should preclude the pursuit of other paths and that the ‘purity’ of the Gelug tradition must be defended and preserved. [Kay pages 41,42]
        
        Click to access Tibetan%20and%20Zen%20Buddhism%20in%20Britain%20Transplantation,%20Development%20and%20Adaptation.pdf
        
        26
        
        dharmaanarchist on March 26, 2014 at 1:31 pm
        
        “Arguably, with dzogchen you don’t need the study and discipline that Tsongkhapa emphasised. Hence the arguments from Gelugpas about bad morality and no study of others. For Gelugpas, the ‘others’ are dzogchen yogis and crazy tertons. In the stereotype they’re not monks and they don’t study sutras for years so they can’t be trusted.”
        
        So those hardcore Gelugs are exclusivists, because, firstly, dzogchen doesn’t make study and a gradual approach in general superfluous.
        
        And secondly, for obvious reasons a householder is not able to go through a full time dharma training as done in the monasteries. So those Gelugs exclude everyone who is not a full time dharma practitioner from true spiritual attainment. And why? Probably to keep their monopoly of power=teacher titles, turning mostly illiterate householders into mere believers that have no chance at higher practices and attainments.
    - 27
      
      john6747 on March 26, 2014 at 7:15 am
      Reply
      
      Click to access CHAPnhs_groupBckgnd.pdf
      - 28
        
        john6747 on March 26, 2014 at 8:17 am
        Reply
        
        http://bhcg.wordpress.com/
        Whilst looking for NKT Chaplaincy this came up?
        http://www.pluralism.org/profiles/view/72365
        Looks like they may have their work cut out.
        http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2011/12/05/montanas-flathead-extremist
        
        This link will take you back to chaplaincy discussion from 2010.
        https://buddhism-controversy-blog.com/2010/12/13/nkt-chaplaincy-nkt-business-nkt-research/
29

john6747 on March 24, 2014 at 8:56 pm
Reply

‘Ironically, you will have to ‘hold your nose’ and work to free the ignorant and deluded Shugdens from their samsaric existence. How weird is that? Keep up the research going into these matters, for it shall help free all those who hold the opposing ignorant view.’

Cough!
30

john6747 on March 25, 2014 at 9:33 am
Reply

‘So my question to NKT students is finally this: If your mother was a devoted Nyingma practitioner, would you be able to help her if she needed you? Would your heart commitment to Dorje Shugden allow you to step into the role of a true bodhisattva and chant her Nyingma mantras and prayers?’

The NKT has for some time in the business of chaplaincy so I would hope they would be skilled in that area irrespective of the dying person’s spiritual preference.

My hopes are dashed.

http://www.dhammarati.org/blog/Entries/2006/11/23_chaplaincy_in_manchester.html

The above link contains this….

‘…..the group is trying to bring together a number of buddhists communities, to agree a set of ‘competencies’ (to use the health service language) of a buddhist chaplain, and a way of assessing those competencies that would give the health service a way of knowing that a buddhist chaplain, regardless of tradition or location, had a certain set of skills they could rely on.
This is not without controversy, and some groups, like the NKT, which is very active already in chaplaincy, are understandably cautious about accreditation involving other traditions. the discussion has to be handled with some sensitivity, and any structure will have to be transparent and highly consensual to get wide support.’

So it looks like the NKT may be more concerned with its ‘purity’ than the needs of the patient!
- 31
  
  tenpel on March 25, 2014 at 10:46 am
  Reply
  
  I wonder if a dying Buddhist who has faith in the Dalai Lama should welcome a NKT chaplain.
  
  I remember a prisoner who killed two persons. He was utterly wild and aggressive, well known for his violence also in prison. He started to read on his own the Harvard Lessons by HH the Dalai Lama. He was so much of impressed that he truly changed – a fact even confirmed by the wards and the director of the prison as well as others. Then there was a Shugden monk from NKT visiting him, trying to get him into the group’s stuff. Finally the monk “revealed” the “shadow sides of the Dalai Lama” to him. The prisoner later told me he was totally disturbed by it and could not sleep at the following nights. Finally I met him and we could settle the issue.
  
  And even if NKT chaplains in the UK are not as coarse and brutally as this monk (who told the “truth” with a kind smile) I wonder if they can really bear open minded the faith a person might have in the Dalai Lama or even adding to it in a positive manner without subtle distortions like “yes, [smile, smile] he is a great politician” thereby wishing to indicate that he has no spiritual qualities and is an utter mundane ordinary person who has just only political skills (if at all) …
  
  I see NKT chaplaincy with great skepticism, some very few not too narrow minded might be able to do this in a helpful way and also to learn from it, that narrow mindedness, a lack of openness and an exclusive approach won’t work in that field in any way. But I fear these are just few exceptions.
  
  More over, what if one of them starts to recite Shugden prayers on a dying person’s bed? “I will pray for you to the Wisdom Buddha [another name by them for Shugden], and he is very effective in removing obstacles”. uhh
- 32
  
  tenpel on March 25, 2014 at 10:58 am
  Reply
  
  Thank you John, this is what I fear. People cannot change the purity stuff brainwashing really. It is too much internalized. They can repress it or deny it but the exclusive, sectarian approach lingers deeply inside the mind (except for very very few exceptions who might be used by NKT to set up this chaplaincy work or to communicate it). NKT is able to tune in into other systems like NHS, schools, chaplaincy work but only to “infect” the system and make it a tool of their missionary trip and to get new “recruits” or followers.
  
  This is not without controversy, and some groups, like the NKT, which is very active already in chaplaincy, are understandably cautious about accreditation involving other traditions. the discussion has to be handled with some sensitivity, and any structure will have to be transparent and highly consensual to get wide support.
  
  I don’t think that this issue should be treated with some sensitivity but rather frankly and directly.
  There might be some cases of NKT chaplaincy who are compassionate enough to learn through their work that the exclusive/sectarian approach won’t work, and those few might be able to help others as well as themselves, it even might open their eyes that the NKT way of exclusivism/sectarianism won’t work and it might lead them finally to wake up. But this will be exceptions, 1 or 2 among the 35 NKT chaplains.
33

Dorje on March 25, 2014 at 11:10 am
Reply

Interesting article but I think it may misunderstand what Tsongkhapa did. In Civilized Shamans, Geoffrey Samuel argues convincing throughout that there were two main ways to approach the diversity of Buddhist study and practice in Tibet. These approaches later became embodied by the Rimed approach and the Gelug approach. Tsongkhapa’s synthesis came from him looking at all the different traditions, practices and stages of practice and then taking the essence of all the best useful bits and presenting them as a single homogenised path. In short, he did all the study and practice of other traditions so his followers didn’t have to. For them he presented the essence of the path in his Lam Rim Chenmo, etc.
The Rimed approach was much more about practicing and following what you wanted (of course, this only applies if your lamas give to premission to do what you want.) Someone once quipped that Rimed is really just Sarmapas practicing dzogchen, and there is undoubtedly truth to this.
So, I am saying that Gelug lamas that follow the approach of just studying from their own tradition are probably doing what Tsongkhapa wanted even if they are not doing what Tsongkhapa did. Gelugpas are of course free to take a more open approach but this has always been more the exception than the rule.
There is a lot else to comment on here, but I’ll limit myself to just mentioning the protector issue. The NKT protesters say that their protector is not sectarian because they are not taught about it as it is in Tibet and the Tibetan exile community. It is not just that it supports exclusivism. The practice actively promotes violent sectarianism, calling for the deaths of non Gelug lamas and being used to attack other traditions. What HH Dalai Lama has sought to stop isn’t the watered down version of the practice that the NKT protest to defend.
- 34
  
  tenpel on March 25, 2014 at 12:26 pm
  Reply
  
  Thank you Dorje.
  
  Yes, Samuel argues about these two approaches without judging one or the other as being better or worse (when I remember correctly), and later also David Kay used the distinction of exclusivism/inclusivism for his PhD thesis (PDF) about NKT/Shugden and the unfolding of history at Manjushri Institute in Ulverston.
  
  For me it is very good to be reminded by you that both approaches, exclusivism / inclusivism are just approaches.
  They are useful or not so useful according to the inclination of students and his capacities/abilities. A student following an inclusive approach must be aware to not be carried away by too much information and opportunities without actual starting practice, and a student following an ecxlusive approach must be aware not to be overcome by sectarianism. Exclusivism without sectarianism (being attached to one’s own school of thought and hostile towards others) is possible and there is no perversion between both.
  
  It is also true that most of the Gelugpas rather follow an exclusive approach and that the Dalai Lama with his inclusivism (or also Lama Yeshe and Lama Zopa Rinpoche with their inclusivism) are rather exceptions from the rule within the Gelug school. It would be wrong to place their approach higher than the exclusivist approach of other Gelugpas. It are just two different approaches that have their own characteristics. I think a student has the choice and should check what approach suits him better. S/He can also choose the Lama according to the result of his/her investigation what approach is better suited for the own development and also this can change over lifetime …
  
  I think, we would go astray if we allow ourselves or others to place an inclusive approach above an exclusive approach and vize versa.
  
  Thank you for your comment because it protects to fall into another sectarian trap which is to place an inclusive approach above an exclusive approach.
  
  Thank you also for your very useful remark on Shugden as praticed in NKT. Indeed Kelsang Gyatso offers a very watered down version of Shugden. He also does not accept his own root teacher’s statement about the violence of Shugden as written down in The Yellow Book. The NKT protesters are just totally ignorant about this fact and think what Kelsang Gyatso teaches about Shugden were according to the oral lineage which is not the case …
35

Joanne on March 26, 2014 at 12:06 pm
Reply

I think in terms of Dalai Lama 14, it’s easy for people to fall into assumptions about him because he’s so often in the media smiling etc. and seems to be engaged in lots of frivolous activities etc. So outside of his historical position, I simply want to provide a reality check about what he actually does on the ground, what “inclusive” actually means to him. Here is a list of the texts he has taught from since 2006, just those in the free webcasts that are available on his website http://www.dalailama.com/webcasts/category/1/publish_date/

For all of these, students are provided with copies of the text– not made to rely on his word. Dorje, do you see a leaning towards Dzogchen in these hundreds of hours of teachings?

Buddha: Heart Sutra, Four Noble Truths, Diamond Cutter Sutra, Jataka Tales, Dhammapada.

Tsongkhapa: Concise Treatise on the Stages of the Path, Song of the Stages of the Path to Enlightenment, Three Principle Paths, Principle Path to Enlightenment, Praise for Dependent Origination, Destiny Fulfilled, Lamrim Chenmo, Stages of the Path of Mantrayana.

Nagarjuna: Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way, Sixty Stanzas of Reasoning, Commentary on Bodhicitta, In Praise of the Transcendental, In Praise of Dhammadatu.

Atisha: Lamp for the Path to Enlightenment.

Shantideva: Guide to the Bodhisattva’s Way of Life (taught many times), Compendium of Trainings.

Kamalashila: Middling Stages of Meditation (taught frequently)

Third Dalai Lama: Essence of Superfine Gold.

Thogmey Sangpo: Thirty-Seven Practices of a Bodhisattva.

Longchen Rinpoche: Mind in Comfort and Ease.

Geshe Chekawa: Seven Point Mind Training.

Geshe Langri: Eight Verses of Training the Mind.

In addition, he has been teaching a yearly teaching on the 18 Great Lamrim Commentaries– this includes Pabhongka’s text.
- 36
  
  Padma Kadag on March 27, 2014 at 12:26 pm
  Reply
  
  Joanne…one could make the argument that just as those Nyingma Lamas who were teachers to HHDL , HH Dilgo Khyentse and HH Jigme Phuntsok, never “publicly” taught Great Perfection doesn’t mean it was not imbued in all Vajrayana. Why teach the Great Perfection publicly when tradition/realization requires strong guru yoga and faith in the one who is doing the teaching. Having said that…Great Perfection can be seen in the Heart Sutra, Shantideva, and Nagarjuna, as well as Shakyamuni Buddha. There is far too much talk and misunderstanding regarding great perfection.
  - 37
    
    Joanne on March 28, 2014 at 9:33 am
    Reply
    
    Padma Kadag, my response was primarily in response to Dorje stating that His Holiness emphasizes the “sudden approach” to dharma, that aspect of Dzogchen that teachers such as Sogyal Rinpoche emphasize. As even Dorje later acknowledged, he very much emphasizes a gradual approach– and he also plays down the role of devotion, stressing the need to spend years investigating one’s teacher. So in that regard, he looks much like a traditional Gelug! But I agree that he does incorporate all the TB traditions in just the way you explain, demonstrating how they all have their roots in the Buddha and Nagarjuna. So I agree with you.
    
    And Dorje, I am not quite sure on what you base your statement about Tsongkhapa and the Dalai Lama not upholding Nagarjuna’s perspective on madyamaka? Perhaps you are coming from a svatantrika madyamaka interpretation? His Holiness and Tsongkhapa both base their perspectives on Chandrakirti’s consequentialist interpretation of Nagarjuna– whereas Bhavavavika’s interpretation of Nagarjuna was more of a syllogistic logic. Is this what you are referring to? Discussing which of these is correct or whose view is more in line with Nagarjuna’s intention is beyond my capacity or beyond blog site material I think!
    - 38
      
      Dorje on March 28, 2014 at 5:58 pm
      Reply
      
      Joanne, I didn’t state that HH Dalai Lama emphasizes a sudden approach. I’ve no idea what Sogyal Rinpoche has to do with this, but he doesn’t emphasize a sudden approach either (not that I’m at all sure he would know what dzogchen was if it bit him on the arse.)
      All tantric traditions stress the need to investigate one’s lama for years (Patrul Rinpoche writes about it at length in the Kunzang Lama’i Shelung). Having a bad tantric teacher is like drinking poison.
      My point was that HH Dalai Lama’s inclusivism and nonsectarianism has dzogchen as a big part of it. He started taking these teachings in the ’70s and they seem to be more important to him than teachings from other nonGelug sources. Namgyal, for example has regular sessions devoted to Nyingma sadhanas such as a Guru Rinpoche tsokbum and Lerab Lingpa’s (a Sogyal connection?) Vajrakilaya. BTW what’s the Nalanda source for the Semnyi Ngalso?
      Of course His Holiness teaches lots of Gelug stuff. It’s his job. But I don’t think from this we can conclude what he practices or what he values.
      My other point was that dzogchen is the bete noir of consevative Gelugpas, and as such, HH Dalai Lama has faced more criticism over than taking other nonGelug teachings. As you know, Dolgyal punishes Gelugpas for touching dzogchen texts, not Sakya Lamdre texts or Kagyu Mahamudra texts. Regarding Nagarjuna, all Tibetan traditions say they get their Madhyamaka from him. Taranatha, Dolpopa, Gorampa, Shatarakshita, Ju Mipham, Rongdzom Chokyi Zangpo, Gendun Choepel, Tsongkhapa, etc. etc. They generally all see themselves as heirs of Chandrakirti as well.
      I will not judge who is right and who is not, but we must realize these claims are contentious claims as all the positions they hold are different in some way. To claim that one is the correct interpretation of Nagarjuna and Chandrakirti and to dismiss the others as svatantrika madhyamikas is a bit rude and sectarian. Not really that ‘inclusive’ at all. I’m not saying anyone is going to close ban books, convert monasteries or kill the proponents of these differing views, as the Gelugpas of the past did, but please bear in mind the question of which traditions correctly reflects Nagarjuna and Chandrakirti is not settled and has led to a fair bit or violence over the centuries.
      So, Gorampa’s version, or Ju Mipham’s version, or Tsongkhapa’s version of Madhyamaka are just that no matter how lovely their commentaries on Nagarjuna or Chandrakirti are.
      - 39
        
        Joanne on March 29, 2014 at 11:46 am
        Reply
        
        Dorje, you said, “To claim that one is the correct interpretation of Nagarjuna and Chandrakirti and to dismiss the others as svatantrika madhyamikas is a bit rude and sectarian. Not really that ‘inclusive’ at all.”
        
        I don’t know what you mean by that. In fact, when I responded to you by bringing up the subject, I had just finished listening to a long teaching by His Holiness on madyamaka, in a commentary on Lamrim Chenmo, and it was not at all dismissive of svatantrika, not at all rude and sectarian. It was a critique of the svatantrika position and a description of the debate between Prasangika and Svatantrika. I find this debate really helps me understand madyamaka, just as understanding the Mind Only school is really helpful. For example, seeing the Svatantrika position in terms of being syllogistic, and then testing whether or not that works, is profound and illuminating. It is full and enriching to enter this debate (instead of just taking on the cloak of Prasangika and believing in what my teacher says). And as I said to Tenzin earlier, having a point of view, based on logic and reasons, is not exclusive! On the other hand, having a point of view which is based on ignorance or a refusal to investigate the other’s point of view or a disrespect for the other’s right to have a point of view, is what I would call exclusive.
        
        40
        
        Dorje on March 29, 2014 at 12:48 pm
        Reply
        
        Sorry, Joanne, I’m not sure if I’m just really bad at explaining things or something else is going on.
        I said that as it is not established that Tsongkhapa accurately reflects what Nagarjuna and Chandrakirti taught (this is only believed by Gelugpas), it is not correct to say that someone who teaches from Tsongkghapa’s pespective (ie. HH Dalai Lama) is teaching from Nagarjuna and Chandrakirti’s perspective. You then suggest I’m in agreement with Bhavaviveka and the Svatantrikas. Just because someone does not agree with Tsongkhapa doesn’t mean they are svatantrikas and to suggest so is a bit rude and sectarian.
        ALL Tibetan schools hold that Nagarjuna and Chandrakirti had the highest sutra view, therefore, all would be insulted if you say they hold what they see as a lower view. Trouble is they pretty much all disagree on what Nagarjuna’s and Chandrakirti’s view is.
        It’s a great shame that many western people who look into Madhyamaka get as far as Tsongkhapa’s explanation and conclude that this is what Nagarjuna and Chandrakirti meant when it is clear Tsongkhapa introduced a whole bunch of stuff that they wouldn’t necessarily recognise. It would be good for people to read widely and understand the differences between the traditions and not just stick with one based just on what their teacher tells them.
        Might I suggest:
        http://www.shambhala.com/introduction-to-the-middle-way.html
        http://www.wisdompubs.org/book/freedom-extremes
        As far as the svatantrika/prasangika debate goes, it’s mainly a bunch of crap invented by Tibetans to argue over and put each other down about.
        
        41
        
        Joanne on April 5, 2014 at 9:42 am
        
        Dorje, it is beyond my capability to decide who does and does not reflect an accurate interpretation of Nagarjuna– I apologize, but I do not have that degree of understanding or knowledge! My comment regarding Svatantrika was not to put anyone down– or to be sectarian– but simply to observe that I found the debate between Svatantrika and Madyamaka to be useful in my own studies. Now you are presenting that there is yet another interpretation of Nagarjuna, one that I was not aware of. That’s fine– I don’t think we need to be casting slurs about it. At present, I am simply busy attempting to understand the viewpoints presented by the teachers I am studying from– I find their methods of explanation to be very clear and helpful, particularly those by Tsongkhapa and the Dalai Lama, their commentaries on Nagarjuna. I also find it helpful to try to understand the Svatantrika and Mind Only viewpoints. If I have further time, I will read the book you suggest. Then I will have to get back to you (probably in another lifetime) to tell you who I think is most faithful to Nagarjuna!
        
        42
        
        Joanne on April 5, 2014 at 10:05 am
        
        And also, Dorje, I have a bookshelf full of partially read or unread books– books by Buddha, Nagarjuna, Aryadeva, Chandrakirti, Maitreya/Asanga, Kamalashila, etc.– I find the study of these to be slow and difficult, but it is only through these that I can some day determine what is and what isn’t a reasonable interpretation of Nagarjuna. At least, that would be the approach I would take in response to your statements.
        
        43
        
        Joanne on April 5, 2014 at 10:19 am
        
        And by the way, I have just looked at the link you provided and that book is one of the books on my bookshelf! So I guess I will get to it this lifetime! (and I have read some of it and I actually do remember Mipham’s comment that the Svatantrika-Madyamaka debate is one created and sustained by Tibetan Buddhists). Interesting, isn’t it?
        
        44
        
        Dorje on April 7, 2014 at 10:27 pm
        
        Hello Joanne,
        I suppose I’m a little surprised by your comment as I thought studying widely and looking at differing view points to avoid the dangers of exclusivism was one of the things you were advocating in your post. The idea that we should just accept the single view point of HH Dalai Lama, or Kelsang Gyatso or Tsongkhapa or Ju Mipham or whoever without checking at least a little bit if what they are saying is right or not is surely the way to exclusivism. To accept their criticisms of other traditions or teachers without checking is surely the way to sectarianism.
        The Svatantrika-Prasangika distinction that you have apparently found so helpful in understanding another view is really little more than a straw man that Chandrakirti then Patsab jumped on and Tsongkhapa took further than anyone else. While I wouldn’t say it is wrong to take the Gelugpa view on this issue, to do so is to reject every other view of any Indian and Tibetan teacher on the issue. It is generally accepted the ‘Svatantrikas’ didn’t hold another view, a lower less complete view than the Prasangikas. Bhavya just thought Buddhapalita should have explained his position to outsiders better.
        What is most ironic of the whole debate is that Tsongkhapa pretty much does exactly what Chandra accused Bhavya of. How Tsongkhapa can claim to be a Prasangika when his entire approach to ultimate reality is based on logic is beyond me. Mipham joked that it must be Tibet’s strong tendrel for Svatantrika that led ‘Prasangikas’ like Tsongkhapa to actually be Svatantrikas.
        
        I think if you choose to totally immerse yourself in the Gelug viewpoint and only look at other viewpoints once you have understood what Tsongkhapa was getting at, you may regret wasting your time. Tsongkhapa’s tortured explanations of the difficult points of Nagarjuna become irrelevant when you read straight forward Tibetan Madhyamaka commentaries which just really paraphrase what Nagarjuna or Chandrakirti says. I studied this stuff at university longer ago than I care to admit and as western academia swallowed Tsongkhapa hook, line and sinker, so did I. It took me ages to get over the whole negation of inherent existence fluff. Tsongkhapa’s ‘subtle object of negation’ is so subtle that no one else ever taught it, not even Nagarjuna (except in a few verses in the MMK totally open to interpretation.)
        As Karl Brunnholzl says
        “First, with a few exceptions, the majority of books or articles on Madhyamaka by Western – particularly North American – scholars is based on the explanations of the Gelugpa school of Tibetan Buddhism . Deliberately or not, many of these Western presentations give the impression that the Gelugpa system is more or less equivalent to Tibetan Buddhism as such and that this school’s way of presenting Madhyamaka is the standard or even the only way to explain this system, which has led to the still widely prevailing assumption that this is actually the case. From the perspective of Indian and Tibetan Buddhism in general, nothing could be more wrong. In fact, the peculiar Gelugpa version of Madhaymaka is a minority position in Indo-Tibetan Buddhism, since its uncommon features are neither found in any Indian text nor accepted by any of the other Tibetan schools.”
        The Center of the Sunlit Sky. Snow Lion Publications. 2004, pg. 17
        
        Or maybe you are right. Nobody has to read anything that challenges their view if they don’t want. Maybe exclusivism is the way to go.
        
        45
        
        Dorje on April 7, 2014 at 11:14 pm
        
        Re-reading your comments, Joanne, I can see that you are open to exploring other viewpoints, which is great.
        Just so you don’t get accidentally accused of sectarianism again, don’t conflate Tsongkhapa and Nagarjuna’s position, don’t call anyone else a svatantrika, and don’t claim to know what svatantrika’s position was by just studying the words of their opponents.
        That way we’ll all get along just fine.
        
        46
        
        tenpel on April 8, 2014 at 6:39 am
        
        Jay Garfield told recently in his public talks to Buddhist about a better approach to study with respect to Chittamatra. He criticized how narrow Chittamatra is often presented (or mispresented), and encouraged to read their origin texts. He commented something like ‘to understand communism you wouldn’t read the texts from fascists about communism.’ I think he is very right, and this approach is recommendable also to Madhyamika. Our respected teacher in Italy always said: those masters, although incredible masters (like Shantarakshita, Kamalashila etc), didn’t get the right view. I couldn’t swallow that.
        
        47
        
        Dorje on April 8, 2014 at 10:19 pm
        
        I agree, Tenzin. We should look at a teacher’s position from what they taught and engage with it on that level. The monastic curriculum often was reduced to just memorising stock arguments and refutations of opponent philosophical positions based largely on misrepresenting their positions.
        
        I think what happened in Tibet was started by Shantarakshita in that he sought to synthesize Madhyamaka with Yogacara and Pramana. Nothing wrong with this in principle. In fact I think it was an excellent way to present Mahayana to a newly Buddhist culture. But the three don’t really go together that well and attempts to synthesize them, like Tsongkhapa’s unifying Madhyamaka with Pramana turns Madhyamaka into something neither Nagarjuna nor Chandrakirti would recognise. Chandra totally rejected Bavaviveka’s attempts to use logic to explain relative truth and said Bhavya was just addicted to logic. Later Gorampa criticised Tsongkhapa in exactly the same way.
        
        The trouble with all this is the arguments are never settled. The Gelug view didn’t become the dominant normative version of Madhyamaka because they won the argument on some monastery’s debating ground but because they banned the opposition. Gorampa’s texts were banned for centuries, only released in the ’50s, the Jonangpa school (who held the ‘Shentong’ position) were banned with their texts sealed and their monasteries converted, and the Gelug critic of Tsongkhapa’s position, Gendun Chophel, was imprisoned, tortured and subsequently died.
        
        Unlike other Tibetan traditions, the Gelugpas stress the sutra view and say that realisation without a correct understanding of this view is not possible. Other schools stress experience in tantra, mahamudra and dzogchen. Gelugpas see a conceptual understanding of madhyamaka as a prerequisite before tantra. I’m guessing that this is one reason why they are so strict about which view is correct and which ones are not, and the sectarianism of Pabongkha and maybe the NKT come from this need to distinguish between right and wrong philosophical positions.
        
        48
        
        tenpel on April 9, 2014 at 9:48 am
        
        I think if one looks into the life of the Buddha (according to Pali canon) it becomes clear that most of the Gelug assertions are not based too much in reality. The Buddha had to cultivate the 1st to the 4th concentration to prepare his mind to attain finally enlightenment. His enlightenment was based therefore on the fourth concentration when I get it correctly.
        
        His disciples attained stream entry (path of seeing), the state of noreturner or even Arhatship based on their karma and the speech of the Buddha. For instance the Buddha’s father Shuddhodana attained Arhatship on his dying bed based on Buddha’s speech. There was no talk of the object of negation or even calm abiding. The five ascetics attained Arhatship based on this discourse of the Buddha Anatta-lakkhana Sutta. These spontaneous realisations remind me strongly on the Mahamudra approach where the karmic relation, the karma of the student and the power of realisation of the master lead to the access to insight of the student. Later all things became more complicated …
    - 49
      
      dharmaanarchist on March 29, 2014 at 11:53 am
      Reply
      
      “Padma Kadag, my response was primarily in response to Dorje stating that His Holiness emphasizes the “sudden approach” to dharma, that aspect of Dzogchen that teachers such as Sogyal Rinpoche emphasize. As even Dorje later acknowledged, he very much emphasizes a gradual approach– and he also plays down the role of devotion, stressing the need to spend years investigating one’s teacher.”
      
      Sorry, but HHDL does not play down the role of devotion. The HHDL is not someone who is in depth teaching vajrayana publicly to everyone because he has no control over who comes to those events. Doing so would be irresponsible. Furthermore HHDL is not someone who thinks everyone should practice vajrayana. Also, devotion in the context of vajrayana is something that can be easily misunderstood. He doesn’t want be the cause for those misunderstandings, therefor he steers clear from giving people reason for wrong ideas and projections.
      
      Secondly spending years to investigate ones teacher is advice that is very much in accordance with all scriptures concerning vajrayana, for example Words of my Perfect Teacher by Patrul Rinpoche.
      
      Thirdly, most people who engage in dzogchen practice will still need a gradual approach because people of the highest capacity are fairly rare.
      - 50
        
        Padma Kadag on March 29, 2014 at 1:09 pm
        Reply
        
        Well put dharmaanarchist
        
        51
        
        dharmaanarchist on March 29, 2014 at 10:00 pm
        Reply
        
        Thank you.
        
        I think that HHDL realized that a lot of westerners need to be empowered to have much more self confidence and self reliance, rather than being told to simply admire a and become dependent from a person more advanced than themselves. Because that blocks personal development rather than support it.
        
        The fact that lots of people are quite ready to completely give up self relicance in a cult group is a stark reminder how easily the idea of “devotion” can take the wrong path.
        
        True devotion is NOT throwing self reliance out of the window. Rather the opposite. And if someone doesn’t understand this fact, devotion is going to go wrong, even in a non cult environment.
        
        I think that’s the reason why HHDL doesn’t encourage devotion in a teacher.
        
        52
        
        john6747 on March 30, 2014 at 3:15 pm
        
        The memory I have of ‘discussion’ on FP is one of learning outlines and not investigating the topics presented. I felt when an attempt was made to really investigate any topic that others in the group felt I was wasting their time.
        When I look at NKT comments on Facebook the main postings are nothing but quotes from the NKT equivalent of Chairman Mao.
- 53
  
  Dorje on March 27, 2014 at 5:39 pm
  Reply
  
  Sorry Joanne, I think you may have misunderstood what I meant. The point I was making was the HH Dalai Lama’s inclusion of dzogchen makes him most objectionable to exclusive Gelugpas and this non-sectarian approach comes from his predecessors rather than because of it being the 21st Century. As he says:
  “I always encourage people to receive teachings from the teachers of diverse traditions. This is like the Fifth Dalai Lama and many other great lamas, who received teachings within many traditions. Since the late 1960’s and early 1970’s, down to today, I have been practicing this way myself.”
  As Tenzin rightly says, a exclusivist can also take an interest in science and other religions. I understand, for example, that Kelsang Gyatso had meetings with the Catholic monk Thomas Merton before Marton’s death and planned to move to one of his centres.
  To understand non-sectarianism in a Tibetan context you need to understand where the sectarian fault lines are. Samuel goes a long way to explaining this with his description of clerical and shamanic models. The former is typically monastic, stresses morality and study, the latter is non-celibate and stresses spiritual power and mystical experience, such as those involved in discovering terma. This split is why a conservative Gelugpa would be more critical of of a fellow Gelugpa studying dzogchen based on a terma rather than a Kagyu mahamudra text, for example.
  The list of teachings show HH Dalai Lama teaches almost almost exclusively from the Gelug tradition. This isn’t surprising given his role and relationship to that tradition. (By the way, he explains madhyamaka from Tsongkhapa’s point of view, not Nagarjuna’s, but that’s besides the point.)
  But one shouldn’t necessarily infer what one practices by what one teaches. The only dzogchen text on your list is Longchenpa’s Semnyi Ngalso. I understand HH Dalai Lama’s approach to dzogchen and that he likes Longchenpa’s approach as he puts dzogchen in a gradual path scheme which fits with the Dalai Lama’s ideas.
  In any case, there are many ways to present dzogchen and if HH Dalai Lama’s approach is different to another teacher who claims to teach dzogchen is neither here nor there.
54

Joanne on March 26, 2014 at 12:11 pm
Reply

And thank-you, Tenpel, for that historical perspective– they concord with what I have read in historical accounts of Tibet such as van Schaik’s and also Tsongkhapa’s biography.
55

Joanne on March 26, 2014 at 1:32 pm
Reply

And historically, it is not unreasonable to point to exclusivism as being largely responsible for Tibet’s recent demise. They were maybe a little blinkered in their vision, like horses with blinkers, unable to look to either side of the path (or behind) in order to better see what was coming and how to avert disaster. Thus, the reason for the Dalai Lamas’ positions over history. Thus current Dalai Lama’s broad approach.

That’s another view of exclusivism– blinker vision.
56

john6747 on March 26, 2014 at 5:57 pm
Reply

Indulge me and read this.
http://overcomeproblems.com/catholic_church.htm
- 57
  
  Joanne on March 27, 2014 at 10:35 pm
  Reply
  
  Sorry, John, I’ve got my hands full trying to have an opinion about Buddhist reform…
58

john6747 on March 27, 2014 at 10:39 am
Reply

Dorje Shugden has arisen in the minds of many dependent upon many factors. Both pro and anti Shugden groups apparently believe that Shugden has the power to harm or protect them.

On what basis is this assumption made?

The debate over whether Shugden is, or is not, a harmful worldly spirit or an enlightened being is destined to end in deadlock as it is something which cannot be proved. It is a matter of faith.

As Shugden has arisen in dependence upon other factors he has not arisen ‘under his own steam’ and only exists according to the attributes he has been given by us ‘poor mortals’.

So where is the harm or otherwise? The answer does not lie in discrete nature of Shugden, but in the minds of the those that have created him.

I am reminded of a plaque outside the UNESCO building in Paris…
‘….That since wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defences of peace must be constructed’.
And so. Shugden has arisen in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that…..
….well it is up to you.
- 59
  
  tenpel on March 27, 2014 at 10:47 am
  Reply
  
  Maybe its not that easy. For Tibetans Shugden is a living being 😉
  However, how you relate to it depends upon the mind. How he acts depends on his and other people’s mind.
  Your thoughts exclude Shugden (from their perspective) to be an agent that acts and whose actions can be experienced.
  
  You can see this maybe like Berlusconi:
  However, how you relate to Berlusconi depends upon the mind. How Berlusconi acts depends on his and other people’s mind [a pretty women might get nice jewelery but has to do some service, and another politician might be bribed to follow Berlusconi’s command].
  Berlusconi is an agent that acts and whose actions can be experienced.
- 60
  
  dharmaanarchist on March 27, 2014 at 12:09 pm
  Reply
  
  “The debate over whether Shugden is, or is not, a harmful worldly spirit or an enlightened being is destined to end in deadlock as it is something which cannot be proved. It is a matter of faith.”
  
  But if DS is indeed a malevolent spirit that poisons it’s worshippers minds then as a result the worshippers must show visible signs of such demon induced negativity.
  
  Which is very obviously the case, as it can be observed in the tonality and type of actions those worshippers take to discredit and harm HHDL and other DS ban proponents.
  
  Now if the DS worshippers were all tolerant, saintly, bodhisattvalike followers of the buddhas teachings it could be argued that DS is indeed a holy being. But this is very visibly for everyone not the case. Or do you think that the anti HHDL protests and other acitvities are in any way in accordance with for example Shantidevas Way of the Bodhisattva and other texts that the Gelug tradition accepts as valid dharma?
  - 61
    
    tenpel on March 27, 2014 at 12:42 pm
    Reply
    
    The question is if Shudgen poisons their mind or if attachment, ego and hostility do that … or if both do it together …
    
    NKT would argue they only protest because they “love” the Dalai Lama. So for them no attachment, ego and hostility is involved and these are “peaceful protest” by “pure practitioners” out of “great love”.
    - 62
      
      dharmaanarchist on March 27, 2014 at 5:42 pm
      Reply
      
      Wow. That sounds like delusion and denial on a psychiatrically relevant level….
      - 63
        
        tenpel on March 27, 2014 at 8:35 pm
        Reply
        
        dharmaanarchist, according to NKT logic, I would argue:
        
        I am very sorry for you, that you cannot see our pure motivation. You must be deluded. I am so sorry for you. Pleases stop telling lies. Your aggression harms yourself. We just want to free pure Buddhadharma from politics. We love the Dalai Lama but we must stop his actions. As Geshe-la says “I can guarantee that the NKT and myself have never performed inappropriate actions and will never do so in the future, this is our determination. We simply concentrate on the flourishing of holy Buddhadharma throughout the world – we have no other aim. I hope people gradually understand our true nature and function.” http://www.send2press.com/PRnetwire/pr_02_1125-dalailama.shtml
        
        64
        
        dharmaanarchist on March 27, 2014 at 9:11 pm
        Reply
        
        I think this attitude is called passive-aggressive.
        
        Trampling over someone else while sugar-coating it with a wannabe benevolent motivation
        
        65
        
        tenpel on March 27, 2014 at 9:29 pm
        
        I am so sorry, that you do not understand our true motivation and function. I will ask my protector to bless you to see our true motivation and function. Sometimes our delusions carry us away.
        
        66
        
        noname on March 28, 2014 at 9:25 am
        
        “Passive-aggressive”? You mean like, “A simple prayer for developing love and compassion, similar to the Lords Prayer” Yeah, now I get what you.mean by “Trampling over someone else while sugar-coating it with a wannabe benevolent motivation”. Like the late Michael Jackson, you do not appear to have any mirrors in your house.
        
        67
        
        tenpel on March 28, 2014 at 10:39 am
        
        We just do a simple prayer for love and compassion, the Dalai Lama is forbidding us to do. We cannot understand this. He is a politician. We are his poor victims, please save us! You could write letters to your local parliament member and explain the situtation. In India our dear friends were cut off from having water! See here the important report:
        
        We are really the outcasts of society. And we did never ever anything wrong. It is only due to the Dalai Lama’s evil actions. We just want peace, we love peace!
68

john6747 on March 27, 2014 at 1:55 pm
Reply

The Tibetans may consider Shugden as a living being.

‘Your thoughts exclude Shugden (from their perspective) to be an agent that acts and whose actions can be experienced.’

My thoughts excluded ‘Shugden as an agent that acts and whose actions can be experienced’ on purpose. Just as I exclude God as being an agent whose actions can be experienced.

‘Maybe its not that easy. For Tibetans Shugden is a living being ;-)’

The Tibetans may consider Shugden as a living being and they are free to do so.

My view is, If he is a living being, then we need to see him. So far, all we have is people acting in certain ways and attributing the cause of their actions to Shugden. Berlusconi’s existence is confirmed as he can be seen etc. and society agrees that what we see before us is called Berlusconi.

‘However, how you relate to it depends upon the mind. How he acts depends on his and other people’s mind’.

This again is not my view as the reference is toward some external agent entering the equation which is supposed to be a contributing factor in peoples’ thinking.

I do not deny the Tibetans have this experience which may stem from ancient history. The whole importance of this debate for the Tibetans is to establish the status which can be legitimately applied to something they ‘consider to be a living being’
As I said in my previous post….

“The debate over whether Shugden is, or is not, a harmful worldly spirit or an enlightened being is destined to end in deadlock as it is something which cannot be proved. It is a matter of faith.”
- 69
  
  tenpel on March 27, 2014 at 9:36 pm
  Reply
  
  Ah John, I see you are a proponent that things only exist if you can see them. But there might be beings that our sense faculties and mind cannot perceive whereas others’ sense faculties and mind can perceive them. So whose perception is valid?
  
  We argue here in the realm of spirits and Buddhas. Take the example, when Ajahn Mun attained Nirvana, Buddhas and Arhats appeared to him and congratulated him. He also gave teachings to gods from the god realm and sent his students away when he did so. Do these Buddhas, Arhats and gods exist or not just because (most of) his students couldn’t perceive them?
  
  Click to access acariya-mun.pdf
  
  It is not a matter of faith it is a matter of valid cognition and what are valid cognizers, so you enter the realm of valid cognizers. But it seems you belong to the class of “materialists” that do only accept what they can directly see (this is one philosophical school discussed within Buddhism). Consequently you must also deny Karma and rebirth …
70

john6747 on March 28, 2014 at 9:50 am
Reply

I will read your reference to Ajahn Mun later. Thankyou.
Until then, I discuss here only the influence of Shugden on followers and non-followers and leave Karma and Rebirth for other times.

‘But there might be beings that our sense faculties and mind cannot perceive whereas others’ sense faculties and mind can perceive them. So whose perception is valid?’

Well, I could directly perceive something, or I could infer something, or I could believe testimony from someone I trusted.

On the first, this question arises. How many of the above can claim to have direct perception of Shugden? On the second, there will be many of the above who will infer the discrete existence of Shugden. Third, I would suggest the majority ‘know’ Shugden via the route of a trusted teacher and rely on faith.

As the difference in perception is transmitted to their followers by GKG and the Dalai Lama, who are trusted teachers and presumably claiming personal experience, then your question, ‘Whose perception is valid?’ arises.

If Shugden did exist independent of any other factor and the observers had the clarity to ‘see things as they really are’, then why do they give different accounts of his function?

As far as I understand, nothing can exist in this way so any representation of Shugden is in Gelug terms ‘mental fabrication’ or in ordinary parlance, ‘reification’.
- 71
  
  tenpel on March 28, 2014 at 10:47 am
  Reply
  
  I see. But if you want to discuss Shugden in a way I wonder if it is useful if you leave out that they regard him as a being that exists. It’s not just an abstract idea (for them) that is totally mentally created like a creator god for instance …
  
  The terms reification and deprecation in the context of the Madhyamaka middle way philisophical school refer to either adding more existence to a thing or to deny things the phenomenon possesses. If you see Shugden as inherently existent it would be a reification, if you see him as totally non-existent (in case he exists) it would be a deprecation of reality.
  
  A creator god is for Buddhists an non-existent thing because a permanent thing that performs functions and thereby changes cannot exist. The question is therefore rather is Shugden a total mental creation like a creator god or is he a being like you and me who cannot be perceived by everybody. And what characteristics does he really have? What is projected and what is really there as a quality or fault that performs certain functions and effect others …
  - 72
    
    john6747 on March 28, 2014 at 1:43 pm
    Reply
    
    I have noted from your previous post that the Tibetans consider Shugden as a being that exists and therefore did not exclude that from my thinking. That still leaves us with the question of how they came to know this; direct perception, inference or testimony? Perhaps a combination of ways.
    I doubt that direct perception is the answer given the number of Tibetans there are. Many cultures have their ‘truths, legends and folk tales which are transmitted orally. To listen to the ‘wise one’ and take what was said as a ‘truth’ was, and is, common. As with many oral traditions, ‘mental fabrication’ is possible.
    - 73
      
      tenpel on March 28, 2014 at 1:56 pm
      Reply
      
      True, I agree. The question is, is Shugden mere ‘mental fabrication’ or not … hard to decide. And what ever is the answer leads to another approach to deal with this topic …
      - 74
        
        john6747 on March 28, 2014 at 4:53 pm
        Reply
        
        ‘The question is, is Shugden mere ‘mental fabrication’ or not … hard to decide.’
        
        I agree but unless this is resolved, maybe not by us, then the ground on which either party stands is unsafe. Don’t build a house on sand.
        
        What is the use of building a C.V. for Shugden before we know how his existence is determined.
        
        The present problems stem from disagreement about the role Shugden plays within the Buddhist arena without first resolving whether he is ‘mere fabrication or not’.
        
        Whether the Tibetans come to know Shugden through direct experience, inference or testimony, the fact is that there is a dispute as to his function.
75

john6747 on April 4, 2014 at 9:03 am
Reply

http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/killing-the-buddha/
76

Patrick on April 5, 2014 at 9:31 pm
Reply

Hi.

I’m a Dorje Shugden practitioner in the NKT. In reply to the last question, yes I would recite mantras for her if that’s what she wanted. I don’t have anything against Nyingma Tradition. I attended many Dorje Shugden pujas and attended a Dorje Shugden empowerment in the NTK and I never heard any mention of the Nyingma Tradition. It was only when I read criticisms of the DS practice on the internet that I first heard about this tradition.

You wrote –

‘Would they read the Dalai Lama’s two autobiographies? Would they read his Buddhist teachings and books on secular topics? Would they attend his conferences with scientists and religious leaders? Would they read histories of Tibet by peer-reviewed scholars? If not, how can they give themselves the right to shout?’

The right to protest is a basic human right, it’s available to anyone in Europe and American regardless of how much they have read.

‘ But then I noticed the elderly Tibetan woman in front of me. She looked hurt and bewildered by the shouting. I wondered about her life in Tibet before leaving, whether she had suffered badly. I wondered whether she had family still in Tibet whom she worried about.
I write this only to remind Shugden protestors that reality is much bigger than their one narrow view, that there are suffering human beings involved and so, it is their duty to read widely and objectively—to know all the details and complexities of the reality they are claiming to know.’

Yes I too have seen some people who have responded to the demonstrations against the Dalai Lama with shock and with being upset. I would prefer if they didn’t feel like this. The Dalai Lama is both a religious and a political figure. It’s perfectly common in countries like the USA and England to protest against political figures, and many people in those countries don’t get upset about it. For example, I don’t get upset about people protesting against David Cameron, despite being English.

‘They claim that teachers are not allowed to study from texts other than Geshe Kelsang’s prescribed texts—and are expelled if they bring texts from outside into NKT premises. Is that true? ‘
I don’t think this is true.

With regard to the ‘Heart Commitment’ section, I’ve not head that exact statement before. With regard to Shugden Worship, there’s no rules about what you can and can’t do. The Dorje Shugden pujas at NKT Centres are open to anyone, you can come in and attend one and never come again or attend every day. I would say the only commitment is to take your shoes off before entering the meditation room 😉

‘Why couldn’t the great, inclusive “storehouse” of Lamrim that Geshe Kelsang describes be used to store “grains” from other religious traditions?’
Do you mean other non-Buddhist religions? I don’t think it can include other religions as they teach different things,such as the world being created by God rather than by people’s karma.

‘Where are the scriptural sources for the claim that Shugden is a Buddha and not a mundane spirit? ‘ I think there are some in the book ‘Heart Jewel’ by Geshe Kelsang Gyatso. I don’t have it to hand at the moment.

‘However, if one looks at the bibliography of Geshe Kelsang’s commentary on Lamrim, one will find only book titles from Tharpa Publications—only books (with one exception) that are authored by Geshe Kelsang himself!’
At the start of many of his books he explains how the teachings come from Trijang Rinpoche, his main teacher. I don’t think Trijang Rincpoche had any books published so he can’t reference them.

‘When you don’t permit yourself to better understand and experience another person’s reality, then it is difficult to do anything but lip service to the idea of respecting his/her religion. It is also difficult to benefit that being!’
Is this true? I know nothing or very little about Judaism but I hate anti-Semitism. According to Buddhism, the best way to benefit people is to become a Buddha ourselves, not to understand other religious traditions. Do Tibetans who study for a Geshe degree study other religions? I think not.

‘Ignorance in our world is clearly the source of intolerance, sectarian violence and hatred. Without full access to knowledge about other religions and cultures, intolerance and sectarianism cannot be combatted. This is my belief, gained through hard experience. By all means, it is important for us to embrace our own religious traditions fully and single-pointedly. However, doing this cannot be done in a narrow chamber. It cannot be done at the expense of broad knowledge and understanding. Otherwise, over time, prejudice and bias creep in and real trouble starts.’
There are lots of religions in the world, even lots of Buddhist traditions. How many do you have to study and know about before you are not considered sectarian? If I only study one religion am I sectarian? What about people who don’t study any religion at all, are they sectarian? I would say a good way to reduce sectarianism to other people and other views is to increase our love and compassion rather than our knowledge.

Thanks,
Patrick
- 77
  
  dharmaanarchist on April 6, 2014 at 10:02 pm
  Reply
  
  If you only ever study the works of one buddhist teacher, then how can you know that these teachings are correct and according to the tradition?
  
  You don’t even read texts of Tsongkhapa himself while claiming to follow his pure tradition. Don’t you find that strange? Kelsang could sell you all kind of hogwash as Tsongkhapas pure tradition if you don’t go back to the source of the tradition and the earlier lineage masters.
  
  The buddha taught to test the teachings like a jeweler buying gold, by rubbing it, cutting it etc before you follow it.
  
  Also, the sign that a teching is authentic is that disciples attain results in the form of spiritual progess. So, how many realized practitioners has the NKT produced so far? Do you really think those unhingedly aggressively acting “monastics” shouting out their aversion have spiritual ralisations????
  
  And did you know that what GKG is selling you as monks and nuns are actually NOT monks and nuns according to the sared and 2500 years old tradition of the buddha but a cheap GKG created made up fake. So speaking of pure traditions, this is certainly NOT a pure tradition. The upside to it is of course that all the sex scandal monks and nuns didn’t actually break any monk or nuns vow because they never held them.
  
  GKG has created nothing but a cheap imitation of the noble tradition of Je Tsongkhapa.
- 78
  
  tenpel on April 7, 2014 at 4:18 pm
  Reply
  
  Hi Patrick, quite in a haste a very brief reply to your first thoughts …
  
  “if that’s what she wanted …” this is fine because it respects the other person’s wishes.
  
  I don’t have anything against Nyingma Tradition. I attended many Dorje Shugden pujas and attended a Dorje Shugden empowerment in the NTK and I never heard any mention of the Nyingma Tradition. It was only when I read criticisms of the DS practice on the internet that I first heard about this tradition.
  
  Yes, this is a problem. In NKT there is a tremendous amount of a lack of knowledge about many things. That’s why they can be easily misled by the NKT propaganda that the Dalai Lama would oppress religious freedom without that they have any understanding that Shugden as it was transmitted and practiced is actually oppressing religious freedom. See the Yellow Book which expresses the point of view of Trijang Rinpoche about Shugden’s punishments. Kelsang Gyatso gave a watered down version to his Western followers …
  
  Sadly I lack time to go into more details. Maybe I find time in the future. When I remember correctly there were already some points in the past that weren’t addressed out of a lack of time from my side. Maybe I find time in the future. However, in all ways, first it needs expertise and knowledge before one can reasonably argue or have a fruitful exchange. Therefore, the study of reliable academic texts is quite useful in the context of NKT, Shugden and the Shugden controversy, as well as with Tibet and the Dalai Lamas.
  
  Very best wishes.
- 79
  
  Joanne on April 9, 2014 at 12:08 am
  Reply
  
  Thank you for the considered reply, Patrick. I am glad that you are confident you have full freedom in your practice as an NKT student– and that you could help that Nyingma practitioner. However, there are NKT students and ex-NKT students who have different experiences, some of whom claim they have been harmed by practices within NKT. Is it true that there is no commitment made in Dorje Shugden practice to stick to one tradition? That would be a welcome relief!
  
  I agree about the right to protest– my statement was not to deny protestors their rights. Rather, it was to call on Buddhist practitioners to remember their commitment to kindness. Perhaps shouting at elderly Tibetan women is not the best way to get their point across. Perhaps they need to remember the suffering Tibetans have endured– and are enduring still. Perhaps they need to be careful of Chinese propaganda, careful of their facts. That was my point.
  
  I have a few other problems with some of your arguments:
  
  1. You say, “I attended many Dorje Shugden pujas and attended a Dorje Shugden empowerment in the NTK and I never heard any mention of the Nyingma Tradition. It was only when I read criticisms of the DS practice on the internet that I first heard about this tradition.”
  
  In which case, you haven’t read GKG’s commentary on Lamrim– or my quote from it– in which GKG tells a story that is clearly critical of a Gelug lama who seeks teachings from a Nyingma lama. And I know you didn’t read GKG’s text– or my quote– because you make a further erroneous statement when you say,
  
  (first quoting from me) ‘Why couldn’t the great, inclusive “storehouse” of Lamrim that Geshe Kelsang describes be used to store “grains” from other religious traditions?’
  (and then you ask) Do you mean other non-Buddhist religions? I don’t think it can include other religions as they teach different things,such as the world being created by God rather than by people’s karma.”
  
  I meant the Nyingma tradition primarily– If you read what I wrote– and my quote from GKG– then it will be clear. However, Lamrim is also quite a useful way of viewing other religions as well, particularly in light of the focus on altruism existent in other religions, in light of the deeds needed for favorable rebirth.
  
  2. As Dharmaanarchist clearly stated, if the bibliographies of GKG have only one author– and that author is GKG himself– then students are being encouraged to practice blind faith. They have to take his word on everything, with no opportunity to cross-reference or question or study in a proper manner. Students are not even being provided with the full breadth of the Buddha’s teachings. It’s a little like a Christian pastor proclaiming that his preachings alone are necessary and students don’t need to study the bible anymore. It sounds very dangerous to me.
  
  3. Patrick, you say, “There are lots of religions in the world, even lots of Buddhist traditions. How many do you have to study and know about before you are not considered sectarian?”
  
  I would answer that for a Buddhist, it is critical to begin with the Kangyur and Tengyur. That’s the great base of all the Buddhist traditions, the great foundation of understanding that cuts across all traditions and sects. Without that as a foundation, your lama just might become more important than Buddha himself– more important than the great masters of Nalanda– and then there’s real trouble, real risk of dangerous sectarianism.
80

noname on April 7, 2014 at 10:35 am
Reply

“nothing like the vast expanse of the Buddha’s wisdom—of Nagarjuna and Tsongkhapa’s teachings.”
Er, “Nagarjuna and Tsongkhapa’s teachings” are themselves only a tiny part of .”the vast expanse of the Buddha’s wisdom”. Little slips like that could be interpreted as meaning that old sectarian habits are still lurking in the undergrowth
- 81
  
  Joanne on April 9, 2014 at 12:14 am
  Reply
  
  Noname, I don’t think there’s a risk of sectarianism in expressing admiration for Buddha and two great teachers. Admiring one teacher does not assume disparaging another.
82

Joanne on April 9, 2014 at 12:23 am
Reply

And Dorje, just to set the record clear with you, like most of us, I have several ideal pictures of myself which I am never close to attaining– one is to be a good meditator, the other is to be well read, to have read and reflected on all the books on psychology, history and the dharma that sit on my shelves– and then to have bought more books and studied those as well, just for the joy of knowing and digging deeper into those treasures– so you are not correct in your assumptions about my biased approach to madyamaka! I know very little about the subject and I admit to my ignorance!
83

Joanne on April 9, 2014 at 12:45 am
Reply

However, Dorje, I do need to just remark that I have studied Nagarjuna through the commentaries of both HH Dalai Lama and Tsongkhapa and I find their explanations to be very clear and logical. So I find it strange that you can be so very certain that they are WRONG. Are they completely wrong? Or perhaps they interpret certain things differently from other teachers? Perhaps there are simply differences between various commentaries and there are different opinions out there– but neither you nor I are in a position to be the final judge? Perhaps it’s not as black and white or absolute as you present it? Perhaps debate is a good thing?
- 84
  
  Dorje on April 9, 2014 at 8:20 am
  Reply
  
  That’s the trouble with the Gelug presentation, it is so clear and logical, with the exception of the difficult points. You can easily understand conventional truth as pratityasamutpada and ultimate truth as emptiness of svabhava. It makes perfect sense, it is so nice, neat and conceptual, you could almost think you’ve realised ultimate reality. No idea why emptiness came as such a shock to those arhants in the sutras, right?
  Trouble is, the other presentations actually show how little we understand and how conventional let alone ultimate reality are totally beyond the grasp of the dualistic conceptual mind. It comes as quite a shock after thinking you got it.
  I don’t think I said that Tsongkhapa was wrong. I’m of the opinion that it doesn’t matter what your position on madhyamaka is. Practice is a lot more important than theory. In the tradition I practice in there are those that hold Shentong via Jamgon Kongtrul, those that follow Gorampa via Jamyang Khyentse and those that hold views like Tsongkhapa’s via Jigme Lingpa. It doesn’t matter.
  However, in the current discussion, I think it’s important to understand the differences and how the Gelugpa insistance on correct conceptual understanding may have led to the kind of exclusivism and sectarianism that we’re talking about.
  - 85
    
    tenpel on April 9, 2014 at 10:13 am
    Reply
    
    The stressing of Tsongkhapa’s view as the only correct one is surely used by Pabongkha Rinpoche for sectarian reason. In the past when we had discussion on Tricycle I remember someone quoted Pabongkha Rinpoche who said something that those who hold a different view than Tsongkhapa will go to hell. Do you remember the quote? I can try to find it.
    - 86
      
      Dorje on April 9, 2014 at 10:38 am
      Reply
      
      Pabongkha wrote letters to local Chinese governors and warlords urging them to clamp down on nonGelug schools. In one he wrote:
      “These days the views of all Sakyas, Kagyus, Nyingmas and so on are erroneous. They are not even Svatantra or Cittamatra, let alone the view of Prasanga Madhyamaka – meditating only the nihilist view like tirthikas and Hashang. If one upholds the nihilist view, the result is nothing other than going to Avichi hell. Since they can’t recognize subtle lethargy, even their meditation is defective.”
      
      This must be seen in the wider context of Tibetan Buddhist polemics, though. They were all quite rude about each other. Gorampa, for example, said that Tsongkhapa’s vision where Manjushri taught him his unique Madhayamaka system was actually a demonic vision that lead Tsongkhapa away from the truth.
      
      But I think the idea that there is only one truth and all other paths lead to bad results is the recipe for sectarianism. As I said, most other schools don’t really think one’s sutra view is that important. Tantra, Mahamudra and Dzogchen are much more important and easier to reconcile.
87

Dorje on April 9, 2014 at 8:55 am
Reply

Just a point about right, wrong and absolutes. I don’t think we can say if Buddha, Nagarjuna, Chandrakirti, Tsongkhapa or Mipham were right or wrong about the ultimate nature of reality but we can judge comparative claims made about other teachers. For example, from what he has written, we can see Chandrakirti was against the use of logic in madhyamaka. We can see, from what he has written, Tsongkhapa was in favour of logic in establishing madhyamaka. So we can see that Tsongkhapa’s claim to be following Chandrakirti is false and not true. We can extend that to other teachers and other tenets.
Just because we are discussing ultimate reality and great teachers, I don’t think we should leave our brains at the door. It’s really not rocket science.
88

noname on April 9, 2014 at 12:29 pm
Reply

Tsong kapa wasnt ALL wrong-its just that if you posit final realisation as being understanding the non self of persons and phenomena or even this unified with the understanding that appearances arise through a process of dependent origination, you wind up half way, only explaining the mechanism by which appearances arise, not what they are ‘made of’.
Any ‘final teaching’ that doeSnt incorporate the non self existent luminous/clear cognizant nature of mind is little more than dry metaphysics and is a rejection of human nature
I even asked HH this at a public teaching”Dependent origination explains the mechanism by which reality appears but not its fabric. What is it that actually appears to the Buddha when he sees what we are seeing/” He went straight into Gelug mode since we were in public (( suspect he is privately a shentongpa) and responded with “Whatever appears to a valid cognizer that is not negated by the experience of a second valid cognizer is what appears”-Nice and logical BUT still no answer
If even prasangikas meditating on emptiness experience a luminous aspect, why cant they undrstand this as being an inherent quality of that experience (like the wetness of water or the heat of fire) Why does it have to be a relative quality-can you have wet without water?
I’ll tell you why. Because it doesnt fit the systems arguments. So if experience doesnt fit, reject direct perception and stick to theory-big mistake
- 89
  
  Dorje on April 9, 2014 at 6:00 pm
  Reply
  
  I find Shentong critiques of Tsongkhapa often kind of miss the point. In their eagerness to establish a “non self existent luminous/clear cognizant nature of mind” they seem to miss what Tsongkhapa is negating and what he is asserting. (Negating svabhava of dharmas and asserting conventional reality according to their functioning as discerned by valid cognizers.)
  I personally find Gorampa’s Freedom from Proliferation (spros bral) Madhyamaka more convincing. Conventional truth is negated as appearance to deluded minds and ultimate truth is totally beyond all conceptual categories as Nagarjuna said. Nature of mind is also beyond all conceptual categories of existence, nonexistence, both and neither, so doesn’t mean direct non-dual non-conceptual experience of it should be explained away.
- 90
  
  john6747 on April 10, 2014 at 7:39 am
  Reply
  
  Two Zen masters are in a train. There are other passengers who are very curious and keep looking at them because these two masters are wearing traditional clothing. The masters are very silent – the whole journey they are silent and do not even engage in a slightest conversation between themselves.
  
  Finally someone asks the Zen masters: “Why so silent?”
  
  One of the Zen masters replies: “I know everything. He knows everything. Why talk about anything?”
91

noname on April 9, 2014 at 12:30 pm
Reply

in mind there is no mind because the nature of mind is luminous clarity= perfect wisdom
92

noname on April 9, 2014 at 6:00 pm
Reply

Actually, that sounds like I am condemning HH, TKPa and Prasangika, which I am not. Surely, Prasangika is a perfect vehicle for those it suits. I guess there is resentment in my heart. You see, I was always attracted to Dzogchen and Mahamudra but met the Dharma at a time when the Gelug was in the ascendant in the West. As such, having been told that it was wrong to mix traditions ( before Id studied any of them in depth), that it was wrong to follow more than one master (when Id only had any contact with one) and that the Prasangika view was “the highest among all philosophical views taught in Tibet (when it was in fact only one of many, equally profound views and, in the Gelug at least, was highly idiosyncratic) I spent years studying prasangika and feeling that the teachings of the Kagyus and Nyingmas were somehow provisional and therefore inferior (ask any recent Western Gelug convert if the Buddha nature doctrine is definitive or interpretive and youll see these unquestioned assumptions come rolling out.)
So my problem is not with the system. Its with zealots who push it as superior, the one true way, the highest philosophical view. In truth, it would be impossible to understand the buddha nature without first understanding prasangika.On the other hand, I doubt the efficacy of any teaching that doesnt consider the significance of luminous clarity equal to emptiness
Anyone who reads Longchenpa, Karmapa Rangjung Dorje et al ( ie the people whose traditions Tzongkapa based his teachings on) cant fail to see that the Buddha nature doctrine is definitive teaching, not provisional. How fortunate I am to have met these teachings and to have escaped the brainwashing of philosophical zealots, the spiritual grandchildren of Pabongka the
93

Joanne on April 10, 2014 at 12:08 am
Reply

Noname, you say, “So my problem is not with the system. Its with zealots who push it as superior, the one true way, the highest philosophical view. In truth, it would be impossible to understand the buddha nature without first understanding prasangika.”

Yes, I agree– a Dzogchen teacher once told me that practicing Dzogchen without understanding madyamaka was like climbing a rock cliff without hands. And that is a good place to take this conversation, which was beginning to sound a little like zealot Gelug/Tsongkhapa/Dalai Lama bashing and not enough like a broad, considered approach. And just to add a plug for my own primary teacher, the Dalai Lama, there are several texts on his teachings that you might find very in line with your own approach– one on the nature of mind, another on Mahamudra (my favorite of all his texts) and two on Dzogchen.

I personally have a great fondness towards Mahamudra and the great teachings of the Kagyu Mahamudra masters. However, I believe that practicing Dzogchen, tantra and finally mahamudra too quickly, without a proper foundation in Buddhist basics, was the primary cause of my psychosis and suicidality ten years ago. I also believe that grounding my practice in study, logic, epistemology etc. has helped me return to mental health. These approaches play a vital role in bringing a sound form of dharma to the west. I think there’s real danger in western students grabbing for quick fixes in the dharma, without a proper foundation.

And as for whether or not the Dalai Lama or Tsongkhapa have a correct interpretation of Nagarjuna, I think Dorje, that you would have quite a time debating either of them on this topic! The Dalai Lama memorized Mulamadyamakakarika when he was quite young and has been studying it, meditating on it and teaching it for many years. He teaches from several other texts by Nagarjuna as well and never have I noticed him teaching in ways that are contrary to the root text in front of me. Never have I found in my own readings of Nagarjuna anything that is contrary to Dalai Lama teachings. So I think there are several interpretations of Nagarjuna out there and to take one as supreme might be a little shortsighted, particularly for those of us who are so new to the dharma.
- 94
  
  noname on April 10, 2014 at 12:39 pm
  Reply
  
  “there are several texts on his teachings that you might find very in line with your own approach….another on Mahamudra (my favorite of all his texts)”-i WAS THERE! Dharamsala, 83 (??)
  
  “However, I believe that practicing Dzogchen, tantra and finally mahamudra too quickly, without a proper foundation in Buddhist basics, was the primary cause of my psychosis and suicidality ten years ago.”
  Ditto my own experience when studying Prasangika and TKPs interpretation without knowledge of the nature of mind
  
  ” I also believe that grounding my practice in study, logic, epistemology etc. has helped me return to mental health.”
  Ditto my own experience after subsequently studying Kongtrul, Rangjung Dorje, Lonbchenpa on the nature of mind
  
  To conclude, it looks like the healthiest approach is a balanced one that incorporates study, logic and epistomology with.meditative experience of minds nature via dzogchen/mahamudra type experience
  
  interestingly, Artsa Tulku once told me there was originally a Mahamudra work among the vast volumes of scripture that Tzong KPa produced but that this had subsequrntly been removed and destroyed by zealots intent on promoting their own particular way as the only way-Sounds very much like the activities ofPabongka in the late 1920s-early 30s in Kham. The centuries earlier decisions by the Gelug government in Lhasa to ban the works of Dolpopa Sherab Gyaltsen and Gorampa was the same ugly beast of sectarianism.
  
  Two wings is better than one!
  - 95
    
    noname on April 10, 2014 at 12:41 pm
    Reply
    
    This is also the basis of the current Shugden dispute
  - 96
    
    Joanne on April 10, 2014 at 8:03 pm
    Reply
    
    Very good points, noname– yes, it was the 83 teaching I believe. Here is a quote from it that will illuminate your point about Tsongkhapa having written a mahamudra text and also your points about this entire subject:
    
    “Although the voidness that is to be ascertained on the sutra and tantra paths is exactly the same, the methods for meditating on it can differ widely. For this reason, the great masters of old in Tibet have explained several distinct techniques for gaining decisive understanding of voidness. Among them, even the works of Tsongkhapa contain varied methods for ascertaining the nature of reality, The present work by the First Panchen Lama [root text of the teaching], entitled A Root Text for the Precious Gelug/Kagyu Tradition of Mahamudra: The Main Road of the Triumphant Ones, explains a special, uncommon way to gain decisive understanding of a correct view and meditate on voidness. Although these teachings come specifically from Tsongkhapa, the First Panchen Lama composed this text to clarify them since several slightly different ways of explaining arose as their oral teachings were transmitted down the lineage.” (p. 107)
    
    So it seems that Tsongkhapa did indeed write a Mahamudra text– was it his novice vows that he received from ninth Karmapa? Anyway, he had a lot to do with Karmapa in his early days and could have received mahamudra instruction then perhaps.
97

Joanne on April 10, 2014 at 12:35 am
Reply

Dorje, my point is: have you ever read the Dalai Lama’s commentaries on Nagarjuna and madyamaka? Have you read The Middle Way: Faith Grounded in Reason? Have you read the Dalai Lama’s commentary on Chapter Nine of Shantideva (Practicing Wisdom)? Have you studied Volume Three of Tsongkhapa’s Lamrim Chenmo? Have you studied these in tandem with Nagarjuna’s texts?

My point is that until you’ve thoroughly investigated, how can you have such a strong opinion about the Dalai Lama’s viewpoints and Tsongkhapa’s viewpoints? I might be wrong, but it sounds a little as if you are simply parroting the opinions of others without investigating for yourself.
98

Joanne on April 10, 2014 at 11:11 am
Reply

For example, Dorje, you say,

“That’s the trouble with the Gelug presentation, it is so clear and logical, with the exception of the difficult points. You can easily understand conventional truth as pratityasamutpada and ultimate truth as emptiness of svabhava. It makes perfect sense, it is so nice, neat and conceptual, you could almost think you’ve realised ultimate reality. No idea why emptiness came as such a shock to those arhants in the sutras, right?
Trouble is, the other presentations actually show how little we understand and how conventional let alone ultimate reality are totally beyond the grasp of the dualistic conceptual mind. It comes as quite a shock after thinking you got it.”

This is simply wrong. You obviously are parroting the opinions of others without investigation. The presentation of madyamaka given by Tsongkhapa is not “easy” and “neat.” It is hard and it is a challenge to the mind– could that be why you don’t like it? Nor does Tsongkhapa’s view of madyamaka state or imply that realization of emptiness is conceptual. I can give you quotes for this. Nor does Tsongkhapa’s view of madyamaka discourage practitioners from meditating on and realizing the non conceptual/nondual clear light nature of mind. So I don’t know what you’re talking about!

In addition, when being “clear and logical” is a “trouble,” as you have said, then we leave the door wide open for practices of blind faith and wishy washy, feel-good meditations. The entire reason that the human birth is so precious is because we have this precious human brain– and we must use it!
99

Dorje on April 10, 2014 at 7:33 pm
Reply

Hello Joanne,
I first entered this discussion because you said a few things that struck me as a bit off. Nothing that would strike an outsider as that bad, but a strand of Gelug sectarianism seemed totally out of place given the content of the post ( eg. investigating a lama for a long time is peculiar to the Gelug tradition; sudden rather than gradual methods of realisation are worthy of criticism; in Tsongkhapa’s time, morality and study were in real need of improvement; and Tsongkhapa’s presents Madhyamaka as Nagarjuna did and those that question this are svantantikas, ie. hold a lesser view.)

I attempted to clarify the last position as it seemed that you wanted to argue that point. I will limit my myself to saying something that pretty much everybody, including Gelugpas, agree. Tsongkhapa’s presentation adds something novel to Nagarjuna. He came to this, not through Longchenpa or Rangjung Dorje (sorry noname, but he really didn’t), but through a vision of Manjushri where Manjushri explained to him what Nagarjuna really meant. So, it is not true to say that Nagarjuna’s position = Tsongkhapa’s position. At best we can say Tsongkhapa’s position is more clear (ie. different) to Nagarjuna.

Many years ago I studied Madhyamaka from a Gelug perspective (everything was from a Gelug perspective back then) and read and attended teachings from HH Dalai Lama about it. Once different presentations began to appear I was first shocked then felt relieved, like a breath of fresh air. Once you know what the different presentations are like, they really are very easily recognisable. But if you only know one way, that is the only way you will understand it. For example you can read MMK and it makes perfect sense according to the Gelug position as you say (especially if the translator like Jay Garfield added a Gelug gloss). But then, it makes perfect sense according to other positions too. That’s because of how the different commentaries interpret different passages. I would recommend this translation:
http://www.wisdom-books.com/ProductDetail.asp?PID=22347

As I said, I don’t think it really matters what position you take on Madhyamaka, it’s practice under a qualified lama that counts. There is a lot you have emphatically stated in the above posts that shows that your level of understanding is quite limited and I really don’t know where to start. I would strongly suggest you read the book by Mipham that you have and maybe something from Dolpopa’s perspective too like:
http://www.sunypress.edu/showproduct.aspx?ProductID=1029&SEName=the-buddha-within
100

Joanne on April 10, 2014 at 8:40 pm
Reply

Dorje, the odd thing is that I have practiced under a Dzogchen lama, a Mahamudra lama and under the Dalai Lama– whom I have never particularly considered Gelug or not Gelug because he refers so frequently to all the other traditions and is working so hard to bring the Tibetan Buddhist tradition into a unified whole. So I find it peculiar that you continually stress the Gelug aspect of my opinions and approach to dharma. Why can’t they simply be my own opinions? In fact, I respect all the traditions I have studied and practiced under and I don’t consider myself Gelug, Nyingma or Kagyu. Can’t I just have an opinion?

For example, you say, “investigating a lama for a long time is peculiar to the Gelug tradition”. However, I had heard that advice to inspect a lama for 12 years while I was still practicing in a Kagyu monastery– what does that mean? Is it Gelug advice or Kagyu advice? Or just good advice (that I unfortunately failed to take!)? And you list other opinions of mine as indicative of me having a sectarian Gelug orientation instead of simply having an opinion! For example, I learned from very very hard experience about the dangers in seeking a sudden approach in dharma– Sogyal Rinpoche’s approach did me no good at all, turned me into a psychotic wreck. And I also learned firsthand the dangers of entrusting my spiritual wellbeing to a lama before investigating him– now I’m paranoid of all lamas. I think I’ve earned the right to have an opinion about those issues which has nothing whatsoever to do with a sectarian leaning on my part. Believe me, there was nothing Gelug, Kagyu or Nyingma about my years of suffering and mental torment– it was rimey.

Anyway, my point is that I think there’s a real risk in viewing people’s opinions with ready labels in your mind. I’m happy to debate with you, but I think the labels get in the way and prejudice the discussion.
101

Dorje on April 10, 2014 at 10:37 pm
Reply

Sorry Joanne, you misunderstood my point. Previously you said, HH Dalai Lama “also plays down the role of devotion, stressing the need to spend years investigating one’s teacher. So in that regard, he looks much like a traditional Gelug!” implying that this sensible approach is peculiar to the Gelug tradition, from which one could infer that other traditions don’t want students to investigate the lama but to develop instant devotion. This is not true as was pointed out.

I’ve previously mentioned also that Sogyal Rinpoche’s approach is also not sudden. From what I have seen he teaches a gradual path through tantra from ngondro to mahayoga and possibly to dzogchen at the end though I have seen no evidence of dzogchen teaching beyond the kind of general stuff in his book. Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche could be seen as a better example of a lama with a ‘sudden’ dzogchen from the beginning style.

Of course, everyone is entitled to their opinions. (I’m not at all sure how your experiences with Sogyal led you to conclude that Tibetan Buddhism was in need of reform before Tsongkhapa but nevermind.) When it comes to discussing philosophy and madhyamaka it is important to understand what the differing views are and where they come from. Earlier in this discussion you seemed to suggest that you only knew of Tsongkhapa’s version of Prasangika Madhyamaka as presented to you in his books and commentaries and those of HH Dalai Lama. As I have said, there are a number of versions in the Tibetan traditions and who is closest to Nagarjuna has been hotly contested.

So, you can have your own opinion about emptiness, for example, but if all you know about it is from a single tradition, you have at least to bear that in mind when giving your opinion on it. That the single position you have heard makes sense to you isn’t really that important, in a way, because it hasn’t been tested against any other position (only those straw man versions of svatantra and cittamatra found in dodgy doxographies).

Ironically, what I have been arguing for is the approach you seemed to be advocating in your article. Studying widely and understanding the different issues so that we can avoid narrow-mindedly taking only one view as authoritative, having given no time to look at what the other views are. I have found your responses here to be coming from a different place than your article. I’m aware written communication is not ideal and I bear that in mind. I suppose I would have thought a more open response to my minor observation that Tsongkhapa’s Madhyamaka differs from Nagarjuna’s would be, “that’s interesting, I didn’t know that. I will look into it,” rather than what has happened.
Best wishes and good luck with your studies.
102

Kevin on April 11, 2014 at 12:12 am
Reply

Wow, what a lot of arrogant intellectualising going on here! Dorje is clearly demonstrating why following lots of different traditions just makes you confused. Tsongkhapa’s teachings on the other hand lead to a clear and unmistaken view of emptiness.

Only Tsongkhapa can explain without error how conventional and ultimate truths mutually support each other which is Nagarjuna’s view. Dorje’s view, on the other hand, is exactly what Tsongkhapa explains in ‘Praise to Dependent Origination’:

“Those unwise in this wonderful doctrine
were confused and entangled like plaited grass”

May all beings meet precious Teachers who are able to explain without error Buddha’s ultimate intention through their own experience.
- 103
  
  tenpel on April 11, 2014 at 7:12 am
  Reply
  
  Thank you for giving this perfect example of Gelugpa supremacy 😉
  
  Have you directly realized emptiness? Are you an Arya in order to be perfectly qualified to judge that “Tsongkhapa’s teachings on the other hand lead to a clear and unmistaken view of emptiness.”?
  
  Also if this propaganda were true: “Only Tsongkhapa can explain without error how conventional and ultimate truths mutually support each other …” it follows the Buddha was not able to do this nor all the Arhats at the time of the Buddha and later times, not even Nagarjuna, Chandrakirti etc. because “Only Tsongkhapa can explain …”
  
  Wow, what a lot of arrogant intellectualising going on here!
  
  Yes, awesome 😉
  
  What you do is exactly what a biographer of Tsongkhapa warns about:
  
  »And from this day on in every life, with the special motivation that holds others dearer than self, bless me to protect the Buddha’s teaching like my life, as you Mahatma, have done.
  
  And you in whose heart or pure appearance there is no sectarian prejudice please clear away the trouble to the Buddha’s teaching raised by the specter of sectarianism in those who become partisan when they hold you as supreme.«
  
  (The final two verses of Taktsang Lotsawa’s Biography of Tsongkhapa,
  Sarnath 1967, p. 619)
- 104
  
  Dorje on April 11, 2014 at 7:39 am
  Reply
  
  I don’t follow lots of different traditions, Kevin, but in my tradition there are lots of different positions on Madhyamaka, this is why it is important to understand some of the differences between them, so, if a lama is teaching on madhyamaka you can easily identify what position they are teaching. Without that understanding it can be confusing and you just end with a vague mishmash, with different things negated and different ways different conventions are established.
  
  My only point is that we should look at these things more to understand the arguments and what is being said. If you only take Tsongkhapa’s word for it, without honestly looking at other positions, I don’t think you can claim to understand madhyamaka. If you have looked at all the differing positions and decided Tsongkhapa’s view best reflects Nagarjuna, good for you, stick with it.
105

Patrick on April 11, 2014 at 8:12 am
Reply

Hi . Thanks for printing my comments earlier and for replying to them. Here’s some more of my thoughts.

In reply to Joannes comments. That was a mistake actually in my earlier reply with regard to not hearing mention of the Nyingma Tradition. I meant with regard to the Dorje Shugden empowerment and the Dorje Shugden practice in the NKT. I was a little tired when I wrote that first statement, so sorry if I didn’t write properly what I meant.

With the discussion on Lamrim and the Nyingma Tradition, I did read what you wrote but was a little unsure of what you meant by ‘religious traditions’. I know little (nothing?) about the Nyingma Tradition so I can’t really comment on this. Doesn’t lamrim feature all Buddha’s Sutra teachings? If so, won’t there be elements of the Nyingma teachings in Lamrim?

You wrote with regard to the NKT – ‘students are being encouraged to practice blind faith.’. I don’t think this is true, there are teachings in the NKT on how a student should check the qualities of a teacher and the teachings. What is ‘blind faith’ in a Buddhist context? If a teacher explains about karma and a student tries to believe them, is this blind faith? Some scientists might say it was. Also, I once saw a great picture on the internet of some old monks making offerings and prostrations to another monk on a throne. But the monk on the throne was a small child, maybe about 5 years old, in a little set of robes. For them, the child was their previous teacher who had been reborn as this child.

You wrote – ‘They have to take his word on everything, with no opportunity to cross-reference or question or study in a proper manner’ I don’t think this is true. People who attend classes in the NKT have complete freedom to cross-reference the teachings or to question them. Ultimately, if a person doesn’t think the teachings are correct or doesn’t like them then they don’t have to attend any classes.

Also – ‘Students are not even being provided with the full breadth of the Buddha’s teachings. It’s a little like a Christian pastor proclaiming that his preachings alone are necessary and students don’t need to study the bible anymore. It sounds very dangerous to me.’ The NKT teaches lamrim, lojong and Mahamudra, which is the complete path to Enlightenment. I think Christianity and Buddhism are different in that there is more emphasis in Buddhism on teachers that are alive now and teaching us now. I don’t think there are the equivalents of Atisha, Je Tsongakpa, Milerapa and so on in Christianity. I haven’t explained that very well, sorry. Also there isn’t really one book like the Bible in Buddhism.

Also – ‘I would answer that for a Buddhist, it is critical to begin with the Kangyur and Tengyur. That’s the great base of all the Buddhist traditions, the great foundation of understanding that cuts across all traditions and sects. Without that as a foundation, your lama just might become more important than Buddha himself– more important than the great masters of Nalanda– and then there’s real trouble, real risk of dangerous sectarianism.’
Well I would say that a Buddhist is someone who goes for refuge to Buddha, Dharma and Sanga, so that is what’s most important for a Buddhist. Also, I would say that in some ways your Lama is more important that Buddha. I can’t see Buddha or receive teachings from him, but I can from a Lama.There’s a great story that says, who is most kind, someone who gives money to us and helps us when we are very poor, or someone who helps us when we are very rich? The Lama is like someone who gives to us when we are very poor, as we don’t have much concentration or good karma when we first get teachings from the Lama. Then, when we develop great concentration, purify our negative karma, and create a lot of good karma, we can see Buddhas directly and they can help us then, when we are spiritually rich.

Thanks.

Pat
106

Joanne on April 11, 2014 at 11:58 am
Reply

Hi Patrick, thanks for your reply. You said, “Doesn’t lamrim feature all Buddha’s Sutra teachings? If so, won’t there be elements of the Nyingma teachings in Lamrim?”

Yes, exactly. Which is why I was surprised to read GKG’s story in which he criticizes a Gelug lama for seeking teachings from a Nyingma lama.

Also, you said, “I think Christianity and Buddhism are different in that there is more emphasis in Buddhism on teachers that are alive now and teaching us now. I don’t think there are the equivalents of Atisha, Je Tsongakpa, Milerapa and so on in Christianity. I haven’t explained that very well, sorry. Also there isn’t really one book like the Bible in Buddhism.”

I disagree that there is more emphasis on living teachers in Buddhism. If you investigate, you will see that there is a great emphasis within all traditions of Buddhism to reference the scriptures and ancient commentaries on those. GKG has broken significantly from tradition in this regard.

You’re right, there isn’t one book like the bible, but there are the Buddha’s original teachings (the Kangyur, as seen in many sutras which are not provided by NKT bookstores or referenced in the bibliographies of GKG’s texts). There are also the commentaries of Buddha’s sutras (the Tengyur, as seen in many texts which have now been translated into English and most are not sold in NKT bookstores nor included in the bibliography of GKG’s texts.) You’re right though, that most Christian tradtiions don’t have a tradition of reading from commentaries (the exceptions being some of the Catholic contemplatives).

Patrick, I understand that you don’t feel that any restriction is being placed on you about what to study and what not to study. However, it seems to me that there is a subtle bias being placed on NKT students’ understanding of the dharma, which can be very significant for a beginner– simply on the fact that cross-referencing is not encouraged or emphasized– simply on the fact that many texts are not made readily available to you. For example, Tsongkhapa wrote a three volume text on Lamrim that is not readily available to NKT students, not sold in NKT bookstores or listed in the bibliographies of GKG texts on Lamrim– this is despite the fact that NKT claims to be a pure lineage of Tsongkhapa. I find that concerning.

When I was a beginner, 10+ years ago, practicing in a Kagyu monastery, I used to spend time simply wandering around the large monastery bookstore, simply touching the books, leafing through them and sometimes buying one and reading it. Through this, I came to understand the enormity of the Buddha’s teachings and the vastness of traditions that have emerged from those teachings. I believe that this simple understanding is an important foundation for Western Buddhist students– and it is lacking in NKT centers.
107

Joanne on April 11, 2014 at 12:09 pm
Reply

First, Dorje, how do you know that I only take Tsongkhapa’s word for madyamaka? I don’t believe I’ve said that anywhere, only stating that I respect his approach to the subject. Second, you criticize me for not being very well read about madyamaka, but again you have no knowledge of what I have read and not read– or what my understanding of madyamaka is. I haven’t said, only saying that I don’t feel competent enough to judge Tsongkhapa, the Dalai Lama or other teachers as to whose is the most accurate interpretation of Nagarjuna. I actually believe that reminding oneself that one is a beginner is a very good practice– particularly when it comes to interpreting Nagarjuna!

Also, I am not criticizing what I don’t know– I would not make statements about Mipham’s understanding of madyamaka for example, because I haven’t read him. However, from a few of your erroneous comments, I would dare say that you have not read the totality of Tsongkhapa’s writings on madyamaka, nor the Dalai Lama’s. Yet you feel knowledgeable enough to criticize their understanding of madyamaka! I take a much more cautious approach to my understanding of dharma.
- 108
  
  Dorje on April 11, 2014 at 7:49 pm
  Reply
  
  Well, you said you didn’t know there was any other interpretation of Madhyamaka other than Tsongkhapa’s (“Now you are presenting that there is yet another interpretation of Nagarjuna, one that I was not aware of.”) unless, of course, you have studied other presentations, were aware of them but later lost awareness of them. You also mentioned that you have Jamgon Mipham’s commentary on the Madhyamakavatara unread on your bookshelf.
  You rejected my claim that Tsongkhapa’s presentation was pretty logical and easy to understand. I said the difficult points that he tries to reconcile with other presentations and the way he tries to force pramana aren’t so straight forward, I believe the word I used earlier was ‘tortured’, but his basic position on the two truths is easy and logical and presents no paradox or challenge to the rational mind. His position is things conventionally exist in the relative, but ultimately don’t exist in the absolute. This is his way or overcoming the four extremes (exist, not exist, both exist and not exist, neither exist and not exist.) He actually totally ignores the last two extremes because they make no logical sense to him.
  Conceptual understanding of the two truths is a conceptual understanding of emptiness. According to him, meditating on this conceptual understanding, this generic image of emptiness, is the only way to reach a non-conceptual understanding of emptiness. No other presentation of Madhyamaka accepts that ultimate reality is accessible to conceptual understanding in this way.
  
  Anyway, Joanne, as I said before, people are entitled to hold whatever views they like. I agree with your article that it is better if those views are informed as much as possible by all available information. If you want to read some of the books I have recommended that would be great, if not, that would also be great. Best wishes.
109

Joanne on April 12, 2014 at 11:18 am
Reply

Dorje, at least I acknowledge that I have not read Mipham. Your statement regarding Tsongkhapa’s views on emptiness clearly indicate that you have not read Tsongkhapa! If you read any of his writings on emptiness you will find that he clearly negates intrinsic existence even on the conventional level. The same is true of HH Dalai Lama. In Volume Three of Lamrim Chenmo, Tsongkhapa devotes several chapters to this subject, quoting liberally from Nagarjuna and Chandrakirti to demonstrate how there is no contradiction between phenomena lacking inherent existence, both conventionally and ultimately, and yet arising through dependence on causes and conditions. He devotes much time to it because it is important to still maintain a valid perspective on conventional reality while still negating its intrinsic existence. For example, in conventional terms, the horns of a rabbit don’t exist– so there has to be some system of negating conventional reality that still avoids the extreme of negating valid perception. This is difficult and I believe that both Tsongkhapa and HH Dalai Lama present a very sound way to view this. Both of them use dependent origination as a supreme basis for their reasoning. Here is just a brief example from Tsongkhapa (I could give you many more from His Holiness):

“Conventionally we assert that all phenomena are like a magician’s illusion and are, therefore, false in conventional terms. Still, it is not contradictory to posit them as conventional truth. [Chandrakirti’s Commentary on the Middle Way] says, ‘Because ignorance obscures the nature of phenomena, we call it the concealer’ Hence, there is no contradiction in something being true for the concealer, that is, ignorance, and false for the conventional consciousness with which we refute the essential existence in phenomena.” (Volume Three of Lamrim Chenmo, pp. 174-175)

Your statement claiming that Tsongkhapa views meditating on conventional understanding to be the only way to reach a non-conceptual understanding of emptiness is also totally unfounded– as are your other statements regarding his views. Can you find evidence for that? Is your evidence the fact that he taught analytical meditation as a sound meditative technique? Is that what you mean? He also taught tantra and mahamudra. His Holiness also teaches mahamudra, tantra and dzogchen– and highly values analytical meditation as well. None of those approaches negate reaching a non-conceptual realization. I could give you many many quotes on the total inaccuracy of your statement.

How can you criticize what you don’t know? How can you advise me to investigate more widely when you haven’t investigated what you claim to know so much about?
- 110
  
  Dorje on April 13, 2014 at 3:09 pm
  Reply
  
  Sorry Joanne. I understand where you are coming from because if you have only been shown one way of understanding madhyamaka that is the only thing it means to you. I didn’t say that Tsongkhapa took coventional truth as intrinsically existent. You have to understand what Tsongkhapa was negating. As you say, “he clearly negates intrinsic existence even on the conventional level.” But once you have negated intrinsic existence what is left? If a pot lacks intrinsic existence what is left of the pot once intrinsic existence is negated?
  
  As far as ultimate reality goes, Tsongkhapa says that emptiness is the negation or nonexistence of intrinsic existence (rangzhin or svabhava) and to deny this nonexistence is to say that there is intrinsic existence. Therefore emptiness is a simple negation and he rejects the necessary avoidance of the tetralemma or chatuskoti by holding to the law of the double negation (not not x = x). Therefore, for Tsongkhapa emptiness and ultimate reality is a simple negation or a nonimplicative negation which is an object of the conceptual mind, so according to him, to understand reality nonconceptually, you need to meditate on this nonimplicative negation conceptually until it becomes nonconceptual.
  
  Joanne, I studied this stuff over 20 years ago. Back then I could have given you ready quotes and citations to back all of Tsongkhapa’s positions up. I have since forgotten the finer details, though I could revisit it, if you really need help understanding it. I read Tsongkhapa and western academics writing about Tsongkhapa as well as attending lectures about Madhyamaka from a purely Gelug perspective. I have since taken greater interest in other positions and it is clear to me that Tsongkhapa did not present Madhyamaka in the same way as Nagarjuna did. Gelugpas are more than happy to point this out, as it is widely accepted that Tsongkhapa added novel features to Madhyamaka because he found some bits, like the idea that ultimate reality couldn’t be conceptually grasped, and the four extremes should be avoided, didn’t quite fit with his presentation.
  
  By the way, I’m not a Shentongpa but my lama is. I prefer the freedom from extremes version as coming through Jamyang Khyentse, etc. Not that it really matters.
- 111
  
  Dorje on April 17, 2014 at 9:09 pm
  Reply
  
  Dear Joanne, I’m not sure if you have left this discussion but I thought I might provide some illustrations to explain what I mean about the importance of conceptual understanding to Tsongkhapa and how, for him, it is necessary to hold a conceptual ultimate as an object of meditation before a nonconceptual ultimate can be reached. In fact, HH Dalai Lama is saying exactly that in the quotation you provided but unless you know what he actually means, ie. a non-implicative negation (med dgag) is an object of mind and the intellect, you won’t understand what he is saying.
  
  Anyway, in his Lamrim Chenmo, Tsongkhapa says there are two ultimates a conceptual and a non conceptual one,
  “Qualm: The ultimate is beyond all awareness, but the refutation of an essence of things is in the realm of letters. Thus, would not the refutation be nonexistent for that reason?
  Reply: There are two types of ultimate. One of these operates without conceptual activity; it is supramundane, stainless, and without elaborations. The second operates with conceptual activity and is concordant with the collections of merit and wisdom; it is called “sublime wisdom in the world” and it does involve elaborations. Here we hold this latter to be a qualifier in the thesis, “does not exist ultimately,” so there is no fallacy.”
  http://www.shambhala.com/the-great-treatise-on-the-stages-of-the-path-to-enlightenment-1.html p221
  
  This is one of aspect of Tsongkhapa’s novel presentation of Madhyamaka. I think you may be interested viewing the Gelug Prasangika and alongside the ‘freedom from proliferation’ Madhyamaka version so you can compare them. Following your excellent article about Shantideva’s Bodhicaryavatara and differing translations, I would like to look at just one verse which has been a bit contentious; verse two of chapter nine.
  
  Kate Crosby and Andrew Skilton translate the verse from sanskrit as:
  “It is agreed that there are these two truths: the conventional and the ultimate. Reality is beyond the scope of intellection. Intellection is said to be conventional.”
  http://ukcatalogue.oup.com/product/9780199540433.do p115
  
  Padmakara Translation Group translates it as:
  “Relative and absolute,
  These the two truths are declared to be.
  The absolute is not within the reach of the intellect,
  For intellect is grounded in the relative.”
  http://www.shambhala.com/the-way-of-the-bodhisattva-4.html p137
  
  Stephen Batchelor does something a little different. He adds a commentary by Thogme Zangpo as explained by Gelugpa Geshe Ngawang Dargyey to his translation of the ninth chapter . As such, he adds a Gelug gloss absent in the other translations:
  “Deceptive truths, so called because they are truths established from the point of view of deceived minds that obscure the real meaning, and ultimate truths, so called because they are truths comprehended by a Superior’s wisdom to which no (deceptive truths) appear, are accepted as the two truths. Ultimate truths are not objects experienced by the mind; but here “the mind” is to be understood as deceptive (mind) that obscures one from seeing ultimate truths.”
  http://www.wisdom-books.com/ProductDetail.asp?PID=1153 p131-132
  
  Now we have seen how different translators treat the verse (from different languages and traditions) we can look at different commentaries, one from Khenpo Kunzang Palden, a Nyingmapa student of Jamgon Ju Mipham; the other by Minyak Kunzang Sonam, a Gelugpa who naturally held Tsongkhapa’s position. He was the teacher of Khunu Lama Tenzin Gyaltsen, HH Dalai Lama’s teacher.
  
  Despite their differences in lineage affiliation, both Khenpo Kunpal and Minyak Kunzang Sonam were students of the famous Nyingma lama Patrul Rinpoche and it is testament to the nonsectarian nature of the rimed movement that they had no problem presenting different views. Patrul Rinpoche often taught on the Bodhicaryavatara from differing perspectives; Kadam/Gelug, Sakya, Kagyu, as well as his own oral tradition. The book these commentaries are taken from is Wisdom: two buddhist commentaries.
  http://www.wisdom-books.com/ProductDetail.asp?PID=15130
  HH Dalai Lama encouraged the translation of these texts after teaching on the Bodhicaryavatara in France so people could better understand the differences in positions.
  
  First, the Gelug commentary on verse 2.
  “The first two lines of this verse show the distiction between the two truths: relative truth, which concerns deceptive phenomena – individuals and aggregates and so forth – whose mode of appearance and mode of being differ; and absolute truth, which concerns phenomena devoid of inherent existence – individuals and aggregates and so forth – whose mode of appearance and mode of being concur. All phenomena, i.e. objects of knowledge, are thus said to be categorised under these two truths.
  
  The ‘and’ in ‘relative and absolute’ refers to the fact that these two truths are equal in force. At the time of the ground the two truths necessarily accompany each other. At the time of the path the practice of the two truths necessarily proceeds uniting skilful means and wisdom. And at the time of the fruit the Dharmakaya and Rupakaya, which are the natural result of the two accumulations of merit and wisdom gathered through skilful means and wisdom, are necessarily combined.
  
  The last two lines of this verse mainly indicate the definitions of each of the two truths in turn. Absolute truth is not something that can be grasped directly by the dualistic mind. It is to be perceived in a non-dual way by direct valid cognition which cognizes itself directly. ‘The absolute’ is what has to be defined, and ‘is not within the reach of the intellect’ is by implication the definition. Relative truth is that which is perceived in a dualistic way by the dualistic valid cognition which cognizes itself directly. ‘Intellect’ is the definition, and ‘grounded in the relative’ is what has to be defined.
  
  Thus these two lines have to be explained separately. Otherwise, if we were to explain the first line as a thesis (‘Absolute truth is not within the reach of the mind’) and the second as the proof (‘because if it were within the reach of the mind it would have to be obscured or relative’) we would be committing an error such as the unwanted consequence of absolute truth not being cognizable by any mind whatsoever. If we wish to comment the first and second lines together, I wonder if it is possible to explain them as defining the absolute truth by implication, stating what it is not, and defining the relative truth directly saying what it is: ‘Absolute truth is not directly within the scope of the dualistic mind; that which is directly within the scope of the of the dualistic mind is declared to be relative truth.'”
  
  Like Stephen batchelor’s Gelug translation above, the mind that cannot grasp absolute truth must be deluded minds not undeluded but still conceptual minds. So, we can’t apparently take Shantideva words at face value because absolute or ultimate truth is an object of mind. Also, notice how there is an attempt at the end to mirror Tsongkhapa’s position that ultimate truth is defined by what it is not (not inherently existent), and relative truth is defined by what it is (apparent and functioning according to dependent origination.)
  
  Now, Khenpo Kunpal’s commentary:
  “In respect of all phenomena in samsara and nirvana, there is the mode of appearance, the way entities appear, which is relative truth; and there is the mode of being, that is the nature, or rather the true status, of entities (namely emptiness), which is absolute truth. Taken respectively and in themselves, these two aspects are incontestably experienced, and this is why they are termed the two truths.
  
  Now, if the claim were made that these two truths were distinct, on the absolute level, or one and the same, on the relative level, both such propositions would be invalid on account of their being defective in four ways. In fact, as it is said in the Definitive Commentary on the Wisdom Mind, the two truths should be understood as being neither identical nor distinct.
  
  Definition of the two truths
  It follows from what has just been said, that the absolute mode of being of entities is beyond all extremes – of existence, of non-existence, of both existence and non-existence, and of neither existence nor non-existence. For this reason, it does not fall within the sphere of intellectual cognition. Indeed the intellect which thinks in terms of existence and non-existence, and its accompanying verbal expressions, are said to be deceptive, relative and not ultimate. This being so, the absolute truth should be understood as that which transcends the intellect and is inexpressible in either word or thought. By contrast, the relative truth is defined as the deluded intellect and its object.
  
  From the point of view of the ultimate mode of being, however, and if we may put the matter briefly, it must be understood that the two truths are not differentiated according to existence and non-existence, with existence applying to the relative truth and non-existence applying to the absolute truth. For we have been taught that ‘Form is emptiness; emptiness is form. Emptiness is none other than form; and form is none other than emptiness.’ Thus the union of appearance and emptiness, the dharmadhatu, is beyond the four, eight and thirty-two extremes of misconception; it is inexpressible in words or concepts; it is mind-transcending primordial Wisdom, all-perceiving awareness itself, the perfection of wisdom, the absolute truth beyond all categories. If, on the other hand, one analyzes the objects of speech and intellect, in other words, phenomena which are perceived and coordinated by the mind, and named by the tongue, they are found to be non-existent, insubstantial like mirages, and unable to withstand analysis.
  
  Therefore the Lord Buddha has said in one of the Sutras: ‘If the absolute truth, O child of the gods, were to become the object of body, speech or mind, it could not be accounted absolute; it would be relative. The absolute truth, O child of the gods, transcends all expressions; it is utterly unoriginate and has no cessation; it is utterly beyond the form and meaning of words, the knower and the known. Insofar as it cannot be made the object even of primordial Wisdom, which is omniscient and altogether supreme, it is the absolute truth itself.’
  
  Now when it is said that the dharmata, or emptiness nature, is not an object of knowledge, the meaning is as follows. If dharmata transcends all elaborations and extremes, it is not something that is intellectually conceivable. To be sure, how could something that is neither subject nor object, and is totally devoid of characteristics, become an object of cognition?”
  
  Here we see the very emphatic assertion that ultimate truth is totally beyond all conceptual understanding and isn’t even an object of cognition in any way, and relative truth is simply deceptive. Khenpo Kunpal rejects the position of others (like Tsongkhapa) on the relative unity of the two truths and also the idea that existence (of appearances) applies to the relative truth and non-existence (of inherent nature) applies to the absolute truth. He simply refutes the Tetralemma and leaves nowhere for the conceptual mind to turn.
  
  Tsongkhapa rejects this interpretation, as an unqualified refutation of the tetralemma makes no sense to him. He accepts the logical rule of the double negation, ie. that it is contradictory to say not not x does not equal x. As he says:
  “Suppose that you refute the tetralemma without affixing any such qualification. You refute the position that things exist and you refute the position that things do not exist; then you say ‘It is not the case that they both exist and do not exist.’ If you now continue with the refutation, saying, ‘It is also not the case that they are neither existent nor non-existent,’ then you explictly contradict your own position. If you then stubbornly insist, ‘Even so, there is no fallacy,’ then the debate is over because we do not debate with the obstinate.”
  http://www.shambhala.com/the-great-treatise-on-the-stages-of-the-path-to-enlightenment-1.html p189
  
  How does Tsongkhapa refute the tetralemma, which is necessary for any madhyamaka? He says, “We refute the assertion that things essentially exist in terms of both truths; however, at the conventional level we do not refute things that can perform functions.” (p189) In other words he refutes the first extreme, existence, by negating inherent existence, and then refutes the second extreme, non-existence, by saying conventional things appear and function. So, he is not saying a thing is not existent and not non-existent, he is saying something about a thing (its ‘inherent existence’) is non-existent, and something about it (its functioning causality) is existent.The other two extremes are avoided by refuting that non-things are essentially existent (refuting both existent and non-existent) and refuting something that essentially exists as neither a thing and a non-thing (refuting neither existence nor non-existence.)
  
  This is another of Tsongkhapa’s novel approaches and shows how he tries to make something paradoxical, that for Khenpo Kunpal and others, points at the limits of the conceptual dualistic mind, into something that can be grasped by the intellect and understood by dualistic reasoning of existent/non-existent. Rather than saying an object’s ontological status is beyond concepts, he just says objects possess some qualities but not others, and the thing he refutes, his novel ‘subtle object of negation’, inherent existence, the absence of which amounts to his ultimate reality, is not something that anyone really thought existed anyway.
  
  I hope this shows why I said Tsongkhapa posited a conceptual ultimate (because he said he did) and why that makes his position nice and logical, quite unlike the deliberately paradoxical position of standard Madhyamaka.
  - 112
    
    Joanne on April 19, 2014 at 12:29 am
    Reply
    
    Dorje, I just noticed this comment of yours and I haven’t the time yet to go through it. However, you’ve made a major error in your quote from Lamrim Chenmo. You fail to mention that this quote comes from Bhavavavika– Tsongkhapa is quoting from Bhavavavika! Yet, you leave the reader to assume that this is a statement from Tsongkhapa himself when you say,
    
    “Anyway, in his Lamrim Chenmo, Tsongkhapa says there are two ultimates a conceptual and a non conceptual one,
    “Qualm: The ultimate is beyond all awareness, but the refutation of an essence of things is in the realm of letters. Thus, would not the refutation be nonexistent for that reason?
    Reply: There are two types of ultimate. One of these operates without conceptual activity; it is supramundane, stainless, and without elaborations. The second operates with conceptual activity and is concordant with the collections of merit and wisdom; it is called “sublime wisdom in the world” and it does involve elaborations. Here we hold this latter to be a qualifier in the thesis, “does not exist ultimately,” so there is no fallacy.”
    http://www.shambhala.com/the-great-treatise-on-the-stages-of-the-path-to-enlightenment-1.html p221
    
    You need to look on page 221, not on a website, and you will see that quote from Blaze of Reasons is one of a chain of quotes which Tsongkhapa provides from Bhavavavika as part of his explanation of Svatantrika-Madyamika differences and similarities in terms of “The actual object to be refuted” chapters.
    
    So I don’t know where that leaves your thesis, unless you want to be refuting Bhavavavika!
    - 113
      
      Joanne on April 19, 2014 at 1:08 am
      Reply
      
      Dorje, I think HH Dalai Lama presents a very clear outline of this line by Shantideva. Here is an excerpt from his commentary on Chapter Nine:
      
      “Among Tibetan commentators, there are two different interpretations of the line, “The absolute is not within the reach of the intellect.’ One is to adopt an understanding of the absolute or ultimate truth from two different perspectives and to maintain that the actual ultimate truth lies beyond the scope of the intellect, the cognition of an ordinary being. That is Khenpo Kunpal’s interpretation. Another understanding of this crucial line comes from the writing of Tsongkhapa. In his view the ultimate truth is not an object of an intellect that is dualistic, whose object of cognition is the relative and conventional. Instead the ultimate truth is an object of a direct perception or experience that is totally free of dualistic elaborations and concepts. Therefore, according to Tsongkhapa also, the two truths are defined on the basis to two different perspectives.
      
      “According to Tsongkhapa’s understanding, we can read the second verse of the ninth chapter as presenting the definitions of the two truths. The reference to ultimate reality as not being within the reach of the intellect provides the definition of ultimate truth. So we now read Shantideva as defining ultimate truth as that aspect of reality that is an object of direct perception that is totally free of dualistic and conceptual elaborations. In contrast, the level of reality that lies within the scope of dualistic cognition is relative and conventional. In this way, we see Shantideva’s passage as defining the two truths.
      
      “When Mipham, in his exposition on Shantarakshita’s The Ornament of the Middle Way, comments on the line, ‘The absolute is not within the reach of the intellect,’ he states that although the mere negation of the intrinsic existence of phenomena is an object of the intellect, the emptiness that is the union of appearance and reality remains inaccessible to the intellect. It is important to note that when we speak of emptiness here, in the context of Bodhicharyavatara, we are doing so as it is understood within the sutra system. However, when we speak of emptiness in the context of tantra, intellect or cognition has a different meaning. Tantra speaks of various levels and subtleties in the wisdom realizing emptiness, and by extension of different levels of freedom from dualistic elaborations.
      
      “It is also important to recognize that the scope of the two truths includes all things and events– the entire spectrum of reality is exhausted. In other words, there is no third possibility. There is nothing in the expanse of reality that is neither of the two truths.” (Practicing Wisdom, p. 20-21).
      - 114
        
        Joanne on April 19, 2014 at 10:01 am
        Reply
        
        And I think Dorje, because your arguments above are based on seriously flawed research, that I will save myself the trouble of weeding through them. (I also would have a bit to say about your assumptions regarding Stephen Batchelor reflecting a “Gelug understanding”). We can’t really talk about anything as long as you believe that a statement made by Bhavavavika, (both the qualm and the reply, as found in Blaze of Reasoning) was made by Tsongkhapa and reflects his understanding of madyamika.
        
        This has been what I have been objecting to all along– that you make statements which reflect a totally flawed understanding of Tsongkhapa’s point of view.
        
        115
        
        Joanne on April 19, 2014 at 10:07 am
        Reply
        
        And HH Dalai Lama also presents a point that I have been suspicious of for a while in our discussions, which is that your objections to Tsongkhapa come from the fact that you are using a tantric yard stick to measure his viewpoints within the sutra system of understanding. If you used that same yardstick to view Tsongkhapa’s commentaries on tantra, you might come to a different conclusion.
        
        116
        
        Dorje on April 19, 2014 at 12:19 pm
        
        No, Joanne, the position of Madhayamaka Freedom from Proliferation is a totally sutra based tenet coming from Prajnaparamita sutras. Not a bit of tantra in it. The position that ultimate reality is totally beyond mind and is not an object of mind comes from Nagarjuna and Shantideva, etc. The reason I said Batchelor’s translation had a Gelugpa gloss is because he qualified, like HH Dalai Lama above, the point that ultimate reality is not an object of cognition and beyond the reach of the mind by saying that it is only beyond the conceptual dualistic mind. Non-Gelugpas do not make this qualification as, for them, absolute truth is beyond mind in every sense. It is not an object at all.
        
        The rejection of the notion that ultimate reality is beyond concepts is nicely summed up in the Vimalakirti Nirdesha Sutra where various Bodhisattvas are asked to explain how to enter “the Dharma-door of nonduality.” After they had all given their answers Manjushri spoke up.
        “Manjushri replied, “Good sirs, you have all spoken well. Nevertheless, all your explanations are themselves dualistic. To know no one teaching, to express nothing, to announce nothing, to indicate nothing, and to designate nothing – this is the entrance into nonduality.”
        Then, the crown prince Manjushri said to the Licchavi Vimalakirti, “We have all given our own teachings, nobile sir. Now, may you elucidate the teaching of the entrance into the principle of nonduality!”
        Thereupon, the Licchavi Vimalakirti kept his silence, saying nothing at all.”
        http://www.psupress.org/books/titles/0-271-00601-3.html p77
        As I said before, the reason Tsongkhapa’s ultimate has more of the conceptual and dualistic about it than other presentations, is because his object of negation makes emptiness or ultimate truth a mere negation, rather than a position beyond all conceptual designation.
        
        For example, Tsongkhapa would say that the chair you are sitting on is empty of inherent existence; the ‘chairness’ of the chair cannot be found when analysed, therefore it is empty. However, arising in dependence on other factors, it still functions as a chair that you can sit on. There is still some object there, that cannot be refuted because there is a subjective mind that perceives it and, according to Tsongkhapa, you can’t have a subject without an object and vise-versa.
        
        For the mainstream Madhyamaka view, though, the ontological status of the chair is completely beyond all concepts. It does not exist, it does not not exist, it does not both exist and not exist, and it does not neither exist and not exist. The emptiness here isn’t just a negation of svabhava but a negation of all conceptual categories. This is the difference between Tsongkhapa and everyone else and why Tsongkhapa clings to a conceptual ultimate because a his ultimate is founded on the logical rule of the double negation. Unqualified refutation of the tetralemma makes no logical sense to him so he puts forward a more ‘logical’ version.
        
        117
        
        Joanne on April 19, 2014 at 4:47 pm
        
        And how does your “mainstream Madyamika” posit a coherent notion of conventional reality, avoiding the extreme of nihilism (wrong view)?
        
        118
        
        Joanne on April 19, 2014 at 9:02 pm
        
        Again, from His Holiness (and this is a statement I have heard him make on numerous occasions):
        
        “However, if we take ultimate reality– emptiness itself– what we will find is that emptiness is a phenomenon that is found as a result of an ultimate analysis upon a given object. Therefore, from that point of view, it is ultimate and rightly called ultimate truth. Yet if we take the ultimate as an object in its own right and then examine it, search for its essence, and determine whether emptiness exists objectively, independently of other factors, and so on, we will find that this is not the case. This indicates that emptiness is also not ultimately existent. Understanding this will enable us to reconcile the seeming contradiction that arises when we say that emptiness is ultimate truth, but at the same time, it is not ultimately existing.” (Dzogchen: The Heart Essence of the Great Perfection; p. 145)
        
        Also, you still seem to be confusing Tsongkhapa and Bhavavavika.
        
        119
        
        Dorje on April 19, 2014 at 11:14 pm
        
        There are differing views on conventional truth, but essentially they are all the deluded experiences of deluded beings that do not withstand analysis.
        
        The quotation from His Holiness just asserts the Gelug view that ultimate truth is just the simple negation of an object’s essence (svabhava or rang bzhin). This view is unique to Gelugpas and, despite the book, has absolutely nothing to do with dzogchen.
        
        ps. I sometimes think Tsongkhapa may have confused himself with Bhavya.
    - 120
      
      Dorje on April 19, 2014 at 8:52 am
      Reply
      
      Oops, so it does. However, Tsongkhapa wasn’t totally in disagreement on this point of a conceptually graspable ‘concordant’ ultimate. As he says in his uma gongpa rabsal
      “There are two types of rational consciousnesses:
      1. non-conceptual: a Superior’s non-conceptual pristine wisdom of meditative equipoise
      2. conceptual: a rational consciousness comprehending suchness in dependence on a reason, and so forth.
      The thought of Bhāvaviveka’s Blaze of Reasoningc in describing the ultimate as twofold—a non-conceptual pristine wisdom and a wisdom concordant with that—and the thought of Kamalashila’s Illumination of the Middle in describing two ultimates are the same. Therefore, it is not the meaning of those texts that the explanation of two ultimates should be taken as ultimates only in terms of objects and not in terms of subjects. Concerning this, when the first [that is, a Superior’s nonconceptual
      pristine wisdom of meditative equipoise] understands suchness, it is able to simultaneously eliminate with respect to its object the proliferations of [the apprehension of ] true [existence] and the
      proliferations of dualistic appearance; hence, [a Superior’s nonconceptual pristine wisdom of meditative equipoise] is an actual ultimate; also, that is the meaning of being “beyond all proliferations” Although the second [that is, a conceptual rational consciousness comprehending suchness in dependence on a sign, and so forth] is able to cease the proliferations [of the apprehension] of true
      [existence] with respect to its own object [that is, emptiness], it cannot eliminate the proliferations of dualistic appearance; hence, it is an ultimate that accords in aspect with the supramundane ultimate.
      It is necessary to set forth two modes also with respect to the object-ultimate that is the negative of ultimately [existent] production— and so forth— of forms and so on. Concerning this:
      • In the perspective of a non-conceptual rational consciousness, the object-emptiness is the actual ultimate free from both proliferations.
      • In the perspective of a conceptual rational consciousness, the object- emptiness is not the actual ultimate free from both proliferations,since it is free from only one class of proliferations. However, this is not to say that in general it is not an actual ultimate truth.
      
      Therefore, except for the case of being free from all proliferations of dualistic appearance in the perspective of certain awarenesses, an emptiness of true existence free from all proliferations of appearance does not occur, and hence the meaning of those texts is not that whatever is an ultimate truth is necessarily free from all proliferations of dualistic appearance.
      
      [The proponents of ] establishment of illusion by a rational [consciousness wrongly] assert that a composite of the two, the appearance of a base, such as an aggregate, and of its emptiness of true existence— [this composite according to them] being the mere meaning established by an inferential rational consciousnessd—is an ultimate truth. [However] it is a concordant ultimate, not an ultimate truth.”
      http://www.wisdom-books.com/ProductDetail.asp?PID=17762 p142 – 143
      Sonam Thakchoe, quoting from the same text makes it clear that Tsongkhapa saw a role for the rational mind in realisation of ultimate truth
      “Although the explanation of ultimate truth through an analogy does not lead to its realization in the way [ultimate truth] is seen by those free from the affliction of the cloud of ignorance, this does not mean [Candraklrti] accepts reality as nonrealizable in a general sense. Ultimate truth is not ineffable, for definitive scriptural texts and their verbal descriptions do embody its profound meanings. Furthermore it is not the case that [ultimate truth] is unrealizable by the mind associating with [verbal descriptions]. Therefore every single statement explaining the meaning of reality as beyond the scope of consciousness and verbal description must be understood in the same light.”
      http://www.wisdom-books.com/ProductDetail.asp?PID=16471 p85
      Sonam Thakchoe, a former Gelugpa monk who sides with Tsongkhapa in his book, goes on to say
      “Tsongkhapa also argues for a significant role for language and conceptual mind in forming a bridge between conventional knowledge and ultimate knowledge. In this respect, an inferential understanding of ultimate truth is not only possible, but is, in fact, essential as a step on the path to the direct realization of ultimate truth. Conceptual realization, he argues, serves as the causal nexus between the naive cognitive states of an ordinary being and the evolved wisdom of an arya. Conceptual understanding of ultimate truth, no matter how trivial, acts as an epistemic bridge that transports us from the known—conventional truth—to the unknown—ultimate truth.”
      
      This is kind of my point. I’m surprised that you are arguing this point. Every Gelugpa I have ever asked agreed that this is what Tsongkhapa meant.
      - 121
        
        Joanne on April 19, 2014 at 12:04 pm
        Reply
        
        OK, Dorje, I am confused about many of your points, which seem to meander a bit to me, but I am fine with Sonam Thakchoe’s last statement that you quote: “Tsongkhapa also argues for a significant role for language and conceptual mind in forming a bridge between conventional knowledge and ultimate knowledge….” etc.
        
        However, I don’t see how this proves your original point about Tsongkhapa not upholding a viewpoint concordant with Nagarjuna. Reading Nagarjuna is a very rigorous exercise in using logic and the conventional mind in order to make that bridge to ultimate realization!
        
        122
        
        Joanne on April 19, 2014 at 12:08 pm
        Reply
        
        Nor do I agree that Tsongkhapa’s use of conceptual mind in order to access the ultimate makes the final goal of realization that he describes in any way conceptual or limited. You won’t find that– unless the limitation you are referring to is one inherent in the sutra system, one that is about the level of subtlety of mind in the realization which only tantra affords.
        
        123
        
        Dorje on April 19, 2014 at 8:41 pm
        
        But you do agree with Tsongkhapa’s point in the Uma Gongpa Rabsel that, “Ultimate truth is not ineffable, for definitive scriptural texts and their verbal descriptions do embody its profound meanings. Furthermore it is not the case that [ultimate truth] is unrealizable by the mind associating with [verbal descriptions]. Therefore every single statement explaining the meaning of reality as beyond the scope of consciousness and verbal description must be understood in the same light?”
        
        Joanne, this has all been very interesting for me, and to answer your question regarding how Nagarjuna and Tsongkhapa’s madhyamakas vary, I would point to the tetralemma and Tsongkhapa’s subtle object of negation and how these differ. As I said in a post many posts ago, when I first studied madhyamaka I thought emptiness just meant a lack of inherent existence. Only later did I learn that this is a purely Gelugpa interpretation.
        
        Tibetan scholastic sectarianism works by eliminating all other views or deriding them to the degree that no one would admit to holding them, so, when I see a single interpretation being treated as normative and the ‘only way’, I feel compelled to speak up. Your article was a bold call to looking outside of your own tradition. I hope you do that by looking at opposing views and not just supporting ones.
        best wishes.
        
        124
        
        Joanne on April 19, 2014 at 11:17 pm
        
        And Dorje, I will simply say that I learned about the tetralemma from the Dalai Lama and Chandrakirti. But the problem here is that our debate is not about my understanding of madyamika. It is about whether or not Tsongkhapa’s viewpoint, the Dalai Lama’s viewpoint and Nagarjuna’s converge– that’s the question. I say they converge in many places, particularly in the reasoning of dependent origination and his teaching on awakening mind and Precious Garland. So far, you have failed to actually demonstrate where they diverge, not having cited from Nagarjuna once– and it is clear that you have never read or heard the Dalai Lama’s many commentaries on Nagarjuna’s main texts.
        
        However, before we start on that arduous journey, perhaps we should reconsider. If I’ve learned nothing else in the little research that I’ve done on this issue, it is that the teachings of the three scholars involved are extensive and profound and their writings are highly contextual. I will return to what I said days ago, which is that this debate is well beyond what can be done on a blog. It needs time and a calm, personal setting, like a study group or debate– otherwise, it just becomes silly.
        
        Nonetheless, it is important to acknowledge one thing, which is that neither Tsongkhapa nor the Dalai Lama would agree with your claim that they don’t follow Nagarjuna closely! They would not agree with you! So therefore, much research is needed in order to be certain of your views. Sometimes I feel like you’re just quoting gossip, saying things like “everyone knows that Gelugs don’t follow Nagarjuna” etc. You see, I am out of the dharma center loop and I don’t know the gossip. I simply find much of what you say does not coincide with what I know of the three teachers involved. Does that make me sectarian? Does it make me Gelug? Does it make me a Martian? Does it mean I am bound to one single interpretation? Does it mean I don’t read enough? No, it just means that I disagree!
        
        125
        
        Dorje on April 21, 2014 at 1:32 am
        
        I’m aware I hadn’t got round to Nagarjuna yet. It took long enough to explain that just because someone doesn’t agree with Tsongkhapa doesn’t make them a svatantrika. I could start quoting the MMK and showing how Tsongkhapa’s interpretation involves more interpretation than maybe other commentators. But you are probably right.
        
        To be honest, I am surprised by some of your comments here. I have read some of HH Dalai Lama’s teachings on Nagarjuna and attended some, too. I admit, much of my study in this area was quite a while ago. I have also never frequented ‘dharma centres’. As I said before, I only meant the comment about Tsongkhapa differing from Nagarjuna as an off the cuff comment and something everyone would accept as these are two men distant in language, culture and centuries of time. I rather thought it obvious that each tradition of Tibetan, indeed Mahayana Buddhism has its own take on Nagarjuna. I thought this would be especially obvious to someone so concerned by exclusivism and sectarianism as yourself. Given that different traditions do have different views, I thought it would be obvious that to unthinkingly say that one interpretation is correct is a bit sectarian. But none of this really matters. Best wishes.
        
        126
        
        Dorje on April 21, 2014 at 1:44 am
        
        Actually, Joanne, I would like to add one final point. I am not an advocate for Gorampa, Dolpopa, Shantarakshita or Jamgon Mipham. So, you shouldn’t take anything I’ve written here to represent their views. But seeing as alternative views to Tsongkhapa seemed to come as a surprise to you, you could not honesty claim that your choice to follow Tsongkhapa’s position is really a fully informed choice. You may insult me over my limited knowledge of Tsongkhapa (I studied them over 20 years ago) but at least I had a good look at the differing positions before I made a choice. They’re all good
        
        127
        
        No name on April 21, 2014 at 11:48 am
        
        Joanne
        Perhaps you could clarify your position by indicating which traditions you have studied under the guidance of a qualified teacher-I exclude your own study from books and the internet.
        I suspect your experience is primarily Gelug, though you may have entered via Rigpa A-but they don’t study much philosophy there so no need to include that. But which teacher / groups have led you to your current situation and perspective?
128

Joanne on April 12, 2014 at 1:59 pm
Reply

And Dorje, here are some quotes from HH Dalai Lama, whom you also claim does not follow Nagarjuna’s views of madyamika. This comes from a commentary of his on Nagarjuna Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way:

“Emptiness is defined as the absence of all conceptual elaborations, and thus the total, categorical negation must not leave any conceivable thing remaining.
“Once you understand emptiness as a non-implicative negation and cultivate your understanding of it, your realization of emptiness will eventually become so profound that language and concepts cannot encompass it. That’s why in verse 7 here, Nagarjuna wrote, “What language expresses is undone” and so on.” (p. 85 The Middle Way: Faith Grounded in Reason)

And then he goes on to explain further about this non-conceptural realization:

“Nagarjuna’s text explains the teachings from the perspective of the Sutra or Perfection Vehicle. However, since this is an introduction to Buddhism as it flourished in Tibet, where the Vajrayana teachings were also taught, I will also address the Vajrayana perspective, the view of Buddhist tantra. According to Highest yoga tantra, it is not sufficient to ascertain the emptiness that is free of conceptual elaborations such as the eight extremes. Our realizations must be cultivated at the subtlest level of consciousness– at the level of the innate mind. Here innate mind refers to the extremely subtle consciousness that continues as a continuum from life to life. At the level of the innate mind, our awareness is totally free from all conceptual elaboration and sensory input. When the wisdom of emptiness is cultivated at this level, the practitioner progresses along the path at a rapid pace.” (p.89)

About conventional truth, His Holiness writes as part of his commentary to Nagarjuna:

“If we espouse a belief in intrinsic existence, then nothing, no conventional knowledge, can be coherently maintained… Nagarjuna argues that if our understanding of the world is constructed in dependence on memories and expectations, then our reality cannot be comprised of independent, inherently existent entities. If it were, the concept of all these functions and actions we take for granted would have no real coherence. Likewise, he continues, in a self-existent world, beings would never change over time, and no spiritual attainments would be possible.” (p. 115)

There’s much much more I could quote refuting your statements above– this is just to point out where you would need to investigate if you wanted to see if your viewpoint is valid.
129

Joanne on April 13, 2014 at 10:37 am
Reply

Oddly, Dorje, Wikipedia has given me what I think is a better window to your viewpoint than this thread. Blogging is probably a little inadequate for discussing such things as the subtle differences in approaches to madyamika! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shentong

These discussions are very profound!
- 130
  
  noname on April 13, 2014 at 2:49 pm
  Reply
  
  Could it be that the frog is finally emerging from the well?
  These discussions you point too only scratch the surface of this issue. Leaving aside questions of whether the Buddha nature itself is inherently existent (as Dolpopa asserted) or otherwise, the philosophy of the Shentong was the dominant philosophy of many of the great masters of the Red hats; without declaring this to be an affirming or non affirming negation specifically, it could be said to be in harmony with Sonam Senge, Mipham Rinpoche and even, possibly, Karmpa Rangjung Dorje and Jigme Lingpa.although the latter did not use the term. Kongtrul the Great spread the teaching extensively among the non-Gelug sects and the debate lay at the very heart of the Shugden issue and the divisions which allowed the Chinese to stroll into Kham unchallenged
  im VERY happy to see you are looking at this Joanne. I hope it will be of great benefit to you. Remember though, it is an experiential philosophy, not one that depends solely on ‘book larnin’ Only when examined in meditation is it of any real value-MAY YOU SEE THE NATURE AND FORGET ORIGINAL SIN!
  - 131
    
    Dorje on April 13, 2014 at 5:46 pm
    Reply
    
    Noname, I don’t think you can claim the teachers in your list are shentongpas other than Dolpopa and Jamgon Kongtrul. Gorampa Sonam Senge explicitly refuted Dolpopa’s position. Ju Mipham gave differing positions depending on what text he was commenting on. The traditional Nyingma position coming from Shantarakshita is a synthesis of Yogacara and Madhyamaka and can be summed up as “all is mind” (relative) “mind is empty” (ultimate). Jigme Lingpa’s position, as stated in his Yonten Rinpoche Dzo, is the same as Tsongkhapa’s. Not his final view though, that was dzogchen.
    For Nyingmapas and Rimedpas, one’s sutra view isn’t that important and can be changed depending on circumstances. For example, being a bit of a Sakyapa, Dilgo Khyentse held Gorampa’s freedom from extremes position until he changed to Shentong as he was told holding this view would lengthen his life.
    - 132
      
      noname on April 14, 2014 at 11:07 am
      Reply
      
      As I said
      “Without declaring this to be an affirming or non affirming negation specifically, it could be said ”
      Sorry but i think youre getting a bit hung up on words, To suggest that t he Third Karmapa was not a Shentongpa [though he himself never used the term] is ludicrous when one considers how heavily Kagyupas rely on his writings to establish that view in their shedras Again to suggest that Jigme Lingpa’s position is the same as Tzong Ka Pa is pure semantics, when one considers the final view of each of what entails the highest view and is a self serving argumentative assertion that would have most Nyingmapas turning in their graves
      Since I am only just able to get to three in the breathing meditation I will refrain from engaging in high fallutin debates. Nevertheless. it seems a good time to remind ourselves that our understanding of these topics is at best partial in comparison to the learned ones and that it makes little sense for we unrealised and insignificant underlings to waste precious time arguing over such subtle nuances. To do so smacks of pride of [very limited] intellectual understanding and, as the highly knowledgeable Milarepa proclaimed when challenged by some arrogant Rangtongpas over his views “Having abandoned all pride, I have renounced the saliva spattered debate”
      - 133
        
        Dorje on April 14, 2014 at 11:18 pm
        Reply
        
        Sorry. Obviously the third Karmapa was also a shentongpa.
134

Dorje on April 13, 2014 at 3:13 pm
Reply

A couple of things just struck me, Joanne. Firstly, how easy it is for Tsongkhapa’s position to be co-opted by sectarian extremists due to the emphasis on correct conceptual understanding of emptiness. Secondly, that those that study Tsongkhapa may actually need to study other presentations at the same time so they actually understand what Tsongkhapa was saying in contrast to what others were saying. To say you don’t need concerpual understanding you only need a nonimplicative negation is kind on a contradiction in terms. Anyway, I do wish you well with your studies.
- 135
  
  Dorje on April 13, 2014 at 7:46 pm
  Reply
  
  I just googled “Sonam Senge” to be sure that was who Noname was referring to in their post and make sure there was no other notable Sonam Senge I’d forgotten about and found this:
  http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/gorampa/
  which undoubted gives ‘a better window to my viewpoint’ than a wikipedia article on Shentong. Like much other western academic stuff. it comes from a Gelug-centric point of view (for example it suggests that Gorampa’s type of Madhyamaka was a marginal position. In fact it was shared by many teachers of Sakya, Kagyu and Nyingma and even Gelug if you count Gendun Chophel. By tradition it is a position much more widely accepted than Tsongkhapa’s view despite all the political power that went behind that.)
  
  Anyway, in talking about how Gorampa rejected the convoluted nonsense used to divide and contrast ‘prasangika’ and ‘svatantrika’ madhyamikas they say:
  “[for Gorampa] the ways in which one employs Madhyamaka reasoning in order to negate these concepts are ultimately not as important as actually arriving at a state of nonconceptuality. Thus, unlike Tsongkhapa, who concludes that there is one correct final view (i.e., that of the Prāsaṅgikas), Gorampa contends that the final, ultimate view is actually no view at all.”
  
  This kind of says what I had a beem feeling, that Tsongkhapa’s one correct conceptual view was more likely to lead to sectarianism than other schools’ nonconceptual ultimate. As they say a little earlier:
  “The essence of Gorampa’s argument is that Svātantrikas utilize “autonomous syllogisms” to argue for emptiness, while Prāsaṅgikas do not. Because both schools assert that a realization of the ultimate truth involves freedom from all conceptual constructs (spros bral), as long as one is in such a state, one can realize the ultimate. There is no such thing as correct and incorrect spros bral. Once one has successfully arrived at this state, the methods that he has used to get there are no longer relevant.”
136

No name on April 13, 2014 at 10:06 pm
Reply

Really feel like we’ve accomplished something here Joanne-I felt strong attachment to tzongkapa views for a decade and it helped but then it hindered-discovering shen tong broke my fixation. I feel like you may have been stuck like I was but are now beginning to see the light;)
If I hadn’t been lied to for those first ten years_ this was the highest teaching in Tibet and so on, I wouldn’t have understood what I do now. But I still think it’s wrong to lie to people and I wish we could ban any teacher from claiming his teaching is the highest-different strokes for different folks
137

Joanne on April 14, 2014 at 12:21 am
Reply

The trouble is, Droje, you are quoting others’ opinions about Tsongkhapa in order to validate your claims about his viewpoint. You still haven’t studied Tsongkhapa!

All I know for sure about all this is that most of the claims you are making about what Gelugpas think do not reflect my own understanding of madyamika through my studies of Tsongkhapa, Nagarjuna, Shantideva, Kamalashila, Atisha, the Buddha, Maitreya,etc. along with commentaries by the Dalai Lama. In other words, I have never been taught that there is one correct, final conceptual view etc. etc. In fact, HH Dalai Lama often teaches the Four Noble Truths in a series of three rounds of practice, the last being: Suffering is to be identified but there is no suffering to be identified etc. Also, No name, I can never recall being told– except by my two Dzogchen teachers– that the teaching I was receiving was the “highest”. The Dalai Lama particularly makes no such claims and is also careful to present as broad a view as possible, respecting and including all traditions.

The one difference that I see in myself as compared to how I approached Dharma as a Kagyupa or Nyingmapa, as a result of my years of study with the Dalai Lama, is that I am more cautious than I was in judging any tradition. For example, it is my impression that most of the traditions of madyamika that have emerged have served a purpose in helping people gain a better understanding. In fact, I use all the viewpoints– svatantrika, prasangika, yogacharya etc. in my own reflection and meditation because they’re all helpful. As I’ve said before, I have found the syllogistic-autonomous distinction to be very helpful in my understanding.

Further, I think the main difference in opinion regarding conceptual and non conceptual on this thread is really a sutra-tantra difference and has nothing to do with conceptuality. If you look at the teachings on tantra by all the teachers being named here, then the entire debate changes.

So I think it can all start sounding like a lot of polemics if we’re not careful and then we miss the entire point of what we’re trying to do as Buddhists. I think debate is useful– but only if it’s useful and brings us all to a better understanding.
- 138
  
  Dorje on April 14, 2014 at 5:47 pm
  Reply
  
  No, Joanne, as I said before, I have studied Tsongkhapa. Back in the 80s and 90s, to study Madhyamaka was to study Tsongkhapa’s presentation of it. There was (and to some degree still is) a strong Gelug bias amongst academics that write about this stuff. Also, I attended NKT classes during some of this time.
  
  You might totally disagree with what am saying and that’s fine, but it would be kind of nice if you could debate in good faith. You may not recognise my (or other’s) descriptions of Tsongkhapa’s position, but don’t just assume I’m making it up. In a way you do really need to see how others approach Madhyamaka to see that Tsongkhapa does something quite different.
  
  I posted the link to the article on Gorampa because it does give some idea as to where I am coming from. I am aware that these issues are complex and, as it took me several years to get my head round different bits, I probably should not have assumed that anyone could work out what I was saying by just briefly summarising the arguments.
  
  I will have a go at tracking down illustrations to Tsongkhapa’s position if I have time and the energy to do so. I have got rid of most of my old Gelugpa based books.
139

Joanne on April 14, 2014 at 12:44 am
Reply

One way to look at all of these differing perspectives on madymika is to see them as reflecting the great diversity and richness of the Tibetan Buddhist tradition. I remember when I first heard about the shentong/rhantong debate, I felt a little overwhelmed simply getting my brain around it. I’m still overwhelmed, but working to understand these differences is really helpful– and shouldn’t simply turn into an exercise in pointing fingers and putting down other traditions.
- 140
  
  Dorje on April 14, 2014 at 5:49 pm
  Reply
  
  Sad to say, but much like the Prasangika/Svatantrika ‘debate’, the “Shentong/Rangtong debate” is a Tibetan fiction made up by Shentongpas. Nobody at all would identify themselves as a Rangtongpa.
  - 141
    
    No name on April 14, 2014 at 9:41 pm
    Reply
    
    Shentongpas made the whole thing up? Sounds a bit sectarian doesn’t it? On whose reading of history are you basing this sweeping generalisation of the last half millennium of Tibetan history?
    Was it the banning of Dolpopas works and the forced conversion of Jonang monasteries self imposed then? Please point to historical evidence forr your assertion and explain why the Dolpopa situation was not an aspect of the very conflict you deny the existence of.
    Have you not read Pabongkas letters-who do you think he was condemning? When he described his own philosophical views as the highest, whose were the lowest?
    - 142
      
      Dorje on April 14, 2014 at 10:48 pm
      Reply
      
      There seems to be a slight tendancy to over react to others’ comments here and I apologise if I have said anything that leads to people feeling upset or getting too defensive. I meant, just as no one would identify themselves as svatantrika, no body would identify themselves as a rangtongpa. The generic ‘rangtong’ position refuted by shentongpas isn’t a real position, just a handy way of grouping all nonShentongpas together. Your earlier comments about Tsongkhapa not being all bad was a good example of this. You said his prasangika was necessary before establishing the empty of other essence. However, Tsongkhapa explicitly rejects both kunshi and rangrig which are the necessary basis for the shentong view. Other madhyamikas, like Mipham, would be much more ammenable, though.
      I’ve nothing against either shentong or Tsongkhapa’s prasangika views. My lama is shentong and a number of lamas have held views very similar to Tsongkhapa in the tradition I practice in. I am simply saying that it is important to understand the different views as much as we can.
      - 143
        
        noname on April 15, 2014 at 8:46 am
        Reply
        
        Agreed, but we must be careful to not become the proverbial “jack of all trades, master of none”. Years spent studying the innumerable philosophical schools of Buddhist thought at the expense of actualising even one of them are the story of an empty life. Dont forget, its the moon we should be focused intently upon, not thedozens of fingers pointing at it.
        Good stuff Dorje, youre obviously level headed and practicing hard. I am the opposite,a lazy unsubdued hot head. However, amidst all my intellectual speculations, ive tried never to lose sight of the inner buddha and feel sure that, as a result, the advice i offer is sound, even though it may not be that palatable.
        Im sure we follow a similar tradition and are destined for the same goal
      - 144
        
        noname on April 15, 2014 at 8:48 am
        Reply
        
        PS Tzong kapa also said that studying the mind only view was very helpful as a prerequisite to prasangika-thats why we study tenets
        As the Tibetans say, ‘one even uses dog fat if it cures the wound’
        
        145
        
        Dorje on April 17, 2014 at 8:08 am
        Reply
        
        Yes, but does he really study the texts and commentaries of Yogacara or biased caricatures showing Yogacara as a false view his followers should never fall into? I have sympathy for Shentongpas and find it strange that, post Patsab, with Prasangika Madhyamaka becoming dominant, the third turning sutras were seen as inferior to the second. This was just Tibet, though. In India it doesn’t seem that Chandrakirti’s criticism of Bhavaviveka won the argument. Afterall, Shantarakshita in the eighth century was acknowledged as one of the greatest pandits of his day and he taught a Pramana Yogacara Madhyamaka synthesis. This fusion of Dignaga, Asangha and Nagajuna seemed to be the way the Indians overcame different approaches, they followed all of them. Shame, in a way, Tibetans were too argumentative to do that. Only relatively recently with Khenpo Shenga and other ‘rimed’ lamas was there a move to study the Indian texts directly without Tibetan commentaries, thereby circumventing centuries of unnecessary polemics and conceptual proliferation.
        
        146
        
        No name on April 18, 2014 at 8:11 pm
        
        I just spent some time on the cushion-when I come back here and read all this stuff, I can’t help but think that you are both missing the point-study is necessary but meditation is essential-all thes words, blah, blah, blah How do you sleep?
        Have a rest why don’t you?
  - 147
    
    tenpel on July 1, 2014 at 1:34 pm
    Reply
    
    According to Ringu Tulku there are not too much differences in the view but rather in the language when it comes to explain emptiness:
    http://bodhicharya.de/Rime-en.html
    
    Might be worth to consider this paper …
148

Joanne on April 14, 2014 at 10:58 am
Reply

And as for sectarianism, Dorje, I think a major cause of that is prejudice based on ignorance– based on assumptions about others because of the way they appear, because of labels we put on them. We make assumptions about what all Gelugpas think for example– based maybe on a few superficial experiences. In this case, I gave a list of the texts from which the Dalai Lama teaches and you then proceeded with assumptions both about his teachings and my understanding. In an effort to better understand your arguments, I asked if your perspective was coming from a svatantrika position– whereupon you made statements to the effect that I was reflecting a Gelug fixation on the svatantrika-prasangika debate! You seem to base your criticisms of my understanding on assumptions that I am a Gelugpa and you know what ALL Gelugpas think and understand. Both assumptions are ignorant.

Sectarianism is not caused by conceptual or non-conceptual understandings of emptiness– not caused by opinions other than those you subscribe to– but caused by assumptions and prejudices about others based on ignorance. Given that you are prepared to critique Tsongkhapa and the Gelug tradition with only a superficial understanding of both, I think you are in danger of such attitudes. You have also implied that my understanding is at risk of being sectarian simply because I have not read your favorite texts! That seems a little silly to me. Believe me, I am busy trying to read as many texts as I can– however, I believe that finishing my study of Abhisamalamkara is more important than reading Mipham. Does that make me sectarian?
- 149
  
  No name on April 14, 2014 at 1:00 pm
  Reply
  
  Joanne, I received teachings in the Gelug from several masters who I will not name who all made this claim overtly. It arose from the same mentality as that which suppressed the teachings of sonam senge and dolpopa I am certain that it exists elsewhere so the problem is not inherent within the traditions but rather in the minds of some sectarian followers
- 150
  
  Dorje on April 14, 2014 at 6:01 pm
  Reply
  
  Sorry Joanne. There is a lot of accusation here and I don’t have time to deal with it all. I base my understanding of what Tsongkhapa thought on what he wrote and what his followers have written. If someone is a Gelugpa, I assume that they follow Tsongkhapa’s position. HH Dalai Lama is a Gelugpa and often (though not always) teaches according to Tsongkhapa’s position.
  
  Sectarianism is based on the assumption that one’s tradition is correct and others are false, such as suggesting that someone that doesn’t agree with the founder of one’s tradition holds a lower view, or the idea that before the time of the founder of one’s tradition, all older traditions were in need of reform due to their poor study and discipline.
  
  In your article, you argue convincingly that people who follow one religious tradition should study other traditions so they have a broader view and don’t fall into exclusivism leading to sectarianism. That also has been my only position here.
  
  I will satisfy myself with just one concession, that Tsongkhapa’s position on Madhyamaka is not identical with Nagarjuna’s. Do you think you might be able to agree with that.
  
  BTW, I don’t recall criticising Tsongkhapa’s view anywhere. Where have I done this?
  - 151
    
    tenpel on April 14, 2014 at 6:27 pm
    Reply
    
    Dear Dorje, noname and Joanne, thank you all for your contributions and the discussion. This topic needs really to be reflected and discussed, and also their is a need (including myself) to reflect the own views. Thank you all for your engagement!
152

Joanne on April 15, 2014 at 12:34 am
Reply

Dorje, how about we let Milarepa have the final word? Here is a little snippet from one of his 100,000 songs, sang to the logicians who were challenging him and badgering him:

“Since the faulty Klesas are themselves illumination
There is no thing outstanding
To be known as ‘Wisdom.’
This is the right way of practicing the Dharma;
Empty words are useless and help little!”

This was first read to me by the great Gelug teacher HH the Dalai Lama at a Monlam teaching many years ago.
153

Dorje on April 15, 2014 at 7:28 am
Reply

Joanne, if you don’t think it’s important to understand the various different views held by different traditions, that is fair enough. I personally do think it’s important as it stops us thinking that we have a monopoly on the truth and eveyone either agrees with us or holds lower easily refutable views. Milarepa was right; words and concepts have no ultimate value, but if we just reject them without understanding our own views let alone anyone else’s, kleshas may never arise as dharmakaya.
154

noname on April 17, 2014 at 10:09 am
Reply

As above
“Agreed, but we must be careful to not become the proverbial “jack of all trades, master of none”. Years spent studying the innumerable philosophical schools of Buddhist thought at the expense of actualising even one of them are the story of an empty life. Dont forget, its the moon we should be focused intently upon, not thedozens of fingers pointing at it.”
the rest complemented you Dorje!
155

Dorje on April 17, 2014 at 10:34 pm
Reply

But Noname, this goes in stark contrast to Joanne’s original argument that we should not only study other Dharma traditions, to avoid being exclusive, but also other religions and other disciplines, like the sciences etc. I agreed with Joanne probably even more than Joanne did.

It would be very easy for an NKT person to respond to her great article by saying, “You have also implied that my understanding is at risk of being sectarian simply because I have not read your favorite texts! That seems a little silly to me.” Some people will stand on their heads to ‘win’ and argument.
156

Joanne on April 18, 2014 at 11:27 pm
Reply

Dorje, I don’t think I have ever objected to understanding different traditions and viewpoints. In fact, as I’ve told you several times, I do study from different perspectives myself, as much as I am able– even if I don’t study from your favorite books. I don’t know how you can assume I don’t. On the other hand, I do speak up when someone says something that doesn’t ring true to me. I think I simply disagree with you– there’s no need to bring in all sorts of judgments about what that means.
157

noname on April 19, 2014 at 9:44 am
Reply

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz! As they say, talk doesnt cook the rice. Dont forget the finger and the moon. Study, study, study makes Jack and Buddha a dull boy-five minutes on the cushion is worth five years debating who is right or wrong-and i know your responses but still think you both talk and think too much for your own good, not to mention others
Breath. Relax, Let go. Observe without clinging. Try it, youll like it! OR ARE YOU AFRAID OF THE ABYSS???Dont worry, its just another thought
- 158
  
  dawkins on April 19, 2014 at 12:37 pm
  Reply
  
  Spot on! …But TP won’t allow this , as it negates the whole raison d’etre for his site! haha!
159

Joanne on April 19, 2014 at 4:16 pm
Reply

noname and dawkins, if the best you can do upon rising from the cushion is to cast dispersions on others who are simply engaged in honest discussions about dharma on a thread reserved for that purpose, then perhaps you need to reassess your practice. It’s a little like going to the beach and disparaging people for swimming!
- 160
  
  noname on April 20, 2014 at 8:28 am
  Reply
  
  Its very easy to justify ones clinging and spiritual materialism by engaging in study and debate-been there, done that, got the tee shirt
  BTW I believe the word you were looking for was “aspersions”,an attack on the reputation or integrity of someone or something.and not “dispersions” the action or process of distributing things or people over a wide area- perhaps the mistake was freudian
  As for this thread being for the purpose of dharma discussion, I think youll find it is rather for the purpose of discussion of the problems arising in the West as dharma grows an evolves. For those who wish to debate with others over philosophical issues in a manner which seems to be about and strutting their philosophical stuff and advertising how much they “know” so as to gain respect,, there are certainly forums for that , but I think youll find thats not what this site is for.-maybe http://www.spiritual ego.com?
  Telling others they need to reassess their practice is a common mistake among beginners
  The advice from this end, based on my reading of the content of the blog was to spend more time sitting and less time talking. It may not be pleasing from the viewpoint of semantics, but its generally sound and fully accords with the Buddhas word, regardless of philosophical stance
161

No name on April 19, 2014 at 7:56 pm
Reply

Shantidevas
The ultimate is not within the realm of intellect
For intellect is said to be the relative

Lankavatara sutra
These naught children, common scholars
Like dead men do they study it

Prajnaparamita praise
Beyond words, thought and expression
Transcendent wisdom, unborn and unceasing, like the sky
Known only to self cognizant wisdom
To the Mother of the three times Buddhas I bow
162

Joanne on April 20, 2014 at 10:03 am
Reply

I’d like to just conclude this discussion by reiterating a few observations:

1. It is impossible to discuss whether or not the Dalai Lama, Tsongkhapa and Nagarjuna are in agreement in an online forum. Our conversation has become one where we grab this quote or that quote out of context– and the reality is that the three authors involved have published extensive, profound and contextual works. For example, it is possible to quote from the Buddha himself a statement inferring the existence of self– does that mean it was his ultimate intention? No, of course not. So given that neither Tsongkhapa nor the Dalai Lama claim to be disagreeing with Nagarjuna, then proving that they are disagreeing with him would entail quite an extensive research, much more than a string of quotes out of context. Of this, both Dorje and I have been guilty!

2. Nonetheless, it seems that the major reason for the claims made by Dorje is that the Gelug tradition and Tsongkhapa (and to a lesser degree the Dalai Lama) emphasize a highly discursive approach to ascertaining realization of emptiness. Is that a valid way to read Nagarjuna? I think yes, Dorje thinks no. (I also would say that it isn’t the only way to read Nagarjuna, but a valid way) Does it mean that the final realization of emptiness, using this approach will not be complete? I, Tsongkhapa and the Dalai Lama think no. Dorje and other writers think yes.

3. Another major reason for Dorje’s claims seems to be based on Tsongkhapa’s and the Dalai Lama’s view of conventional truth. The Dalai Lama says that one of the biggest challenges facing a meditator who has directly realized emptiness is rising from that meditation and maintaining a coherent notion of conventional truth, one which avoids the extreme of wrong views. His emphasis on dependent origination, an emphasis he shares with Nagarjuna and Tsongkhapa, is a way to address that challenge. I do not see that this approach reifies conventional truth. Dorje claims that their approach does reify conventional truth.

These are the main points of dispute that I see– I am sure that Dorje would want to add more! However, it is truly impossible to resolve them in this non-contextual, disjointed way. Impossible. So now I will take noname’s advice and return to my mat!
163

No name on April 20, 2014 at 7:56 pm
Reply

Well done Jo,now we’re talking (by not talking) Which an interesting dichotomy if you consider the views of……..Zzzzzzzzzz!
Best wishes Now sit
164

Dorje on April 20, 2014 at 9:14 pm
Reply

Joanne, my point from the start was that Tsongkhapa adds to what Nagarjuna says in a self-conscious way that he accepts but no one else does. In seeking to establish some ontological status for both conventional truth and ultimate truth (existing and not existing) he was doing something that, according to other traditions, Nagarjuna and Chandrakirti avoided. They were only concerned with reality’s epistemological status. If you read Nagarjuna in this light, you may find it interesting. Also bear in mind, the object of negation for them was not inherent existence but the tetralemma, or even the idea that deluded sentient beings could ever discern what is and what is not, let alone describe it with language, concepts and logic.
Tsongkhapa sought a synthesis of madhyamaka and pramana and cannot be understood without bearing this is mind. This is not necessarily a bad thing and at no point have I said Tsongkhapa was not realised or wrong about reality, but you must understand, the view that Tsongkhapa accurately presents madhyamaka is not settled and is open to debate. People have been killed, tortured, had their books banned or monasteries converted for disagreeing with Tsongkhapa. All I am asking for is a little sensitivity. A good start would be not conflating Nagarjuna’s position with Tsongkhapa’s and not going on about what you think svatantrikas think. And for my end of the bargain, whenever I mention Gorampa’s view or Ju Mipham’s, I will not claim they presented Nagarjuna verbatim either. Tibetan scholastic sectarianism is very messy. The least we can all do is acknowledge this and act accordingly.
165

Dorje on April 20, 2014 at 11:57 pm
Reply

By the way, Joanne, I’m not sure what you mean by “discursive”, meandering, long winded or well reasoned and grounded in logic? In a nutshell, Tsongkhapa differs with other madhyamaka teachers because he uses pramana to establish conventional truth and negates the ‘wrong’ thing to establish ultimate truth.

This discussion has been interesting to me. I hadn’t really looked at this stuff for over 20 years, and naturally, details and quotes have been forgotten, but it has renewed my interest. Maybe I’ll read that commentary on the madhyamakavatara I’ve been meaning to for the past few years.
Thanks.
- 166
  
  No name on April 21, 2014 at 4:04 pm
  Reply
  
  What strikes me is that the perception Joanne has of Tzongkapa as mainstream prasangika was one that I held for many years and I only became aware that his views were highly idiosyncratic when it was pointed out to me by a Sakyapa master some time later. My suspicion is that Joanne’s wide ranging study is primarily autodidactic (from books and the internet and through the filter of her own views and that the only actual traditional transmission Joanne has received have been in public teachings from HH and in classes with a Gelugpa geshe somewhere
  While there is nothing wrong with this and it’s a situation that many westerners find them selves in, my point is that it is such a background which breeds a view that Tzongkapa was the only one who really had it, and the others are all mistaken. People like this secretly feel they have got it right and everyone else is a poor misguided fool following an ill informed version of Buddhas final view.
  This is sectarian bigotry personified: only I know best, only my truth is the real truth. Until we have passed through this phase it’s better not to waste ttime debating on the internet. The great masters learned ALL the different schools views, assimilated and experienced them in meditation, THEN wrote critiques. It’s sound advice that we should do the same. Otherwise we might be unknowingly reinforcing our own bigotry
  - 167
    
    Dorje on April 25, 2014 at 11:18 am
    Reply
    
    I agree, No name. I’ve been a little puzzled by some of Joanne’s responses and I think that her doing it on her own, just from books, may be one reason why she approaches it the way she does. She seems to suggest that the Gelug view is not a single homogenised view based on Tsongkhapa and his immediate students, but may vary from one lama to another. This seems to misunderstand the nature of Tibetan philosophical discourse, where the whole point is just to learn what the founders of one’s tradition taught and not to innovate a new presentation. I imagine this comes from reading too much into a difference in tone, translator’s style and emphasis and not looking at the core content.
    
    When looking at these things we are just really looking at how a teacher understands the two truths and what their object of negation is. All Gelug teachers describe these in the same way or they are not Gelug teachers. Whether it’s HH Dalai Lama , the Geshe at your local Gelug centre, or a western Gelug academic; if you’ve seen one, you’ve seen them all. The more you read, the more you will be exposed to this one view of the two truths, etc.
    
    Gelugpas admit and agree that their version of madhyamaka is idiosyncratic and deviates from tradition, but they justify this deviation by saying it comes straight from Manjushri in visions and when Lama Umapa communicated with Manjushri on Tsongkhapa’s behalf. Going to the ‘source’ of wisdom, they claim, allowed Tsongkhapa to disregard traditional interpretations and come up with a presentation that he was fully aware was peculiar, novel and different.
    
    Geshe Thubten Jinpa, HH Dalai Lama’s translator writes,
    “Tsongkhapa attributes almost all his views on Madhyamaka philosophy to Buddhapalita (fouth century CE) and Chandrakirti (seventh century CE), whom in turn Tsongkhapa sees as expounding the ultimate standpoint of Nagarjuna (second century CE) and Aryadeva (second century CE), the founders of the Indian Madhyamaka school. Nevertheless, insofar as an interpretation of Nagarjuna’s Madhyamaka philosophy is concerned, Tsongkhapa departs significantly from both his contemporary and earlier Tibetan thinkers.
    The Traditional Geluk understanding of these deviations in Tsongkhapa’s thought attributes the development of his distinct reading of Madhyamaka philosophy to a mystical communion he is reported to have had with the bodhisattva Manjusri. For the contemporary reader, this kind of invocation to mystic guidance may be seen as having a special methodologocal significance, i.e., that the rhetoric of revelation is often a device signalling a fundamental shift away from an existing tradition. In other words, it allows the claimant to put forth his or her original and often revolutionary ideas without jeopardising the need for faithfulness to a tradition. It is interesting that the tradition Tsongkhapa is claiming to honour is, in a strict sense, not the existing system in Tibet; rather, it appears to be in the tradition of Manjusri as revealed in a mystic vision!”
    http://www.wisdom-books.com/ProductDetail.asp?PID=17225 p17
    
    Gorampa warns that visions of deities could actually be demonic provocations. He says of Tsongkhapa’s idiosyncratic presentation of Madhyamaka,
    “This second system [of Madhyamaka exegesis in Tibet] did not come about during the time that the Lord Tsong kha pa was studying the meaning of the scriptures in reliance upon his earlier holy tutors. It came about later, after the time of his visions of Mañjushrı and of his invitation to Mdo khams by Bla ma Dbu ma pa. It was then that he came to possess these peculiar theses concerning the doctrine of the Madhyamaka, […] [Tsong kha pa] himself then proclaimed these [tenets] as being tenets that no previous scholar had ever noticed, and others [also came to] see things in this way. Now if these tenets—[derived from] the religious practice of a tutelary deity (yi dam)—were in accordance with the doctrines of the sutras and tantras, [this would be indicative of the fact that the practitioner] had been relying on a real tutelary deity. [In such a case,] the place where that person sits should be worshipped, and [that person’s] followers should also be close to spiritual accomplishments. But if [these tenets] are not in accordance with the doctrines of the sutras and tantras, then they must be proclaimed to be what they are: the false doctrines (chos log) taught by a demon who, skilled in deception, has taken the form of a tutelary deity.”
    http://www.wisdompubs.org/book/freedom-extremes p200-201
    
    Interesting parallels with the ‘protector’ dispute with Pabongkha developing his ‘innovation’ following the visions of his lama Thagpo; some believing the visions came from Manjushri, others saying they had a demonic source.
    - 168
      
      Joanne on April 25, 2014 at 6:33 pm
      Reply
      
      Thank you, Dorje, this seems a clear summation of your point of view. A good place to quit.
169

noname on April 21, 2014 at 9:27 am
Reply

If appearances arise through mental labelling and thoughts, like mind itself, are transparent, what need is there of all this speculation? Do we have time? Get thee to a nunnery and put thine ass on the cushion….and be quick about it!
As the Captain said, “Time is runnin out, and all you ever do is blabber and smoke”

If you don’t hurry there will be no hope
Why don’t you quit actin’ like a dope
170

john6747 on April 21, 2014 at 9:52 am
Reply
171

Joanne on April 21, 2014 at 11:07 am
Reply

And Dorje, given that few English translations of Tsongkhapa’s major works, such as Lamrim Chenmo, were available 20 years ago– and few commentaries on Madyamika by HH Dalai Lama were available– I question your ability to accurately make statements as to their positions on Madyamika (though perhaps you were fluent in Tibetan?). That has been my main point, simply that your statements regarding their views do not reflect what I believe is a correct understanding of those views. And I think I can safely say that I have read more from those two authors than you have! Your statements appear to be coming from secondary sources, from others’ opinions, instead of from a careful investigation of Tsongkhapa’s, Nagarjuna’s and the Dalai Lama’s writings.

In terms of sectarianism, I beleive that the most important way to avoid biased, judgmental views is to be well informed about others’ views before judging them. Which is why I try to be transparent about what I know something about and what I know nothing about. Just like you, I can’t know everything or read every book.
172

Joanne on April 24, 2014 at 10:45 am
Reply

For example, Dorje, from what you say, it appears as if the view of Madyamika you subscribe to might fall perilously close to nihilism. You have yet to provide a coherent notion of conventional truth in which the laws of karma can still function. However, because I have not read the authors you quote from (which have not yet included Nagarjuna or Chandrakirti), nor fully investigated your views, I would not make that particular judgment.

Nor would I label your views Kagyu or Nyingma, for example, and then simply judge them on that basis– as you do with my views, labeling them “Gelug” and then imposing assumptions and preconceptions as to what I think.
173

Dorje on April 24, 2014 at 5:05 pm
Reply

Just to clarify, Joanne, could you explain or give some illustration of how I have characterised Tsongkhapa and HH Dalai Lama’s madhyamaka presentation and how this differs with what you understand them to be saying.
thanks.
- 174
  
  Joanne on April 25, 2014 at 5:22 pm
  Reply
  
  No Dorje, it’s time to stop. If I say A, you claim I’ve said B and round and round we go, ad infinitum. Yes, John, the Two Ronnies is better entertainment. Enough. This is not a conversation to be had online.
175

john6747 on April 24, 2014 at 6:09 pm
Reply

My unicorn is bigger than yours
176

noname on April 25, 2014 at 6:45 am
Reply

I think the point is to study as many perspectives as you can and THEN decide on whats best for you. Dorje seems to have touched a nerve because you appear to be one of those people who has studied one tradition and then judges all other perspectives as mistaken from your perspective, whereas each of the views is designed to help different characters. Take the Third Karmapa as an example-he wrote shentong texts (though he never used the term) and texts which refuted shentong. His aim seems to have been to benefit as many beings as possible, not to prove one view was definitive and all others inferior in relation to it. Perhaps we can learn something form this. It certainly beats the tendency in Westerners to claim that their view/football team/politician is the best and all others inferior
I think youre doing well Joanne, but you are assuming youre ready to debate these issues when really, like the rest of us, youre just beginning t scratch the surface of these issues. And the question is of how much befit all these words will be in the long run? 10 minutes on the cushion would be of far greater benefit to all concerned
- 177
  
  Joanne on April 25, 2014 at 5:34 pm
  Reply
  
  Noname, I believe the point you just made was one that I made over a week ago– I have studied and practiced in several different traditions– in fact, I completed a Kagyu Ngondro. I admire all Buddhist traditions and I believe that they all benefit beings. Remember? We agreed that mahamudra was a good practice etc.? We agreed the cushion was a good place to be because these conversations go nowhere online and that I’d better stop talking so much????
  
  And John, how about fairies instead? I love fairies the best!
178

No name on April 25, 2014 at 6:54 pm
Reply

“I think the point is to study as many perspectives as you can and THEN decide on whats best for you.”

I omitted to highlight ” best FOR YOU”-this whole debate about whose view is superior makes the same mistake as sectarian bigots made when promoting their own schools and philosophies in Tibet, which was to overlook the reason Lord Buddha taught so many different views, namely to concur with the proclivities of individuals. There is no ‘ one size fits all’ in Dharma. Even mediation on the bodhicitta can become a poison for those possessed by spiritual ego and whats appropriate at one stage may not be so at another.
So, all this talk of what is right and wrong is based on imappropriate assumptions of what definitive means and whats truly important and IMO is a huge sidetrack from the important task before us. I have been around Dharma people in the East and West for nearly 40 years now and in that time have seen many examples of folk using Dharma to reinforce rather than undermine ego. Its an ugly beast that rears its head in many guises.
- 179
  
  Dorje on April 25, 2014 at 9:50 pm
  Reply
  
  I don’t think my point was ever to say who was right and who was wrong but to point out that there are differences and that to understand what those differences are is important. Rejecting inquiry into this as just words is as bad as rejecting all other points of view as nihilism or whatever, as neither leads to greater understanding.
  
  The issue of sectarianism and exclusivism is important to address and this is best done by opening ourselves to other view points and rejecting the lazy characterisations of other traditions we have learnt from our lineage lamas. The svatantrika/prasangika debate is a good example such a lazy characterisation.
  
  I am not suggesting that we stop practice and just post on internet blogs and message boards but I don’t think that was an option anyone seriously entertained. Considering positions, reading other viewpoints and looking more closely at our own position, when challenged by others, helps us refine and deepen our understanding. Engaging in this little discussion has opened my eyes to other viewpoints, encouraged me to read more, and made me reflect on what makes different positions lead to sectarianism. To reject it all as pointless seems to be a way people resort to to keep others ignorant. I’m not sure what the point of that is, though.
180

Joanne on April 25, 2014 at 9:29 pm
Reply

No name, here is Dorje’s most recent statement about Gelug:

“When looking at these things we are just really looking at how a teacher understands the two truths and what their object of negation is. All Gelug teachers describe these in the same way or they are not Gelug teachers. Whether it’s HH Dalai Lama , the Geshe at your local Gelug centre, or a western Gelug academic; if you’ve seen one, you’ve seen them all. The more you read, the more you will be exposed to this one view of the two truths, etc.”

Is that nonsectarian? Is that a balanced view? Is that tolerance of other traditions?

And where in any of my statements have I spoke of my view being superior or criticized another tradition? Please, either take the time to read what I am saying or refrain from judging me out of ignorance.

Here’s the way it goes with all of the No names and Dorje on this thread. I am a student of the Dalai Lama and Tsongkhapa. I am currently disagreeing with Dorje about a statement she has made about the teachings of those two teachers. It doesn’t matter that I am also a student of Buddha, Milarepa, Gampopa, Maitreya etc. I have been labelled Gelug on this thread. With this label comes all sorts of assumptions about what I believe and think (as demonstrated by Dorje above). With these assumptions comes accusations that I am intolerant of other traditions and viewpoints.

This behavior is exactly what I would call sectarianism, something along the lines of “All Jews stink.” Condemning someone out of ignorance and prejudice, instead of responding to what they say.

And Dorje, do you really believe that all Gelugpas have the same beliefs and thoughts, that they don’t disagree with each other?
- 181
  
  Dorje on April 26, 2014 at 7:47 am
  Reply
  
  Sorry Joanne, but this is very unusual. Saying that all Gelugpas teach and believe the same things is a simple statement of fact. I’m not saying all Gelugpas eat the same food, enjoy the same music or like the same soft furnishings in their houses, I am saying that they ALL follow Tsongkhapa’s teaching; Tsongkhapa’s unique understanding of the two truths and Tsongkhapa’s novel object of negation (which are not the same as Nagarjuna’s understanding of the two truths or Nagarjuna’s object of negation.). The entire Gelug training system is designed to produce people that understand and hold Tsongkhapa’s position and know it inside-out. This isn’t even in the least bit controversial, let alone sectarian. I was talking specificly about the object of negation and understanding of the two truths but even minor differences of opinion were sorted out in the generations immediately following Tsongkhapa and enshrined in their university text books.
  
  There was, of course, one notable Gelug lama who disagreed with Tsongkhapa’s position, Gendun Chopel, but he was imprisoned, tortured and eventually died for not toeing the party line.
  
  Please find one quotation from any Gelugpa lama (other than Gendun Chopel) teaching a view of the two truths or object of negation different to Tsongkhapa’s.
  
  Joanne, you keep saying you want to stop this discussion. Maybe you should, or you should carry on discussing the important points. Just sniping from the sidelines seems a little unnecessary.
  
  I’m sorry if I’ve said anything that offends anyone. It is not my intention. I have upmost respect for Tsongkhapa and his tradition. I just don’t think that it is correct to say that his position and Nagarjuna’s position are the same. Of course, he felt he had the true interpretation of what Nagarjuna meant but others claim that too, and to say that Tsongkhapa was right may lead to the sectarian view that others’ interpretations were wrong. So, in my opinion, with regard to Tibetan sectarian scholasticism, it is best just to say that person’s position is their own and not say it is the same as Nagarjuna or anyone else. Let’s try not to get carried away, shall we?
- 182
  
  Dorje on April 26, 2014 at 10:32 am
  Reply
  
  By the way, Joanne, we are discussing madhyamaka. Every opinion you have stated regarding Madhyamaka (thinking I might be svatantrika, thinking Tsongkhapa’s view = Nagarjuna’s view, thinking my position is nihilistic, etc.) is the Gelug position. You said you study Madhyamaka from Gelugpa lamas (Tsongkhapa and HH Dalai Lama). I don’t think I am being unfair in ‘labelling’ your position as Gelug.
  
  You may hold loads of other opinions, you may like loads of other things, you may wear many different hats, as you put it, I am not refusing you the right to being a multi-faceted individual in your own right. But here we are discussing Madhyamaka and your position is identical to or heavily influenced by the Gelug tradition. Nothing wrong with that, but that’s the way it is. If you deny this is your position, put forward a view that you hold regarding Madhyamaka that differs with Tsongkhapa’s view of the two truths and his object of negation.
- 183
  
  No name on April 26, 2014 at 6:04 pm
  Reply
  
  Oh dear j you sound quite desperate, comparing yourself to the Jews-what is it they say? If you mention hitler in an online debate, you’ve lost? You’re cutting it pretty close!
  I am sitting here suffering one of the worst bouts of an illness and thinking how silly and irrelevant all these words are.
  As I’ve said before and as we all know, it’s motive that determine whether an action is good or bad.
  When I read all this, apparently virtuous wordplay, I wonder what motives drive contributors. Is it compassion? Is it love?
  And sadly, the more I read this stuff, I become increasingly convinced that these point scoring philosophical gun fights are actually more about eliciting affirmations. About proving we are ‘right ‘ and ‘.clever’. Others are misguided, despite their good intentions, and only I have found the one, real truth. Quite sick from a dharma perspective actually.
  Joanne, your auto didactry is formidable and I am deeply impressed by your commitment but I can’t help wonder if this, seemingly obsessive commitment to establishing who holds the highest truth is holding you back, one last strand of ego grasping that you are desperately clinging too, rather than taking the leap as it were_what was it the Japanese called it ” climbing to the top of a hundred foot pole then not jumping off?”
  You seem like a very nice person and have obviously been through a lot. But now is the time to stop perpetuating your samsara through the desire for affirmations. As far as I can see, you are at a point where you can definitely consider yourself sane and as having found the correct path. So stop trying to prove yourself, to validate yourself as one of the good people-you obviously ARE good and have found the way. But arguing like this is preventing you continuing on your journey. In Trungpa’s word”I have no pride in being a unicorn. If you could understand this, perhaps you would be able to relax your struggle”
  With love
184

Joanne on April 26, 2014 at 12:44 pm
Reply

Dorje, here’s how I see your positions unfolding:

1. All Gelugpas think alike (“if you’ve seen one, you’ve seen them all.”). Through this, you implicitly state that “all Gelugpas” are incapable of critical analysis or thinking for themselves and practice out of blind faith.

2. The tenets that all Gelugpas follow come from Tsongkhapa and are not supported by the kangyur and tengyur (this is despite the fact that Gelug monks and nuns spend many years studying this kangyur and tengyur).

3. Not only that, you quote from Gorampa to make the point that Tsonkhapa’s philosophical viewpoints are not just wrong, but demonic: “they must be proclaimed to be what they are: the false doctrines (chos log) taught by a demon who, skilled in deception, has taken the form of a tutelary deity.”

3, Then you draw parallels between Shugden and Tsongkhapa’s supposed “demonic” connections.

4. Then, after dropping these bomb shells, you skillfully retreat and say, “The issue of sectarianism and exclusivism is important to address and this is best done by opening ourselves to other view points and rejecting the lazy characterisations of other traditions we have learnt from our lineage lamas.”

All I can say to all of this is that I think Fairies are superior to Unicorns!
- 185
  
  Dorje on April 26, 2014 at 11:45 pm
  Reply
  
  1. Sorry Joanne, you seem to misunderstand things a little. From the start the Dharma was taught by enlightened Buddhas to unenlightened beings. The path involves unenlightened beings learning what the enlightened Buddhas teach and following that. Buddhist philosophy isn’t like western philosophy or science in that it doesn’t look to progressing to greater insights and more advances in the future. It attempts to recreate the realisations and wisdom of the past. All Buddhists are trying to do is get the realisation the Buddha and great masters of the past got. Gradually this becomes less easy until the Dharma totally disappears. There is no progress, only gradual degeneration.
  
  This is why it is so important to follow a tradition and learn the things past masters teach. There is, of course, a nod to ‘critical analysis’, but this is only really so that we are clever enough to understand what our lineage teachers taught. NOT, absolutely NOT to come up with our own ideas. The idea goes, if you understand Nagarjuna, for example, and meditate on what he taught, through the commentarial prism of your own tradition, of course, you will get the realisations he had. It has never been the idea to beat Nagarjuna by devising a better system. That is exactly why ALL Gelugpas follow Tsongkhapa. They study his texts and digest them, including his criticism of every other position, until they know it backwards and can beat anyone in debate on it. If they are really good they get to be a Geshe and teach the accepted viewpoint to others. The other traditions are exactly the same, learning the teachings and commentaries of their own traditions until they know them inside-out and get to be Khenpos.
  
  2. As I said, all Tibetan traditions study the texts of their lineage teachers. Of course they all study the great commentaries of Indian masters (they generally don’t actually study sutras, don’t ask me why) but they read these Indian commentaries in conjunction with the commentaries and text books of their tradition. They don’t just read the tengyur alone and think about the commentaries without interpretation from their tradition. For example, they may study the Uttaratantra Shashtra by Maitreya, but a Gelugpa would study it with Gyaltsab Je’s commentary, a Jonangpa would study it with Dolpopa’s commentary, a Kagyupa would study it Jamgon Kongtrul’s commentary, a Nyingma would study it with Jamgon Mipham’s commentary and a Sakyapa would study it with Rongton’s commentary. And they would subsequently all come away with very different ideas of what Maitreya meant (much like the two commentaries of the Bodhicharyavatara I posted excepts of previously.) To get a little idea of what the Gelug education system entails have a look here:
  http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/en/archives/study/history_buddhism/buddhism_tibet/gelug/overview_gelug_monastic_education.html
  you will see that the Gelug monks and nuns are really studying text books containing the views of teachers in their tradition, in the same way that Kagyu monks and nuns and Nyingma monks and nuns do. They memorise, they digest, they repeat, they get qualified. If they innovate or decide their tradition’s lamas were wrong, well, they probably don’t get to sit that many classes any more. Look at what happened to Gendun Chopel.
  
  I would just like to add, there is a pretence of critical reasoning in that opposiing views are mentioned before being shot down as provisional or incorrect. For example, the kind of madhyamaka proposed by Gorampa was rejected throughout the Lamrim Chenmo as Hva-Shang’s position (obviously, since losing the debate at Samye with Kamalashila, Hva-Shang’s name has been dirt, so comparing your rivals to him isn’t nice.) The so-called svatantrika-prasangika debate is the same. Having read Gelug Madhyamaka commentaries do you really imagine anyone would read them and then decide being a svatantrika is a good idea? It is critical analysis spoon fed with straw men waiting ready to be shot up in flames.
  
  3. Gorampa and other Sakyapas were very very opposed to Tsongkhapa’s innovations. I don’t write this because I agree with Gorampa’s polemics but I do think it is a useful illustration, especially for western people who may have been misled (by Gelug academics, inter alia) into thinking Tsongkhapa’s version of Madhyamaka was widely accepted. Nothing can be further from the truth.
  
  4. I thought the parallel was interesting, that’s all. It may be that Pabongkha borrowed the theme of developing a new innovation by his teacher having a vision of Manjushri, from Tsongkhapa, thereby building his reputation as a new Tsongkhapa.
  
  Sorry, Joanne. Again, I don’t mean to upset anyone, but I really don’t know where you are getting your ideas from. It’s up to you, but I don’t think it would be a bad idea for you to step away for a bit. I enjoy discussing things, it helps me work out my own ideas, but, and I don’t know if I’m unfairly projecting, but you seem a little aggressive and accusatory. Take it easy.
  - 186
    
    Dorje on April 27, 2014 at 12:10 am
    Reply
    
    I will just add that although all other traditions also just follow the teachings of their lamas (obviously), the Gelug school was more uniform in its presentation as Tsongkhapa did a lot of work to devise a homogenous education system for his geshes. Other traditions, particularly the Nyingmapas, were quite late at sorting out a unified monastic curriculum, or any kind of unified infrastructure generally, so there was more room for diversity. But even Sakyas had big differences between lamas. Sakya Chogden, for example, was a Shentongpa [gasp], and Kagyupas also had a few views supported by different lamas. Rimed made these views much more open and accessible, with the restrictions on Dolpopa and Gorampa’s texts slowly lifted, a move strongly criticised by conservative Gelugpas, obviously.
    - 187
      
      Joanne on April 28, 2014 at 12:01 am
      Reply
      
      And I should add, Dorje, that I pretty much agree with your description of Tibetan Buddhist culture. Such practices as you describe are what drove me away from mainstream Buddhism. And I was delighted to find that the actual teachings themselves say something quite different! Also, it is my opinion that Tibetan Buddhist culture is changing– because it must if it is to survive. It will just take time.
  - 188
    
    Joanne on April 27, 2014 at 11:52 pm
    Reply
    
    Dorje, I do know something about Tibetan and Buddhist history, both the good and the bad– but I think it would be best if I let the Dalai Lama and Tsongkhapa themselves respond to your statement.
    
    Before I do that, I will just comment about what my own views of Madyamika are. There’s been much criticism on this thread of “Joanne’s views on Madyamika”, but I don’t believe I’ve ever said what they are! So here are my current views on Madyamika: I believe that I am an ignorant beginner. I am still investigating, comparing views. I don’t think it is useful at my level to come to any conclusions about which view is best. I like all the debates, I find them useful. I read somewhere that many masters believe both Svatantrika and Prasangika will lead to full realization. HH Dalai Lama advised students in New York last October to stick with the Mind only approach if they found the Prasangika made them uncomfortable. So perhaps it’s all about skillful ways to help all the many different dispositions of practitioners– but I won’t know for sure for some time! That’s my view!
    
    Now for the Dalai Lama’s view and Tsongkhapa’s view.
    
    The following is from HH Dalai Lama’s commentary on Heart Sutra. I would also comment that it is through his instigation that Gelug monasteries now contain modern western science as part of their curriculum (and I believe that HH Karmapa is instigating similar changes in Kagyu monasteries). Here’s the quote:
    
    “Earlier we observed that one of the principle features of the Buddha’s teachings is that they were spoken to accord with the varying spiritual and mental needs and dispositions of the listeners. The tenets of the various schools can similarly be viewed as fulfilling these diverse needs. We have just seen how the Mind-only school distinguishes definitive from provisional teachings, and in fact each school has its own criteria for determining whether a teaching of the Buddha is definitive or provisional. In each case, the process is similar; first one uses analysis to determine the Buddha’s ultimate intention in making a particular statement; second, one determines the Buddha’s contextual rationale for making a particular statement; and third, one demonstrates the logical inconsistency, if any, that arises when the particular statement is taken literally.
    
    “The need for such an approach is found in the Buddha’s own sutras. There is a verse in which Buddha urges his followers to take his words as they might accept from a jeweler a metal that appears to be gold; only after seeing that the metal does not tarnish when burned, can be easily cut, and can be polished to a bright shine should the metal be accepted as gold. Thus, the Buddha gives us his permission to critically examine even his own teachings. Buddha suggests we make a thorough inquiry into the truth of his words and verify them for ourselves, and only then ‘accept them, but not out of reference.’
    
    “Taking direction from statements such as these, ancient Indian monastic universities, such as Nalanda, developed a tradition whereby students would critically subject their own teachers’ scholastic work to analysis. Such critical analysis was seen in no way to go against the great admiration and reverence the students had for their teachers. The famous Indian master Vasubandhu, for example, had a disciple known as Vimuktisena, who was said to excel Vasubandhu in his understanding of the Perfection of Wisdom sutras. He questioned Vasubandhu’s Mind-only interpretation and instead developed his own understanding of the sutras in accord with the Middle Way School.
    
    “An example of this in the Tibetan Buddhist tradition is Alak Damchoe Tsang, who was one of the disciples of the great nineteenth-century Nyingma master Ju Mipham. Although Alak Damchoe Tsang had tremendous admiration and reverence for his teacher, he voiced his objections to some of Mipham’s writings. Once a student of Alak Damchoe Tsang is said to have asked if it was appropriate to critically object to the writings of his own teacher. Alak Damchoe Tsang’s immediate response was, ‘If one’s great teacher says things that are not correct, one must take even one’s lama to task!’
    
    “There is a Tibetan saying, ‘Retain your reverence and admiration for the person, but subject the writing to thorough critical analysis.’ This demonstrates a healthy attitude and illustrates the Buddhist tradition known as the approach of the four reliances [he then lists the four reliances]” (p. 105-106)
    
    And here is a quote from Tsongkhapa’s Lamrim Chenmo:
    
    “The great Elder held the Madhyamaka view and Serlingba held the view of a “true aspectarian” Cittamatrin. Therefore, Atisha’s view was superior to that of Serlingba. Still, Atisha upheld Serlingba as the guru who was unrivaled amongst his gurus, because Atisha had obtained the spirit of enlightenment and a general presentation of the stages of the Mahayana path in dependence upon him.” (Vol. 1, p.82).
    - 189
      
      Dorje on April 28, 2014 at 7:52 pm
      Reply
      
      Joanne, I can’t remember anyone at all commenting on your views on Madhyamaka, as you haven’t really said anything of substance, other than occasional comments, like the one accusing me of being a svantantrika and the one suggesting I am a nihilist, both of which suggest you get your views from a Gelug source. I thought we were talking about why it is incorrect to claim Tsongkhapa’s view is the same as Nagarjuna’s view, a claim that could also be see as sectarian.
      
      The other things you mention in your post are about how one relates to other tenets, not about any one tenet in itself, and frankly, I don’t take these claims at face value. If HH Dalai Lama really thought people should be cittamatrins, he would surely spend time teaching cittamatra rather than Tsongkhapa’s version of Madhyamaka. Regarding the phoney svatantrika-prasangika debate, I’ve already pointed out that all other schools, other than Gelug, see the difference as purely one of pedagogical method, so of course they both lead to realisation.
      
      Naturally, one can find examples of where students found fault with their teachers’ positions. I’ve already extensively cited one example, Gendun Chopel. He was imprisoned and tortured for doing so, back when HH Dalai Lama was in the Potala, so that kind of behaviour wasn’t universally tolerated.
      
      The most interesting thing your post directs our attention to is page 106-107 of HH Dalai Lama’s book. On this page His Holiness says, “the Middle Way School reads the Perfection of Wisdom sutras as definitive, accepting the statement that “all things and events are devoid of any intrinsic existence” as literal. […] The Hundred Thousand Verses on the Perfection of Wisdom explicitly presents this view with the statement that, on the ultimate level, all phenomena do not exist.”
      
      In adding ‘intrinsic’ (svabhava) rather than just existence (bhava) and adding ‘on the ultimate level’, HH Dalai Lama is adding a uniquely Gelug understanding to emptiness that other schools would not see as necessary. This is exactly the kind of ‘patch’ that Gendun Chopel berates his Gelugpa colleagues for in the quotation I shared previously. It would be kind of funny if it wasn’t so blatant.
- 190
  
  Dorje on April 27, 2014 at 10:49 am
  Reply
  
  I’ll restate my request. Please give me one example of a Gelugpa explaining the two truths or the object of negation that differs from Tsongkhapa’s position. Give me one example of a view you hold regarding the two truths and the object of negation that differs from Tsongkhapa.
- 191
  
  No name on April 27, 2014 at 1:56 pm
  Reply
  
  The enlightened awareness which is our inner Buddha nature is not the product of intellectual speculation, no matter how lengthy or profound. All you are doing is tying yourself up in more intellectual knots Remember Nagarjunas approach and his statement that it is more comfortable to be without the itch than to have the pleasure of scratching
  - 192
    
    Dorje on April 27, 2014 at 9:45 pm
    Reply
    
    No, I am not. I agree that ultimately the only valid view is no view, but just to parrot words about the limits of the conceptual doesn’t mean you have reached the limits of the conceptual. I have met many who have just used it as a lazy cop out and an excuse not to bother studying, thereby failing to really understand the traditions they claim to have been practicing for decades.
    There are of course many great lamas that follow your shentong view, such as Khenchen Thrangu Rinpoche, who is not only a great Kagyu khenpo but also received a Gelug Geshe Lharampa degree. Maybe you should tell him, or Dolpopa, or Nagarjuna, or Rangjung Dorje that all their study was a pointless waste of time. No name, what’s in it for you to keep people away from understanding the textual traditions of their lineages?
- 193
  
  john6747 on April 28, 2014 at 8:20 am
  Reply
  
  Never play leapfrog with a unicorn.
  
  Michael Shea.
194

Joanne on April 26, 2014 at 11:21 pm
Reply

For example, Dorje, I was reading a commentary today by HH Dalai Lama on the Heart Sutra and he used Mipham’s explanation as a way of explaining a critical verse (form is emptiness, emptiness is form etc.). He also used a Sakya explanation. I found both of those explanations really helpful. His Holiness often quotes from different traditions.

If we are really interested in ending sectarian trouble, I think we need to avoid drawing bold lines in the sand about perceived differences between Tibetan Buddhist sects. We need to avoid making generalizations about what we believe people think.

For example, I believe it would have been more useful if you and I had simply started our interchange as a discussion about that interesting historic debate between Gorampa and Tsongkhapa, instead of bringing in sectarian conclusions. That would have kept things much clearer for me anyway. I just think we need to be careful.
- 195
  
  Dorje on April 28, 2014 at 12:23 am
  Reply
  
  HH Dalai Lama often mentions other views as a bit of added information, but he is not teaching these other views as the final truth. So, he can be teaching about the Heart Sutra from Tsongkhapa’s view and mention other commentarial traditions but still carry on teaching Tsongkhapa’s view. In the book you mention, I think he actually gets Mipham’s position wrong. For Mipham the form is emptiness etc. is a restatement of the tetralemma. I would have to have a look at Mipham’s treatment of the Heart Sutra, though. I’m also not at all sure about his explaination of the Sakya version. Essentially, Gelugpas love stressing that emptiness=dependent origination and that as such the two truths are equal, not one without the other. NonGelug traditions emphasize the tetralemma and freedom from conceptual elaboration, as HH Dalai Lama hints that both Sakya and Nyingma are doing but then he adds bits that don’t really fit with their presentations. I think this is because of the Gelug position on the tetralemma.
  
  This has been my point all along but it is a little complicated to convey. The refutation of the tetralamma was established in the sutras from an early period. For example in the Aggi Vacchagotta Sutta the Buddha refused a number of positions on his existence, non-existence, both and neither put to him by the wanderer Vacchagotta, and maintained he held no position. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.072.than.html
  
  The dictomy of existence and nonexistence is also refuted in the sutras. For example,in the Kashyapa Parivarta Sutra the Buddha says,”Furthermore Kashyapa, existence is one extreme, nonexistence is the other, and that which falls on neither extreme is formless, shapeless, incognizable and unknowable. [To realize] it is the middle way, the true insight into all dharmas.” http://www.psupress.org/books/titles/0-271-00341-3.html p395
  
  Nagarjuna continues in this vain, for example
  “Those who see the concepts of self-nature, extended nature, existence or non-existence do not percieve the real truth in the Buddha’s teaching.” MMK XV. 6
  
  and stating the tetralemma in positive terms he says “Everything is suchness (tathyam) not suchness, both suchness and not suchness and neither suchness nor not suchness. This is the Buddha’s teaching.” MMK XVIII 8
  
  Chandrakirti repeats this tetralemma in negative terms in his Madhyamakavatara “And if producers are the cause of products other than themselves, Is what they generate existent, nonexistent, both, or neither? If existent, why is a producer needed, and if nonexistent, what does the producer do? If both, again, what use is it? If neither, yet again, what purpose does it serve?” MA VI 21
  
  For Jamgon Mipham and the Sakyapas, the tetralemma marked the end of conceptual thought, it shows that the things people take as existent or nonexistent, and even the ontological categories of existent and nonexistent, both and neither, do not work as reality is beyond these extremes.
  
  As we saw before, Tsongkhapa didn’t accept this. He rejected the idea that reality is ineffable and beyond concepts and rejected the refutation of an unqualified tetralemma.
  
  “Suppose that you refute the tetralemma without affixing any such qualification. You refute the position that things exist and you refute the position that things do not exist; then you say ‘It is not the case that they both exist and do not exist.’ If you now continue with the refutation, saying, ‘It is also not the case that they are neither existent nor non-existent,’ then you explictly contradict your own position. If you then stubbornly insist, ‘Even so, there is no fallacy,’ then the debate is over because we do not debate with the obstinate.”
  http://www.shambhala.com/the-great-treatise-on-the-stages-of-the-path-to-enlightenment-1.html p189
  
  Instead, Tsongkhapa, and HH Dalai Lama explain that the way to overcome the dichotomy of existence and nonexistence is to say that things do not truly inherently exist, but conventionally they’re also not nonexistent.
  
  Other traditions think this is a bit of a fudge and only really overcomes the first extreme of existence possibly falling into nihilism as it puts forward the negation of inherent existence (ie. a nonexistence) as ultimate truth.
  About this approach, the great Gelug renegade Gendun Chopel said,
  
  “We proclaim with a great roar such things as if something is not nonexistent it must be existent, if it is not existent, it must be nonexistent, that those two are explicitly contradictory, and that something that is neither of those two is impossible.
  […]
  Statements like “The view that reality [dharmata] is free from the eight extremes of elaboration is great nihilism” are made because nothing can appear to our mind other than existence and nonexistence and because our mind does not recognize anything other than existence and nonexistence. But how can the inability of something to appear to our mind prove that it is impossible and does not exist?
  […]
  However, referring to the middle path as that which is in the center of existence and nonexistence is very clearly set forth by the Buddha himself. For example, in the Kashyapa Chapter (Kasyapaparivarta) there are such statements as “Kashyapa, ‘existence’ is one extreme; ‘nonexistence’ is the second extreme. That which is in the center of those two is the inexpressible and inconceivable middle path.” And it is stated very clearly in the Pile of Jewels (Ratnakuta): “Existence and nonexistence are disputed. Pure and impure are also disputed. Suffering is not pacified by disputes. Being without dispute is the end of suffering.”
  
  However, when scholars these days hear a scripture that refers to neither existence nor nonexistence, they first seek out the identity of the speaker of the scripture. If the scripture is a statement of an earlier Tibetan scholar, they dismiss it [saying]: “One who says something like that is a nihilistic fool.” If the scripture is identified as a statement of the Buddha, Nagarjuna, and so on, they patch it with words like “The statement ‘does not exist’ means ‘does not truly exist’” and “‘Is not nonexistent’ means ‘is not conventionally nonexistent,’” so that it fits with their own desires. In fact, the only difference is that if they direct refutations at the Buddha, they fear being labeled evil persons with evil views, [whereas] if they are able to refute earlier Tibetans, they are labeled heroic scholars.
  
  Apart from that, there is no difference in the frequency of occurrence of expressions like “does not exist,” “does not not exist,” “inexpressible,” and “free from elaboration” in the sutras and Nagarjuna’s Collections of Reasoning [on the one hand] and the scriptures of the earlier Tibetan scholars [on the other]. Therefore, some refute the statements of the earlier Tibetan scholars that the mode of being is inexpressible and inconceivable, saying that they are fools and nihilists, and some show some slight respect, saying that there are no great errors in the thinking of those earlier Tibetan scholars and adepts— it is just that at the time that they spoke, the fine points of someone like the Foremost Lama [Tsong kha pa] had not yet appeared. If that is true, there are no errors in the thinking of the Bhagavan himself, yet when he spoke he simply said such things as “the perfection of wisdom, inexpressible by words or thoughts” and “When you use ‘it is,’ you use signs; when you use ‘it is not,’ you use signs.” Those beautiful patches of the system of those of us from Ganden Mountain, such as “When you use that which is truly established, you use signs” and “When you use what does not exist, you use signs,” do not appear. [The Buddha] left them out. Thus, the way that the Buddha himself taught the doctrine is something that lacks fine points.
  […]
  Thus, if one takes pains in analyzing the ultimate, one must accept that all our decisions are mere fabrications of the mind, with no basis whatsoever. When one thinks about things like this, a great fear is created, and this is the onset of the arising of fear of the view of emptiness. Otherwise, we leave our ideas of existence and nonexistence, is and is not, purity and filth, good and bad, buddha and sentient being, heaven and hell, and so on just as they are, saying that they are all infallible dependent arisings, and it would not be proper to refute those. If they are refuted, it is decided that one falls to such things as nihilism. Saying that one must refute some so-called true establishment [ie. inherent existence] which is not that, is just the talk of some scholars who are skilled in dry words.”
  - 196
    
    Dorje on April 28, 2014 at 1:12 am
    Reply
    
    http://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/M/bo3649954.html p55-56
    Sorry about the long quotation. You’ve got to love Gendun Chopel though, right?
  - 197
    
    Joanne on April 28, 2014 at 9:46 am
    Reply
    
    Dorje, perhaps you could spend a year studying Tsongkhapa’s and the Dalai Lama’s views on Madyamika– and I could spend a year studying Gorampa’s and Mioham’s views on Madyamika. Then we might have a remote chance at something of a discussion on the varying views. Otherwise, discussion is absolutely pointless.
    - 198
      
      tenpel on April 28, 2014 at 9:51 am
      Reply
      
      I hope you can all learn from each other and are not stuck in arguments (glancing the last comments, it sounds rather like the latter).
      I lack time to engage. If you cannot move forward, I would suggest to rest the issue. The reader might be still greatly benefited from your discussions but there is no point to continue if all is said. Thank you all for your engagement, time, effort and knowledge.
      - 199
        
        Joanne on April 28, 2014 at 10:19 am
        Reply
        
        Thank you Tenpel. I agree, time to rest.
        
        200
        
        Joanne on April 28, 2014 at 10:25 am
        Reply
        
        But Dorje should have right of reply, make her closing statements. I have had mine.
      - 201
        
        Dorje on April 28, 2014 at 8:08 pm
        Reply
        
        It’s a shame, Tenzin. I would like to hear your opinions on this. Please take a little time to have a look through and see what you think.
    - 202
      
      Joanne on April 28, 2014 at 10:00 am
      Reply
      
      You see, Dorje, it appears to me that you are simply working very hard to stuff the Dalai Lama’s statements into your preconceived notion of what he believes, instead of investigating with an open mind. In fact, it might even be that he has a broader view than Tsongkhapa, something that I am now curious about myself. I think that for beginners such as ourselves, curiosity and open skepticism are best– best to avoid partisan views I think.
      - 203
        
        Dorje on April 28, 2014 at 8:05 pm
        Reply
        
        See where? I don’t get it. Did you refute a point or just say you don’t agree? I’ve listened to many teachings and read many teachings from HH Dalai Lama and not once has be surprised me by teaching something (regarding Madhyamaka) that deviates from the standard Gelug position. He may mention other positions, in passing, but he teaches the Gelug position, even when he is teaching dzogchen, as your quotation earlier showed. No one would be happier than me if he started teaching something else, but he doesn’t. I guess it’s not in his job description.
    - 204
      
      Dorje on April 28, 2014 at 3:54 pm
      Reply
      
      Joanne, I spent years study the Gelug presentation of Madhyamaka coming from Tsongkhapa and assorted Gelugpas including HH Dalai Lama. I think I understand the basics of their position quite well. Nothing I have encountered since, from your posts on here to Gelug students posts elsewhere makes me think that my overall understanding is seriously flawed.
      I actually think this discussion is useful in increasing understanding but that is only true if we deal with the pertinent philosophical issues rather than resort to hasty conclusions about others or avoid discussing the issues because they are in some way too subtle, esoteric, obscure, etc. I personally do not think they are. I think the
      teachers of various viewpoints went to great pains to make their positions readily understandable.
      
      For this reason, I would ask, what do you understand Tsongkhapa’s position to be. This really is not a trick question. I anticipate that you will be totally right in your assessment. The thing is, as you may not be so familiar with what the other views are, you may not see how Tsongkhapa’s views could be interpreted the way all other traditions interpret them.
      An honest discussion of what we actually think of the different madhyamaka tenets is more valuable than saying what other people haven’t read, surely. So, you’ve read lots. What have you learned?
      No trick, no traps. I’m honestly interested.
205

Joanne on April 27, 2014 at 10:15 am
Reply

For example, if one sees Gorampa’s statement about Tsongkhapa’s “demonic” views in the context of a robust debate between two masters who actually had a high degree of respect for each other, then the meaning is very different from the one you portray. As I have said many times, these views are nuanced and contextual and very profound. Understanding this and maintaining humility and respect for other’s views is the key to avoiding sectarian bias. Avoiding labels (e.g. “Gelug” or “Nyingma”) and assumptions about what others think is also very important if one is to maintain respect.
- 206
  
  No name on April 27, 2014 at 9:40 pm
  Reply
  
  Sorry Jo Anne but the more you argue like this the more you expose huge areas in your understanding that are the result of misunderstanding of both Tibetan history and philosophical politicking.
  I think you need to find yourself a real, flesh and blood one to one teacher, not just someone whose books you read and whose burgeoning public teachings you attend ( the Dalai Lama has very few “students” in a traditional guru context, and as for Tzongkapa, claiming you are his student is silly-he’s been dead for centuries)
  Such claims smack for the need for validation and recognition I spoke of earlier -if you were really in a guru disciple relationship with. A guru, close up, I can assure you that he would have forbidden you to waste time ‘debating on the web’ (ie reinforcing ones electronically created ego with Buddhist idle gossip)
- 207
  
  Dorje on April 28, 2014 at 12:55 am
  Reply
  
  Actually Joanne, this all started with an off the cuff comment about HH Dalai Lama,
  “(By the way, he explains madhyamaka from Tsongkhapa’s point of view, not Nagarjuna’s, but that’s besides the point.)”
  I still take this to be a really obvious and totally uncontentious comment. After you responded with the sectarian conclusion that I must be a svatantrika, I clarified the historical perpective in my following post,
  “Regarding Nagarjuna, all Tibetan traditions say they get their Madhyamaka from him. Taranatha, Dolpopa, Gorampa, Shatarakshita, Ju Mipham, Rongdzom Chokyi Zangpo, Gendun Choepel, Tsongkhapa, etc. etc. They generally all see themselves as heirs of Chandrakirti as well.
  I will not judge who is right and who is not, but we must realize these claims are contentious claims as all the positions they hold are different in some way. To claim that one is the correct interpretation of Nagarjuna and Chandrakirti and to dismiss the others as svatantrika madhyamikas is a bit rude and sectarian. ”
  
  Just to add, it is not about just Gorampa and Tsongkhapa. Most nonGelugpas totally disagree with Tsongkhapa’s presentation of Madhyamaka. Not just Gorampa. And, of course, Gorampa lived after Tsongkhapa had died so I don’t think we can infer a mutual respect. Gorampa’s works were also banned by the Gelug hegemony for centuries until the 1950s, so I’m not sure there was the feel-good humility you might have hoped for.
  
  From my side, as I have maintained throughout, I have no real position here. Some in my lineage have held shentong views, some have held views very much like Tsongkhapa, some have held yogacara-madhyamaka views and some have held views more like Gorampa’s Freedom from Extremes. I respect them all but don’t really think what sutra view you hold matters at all. I only stepped in because you made what I considered to be a bit of a faux pas in equating Tsongkhapa’s view with Nagarjuna’s (both quite different presentations.)
208

Sam Hoff on April 28, 2014 at 1:00 am
Reply

The Eighth Karmapa was also a big critic of Tsongkhapa’s “Madhyamaka”.

See Center of the Sunlit Sky.
209

Joanne on April 28, 2014 at 9:09 am
Reply

No, No name, these conversations simply cause me to really love the fresh, open air of exile, the honesty of non-Buddhist seekers and the songs of Milarepa. I have no desire to return to the prejudice and close-minded, competitive squalor of that other world, so well described by Dorje above. I will take my chances where I am and breath the sweet air of freedom. Probably I have some karma to clear– and perhaps in my next life, sufficient reforms will be in place and I will find a Dharma center that I can tolerate. You don’t need to worry about what you think I need.
- 210
  
  No name on April 28, 2014 at 3:34 pm
  Reply
  
  Yeah, next life maybe, when everything fits the way you think it should. I didn’t say what I thought you need, only what I would advise myself if I were trying to snap myself out of ‘ dog chasing its own tail’ scenarios. A quick session in a genuine, one to one guru disciple relationship( which is still a possibility in these dark times) would do much to sort out your problem.Ah well, you can lead a horse to water ( but a pencil must be lead, as they say)
  See you down there!
211

Dorje on April 28, 2014 at 7:56 pm
Reply

I suggest you find a good lama (one who has your best interests at heart) and stick with them and avoid dharma centres at all costs.
212

john6747 on May 1, 2014 at 9:04 am
Reply

http://human-nature.com/nibbs/02/cults.html
213

Joanne on May 1, 2014 at 10:39 pm
Reply

And my two life lessons are: 1. Don’t go down that street with the hole in it, the one you fell into five times; and 2. Never listen to advice that is not given in a kind manner.
214

Joanne on June 2, 2014 at 11:58 am
Reply

By the way, Dorje, I have been reading “The Two Truths Debate: Tsongkhapa and Gorampa on the Middle Way” by Sonam Thakchoe and it has been very helpful for me in understanding the points you raised above. You’ve probably read it, in which case you know that it is a very good book, balanced, well researched and clearly articulated and I highly recommend it– so thank you for leading me in that direction and opening my boundaries!
215

Dorje on June 2, 2014 at 12:15 pm
Reply

I don’t actually think it’s that balanced. Its okay but the author clearly has a Gelug bias, which he freely admits. It’s a shame no Sakyapa has translated and presented Gorampa’s views. In any case, it is good to read lots of view points. I’m pleased you got something out of reading it.
216

Joanne on June 9, 2014 at 11:18 am
Reply

Yes, Dorje, the author does admit to a Gelug bias, but there are several succinct points I can make about the text:

1. He knows more about Gorampa’s point of view that either you or I know about Tsongkhapa’s point of view– he might even understand more of Gorampa’s viewpoint than you do– I have certainly gained more understanding of the debate from him than I have from you (which of course could be due to the online blog forum limitations). It’s quite an extraordinary text– and I have read reviews from proponents of Gorampa’s viewpoint who admit that he has done well (for a Gelug haha).

2. If you read the text, his goal is clearly not to promote Tsongkhapa’s point of view, but to help students better understand the debate. His approach has a Western academic flavor, resulting from years studying in that tradition and outside the Gelug monastic study program.

3. It is my opinion that texts such as these are very helpful for students of Buddhism and I commend the author for writing it. To proceed point by point with a compare-and-contrast approach is very helpful! I have commented throughout our discussion here that I believe each of the philosophical positions debated amongst Buddhist scholars throughout centuries are useful for students to understand.

4. As such, I am not reading this text in order to refute opponents of Tsongkhapa, but to deepen my own understanding of Madyamika– and Tsongkhapa’s position. This is the root of the nonsectarian attitude I hope to continue to cultivate in myself. If we see Madyamika in terms of sectarian boundaries, dismissing something simply because it has been written by a Gelug or Nyingma or Sakya scholar, then we limit our understanding. Then it becomes superficial.
217

NΦN on October 1, 2014 at 5:47 pm
Reply

The reason the autor has a Gelug bias is probably because of the subject matter. The Gelugs have the most subtle interpretation of The Two Truths: there really is no difference. The Ultimate Nature of form is emptiness but this Ultimate Nature is established through conventional reality; even the emptiness of emptiness is established through conventional reality. But these are all just philosophical musings; the historical Buddha was the ultimate pragmatist, that’s why there exist so many diverse teachings. The diversity of the teachings are due to the diversity of sufferers and, as stated in “The Introduction to Awareness: Natural Liberation through Naked Perception,” “. . . despite this diversity, not one of these teachings has been given by the conquerors outside of the context of an understanding of this nature (emptiness/Samadhi) . . .”

The Buddha’s goal was not to explain how things truly are, he immediately realized the futility of that; rather, his objective was simply to rid the world of suffering. Through careful analysis he ascertained that suffering is caused by the human tendency to cling to an illusory self. This clinging leads to mental afflictions and these afflictions lead to suffering. He developed a system of antidotes for all of the mental afflictions. You can think of it as a spiritual immune system, the antidotes being antibodies. But this entire system of antidotes is subsumed by the master antidote: deconstruction of the illusory self.

For illustrative purposes, you can think of your TRUE nature as a current in a never-ending flow. Life-times come and life-times go but the current continues to flow. What happens is, the current becomes manifest in a body, animal, human, or divine, and a self is constructed based on that incarnation. The current comes to identify with that limited self and it ceases to flow. It clings to that illusory self and the existence defined in relation to that self. This is the origin of Fear of Death and Desire for Life, the primary obstacles on the path to enlightenment. It is also the origin of conventional reality.

You see, everything in existence obtains its existence in relation to this illusory self. In reality there is no birth, no aging, and no death, there is no loss and no gain, there is only the flow; this realization is the Perfection of Wisdom – emptiness. Birth, aging, and death only have meaning in relation to this illusory self. Do you understand this? What I am saying is, TIME only has meaning – existence – in relation to this illusory self; time is an illusion spawned by an illusion. This is what the prophetic Mayan Long Count refers to; the Fifth Wheel is the end of time; it is global enlightenment; global sentience constructs the global self.

And the way to this enlightenment is through the deconstruction of self. Since everything in existence obtains its existence in relation to this self, if you deconstruct the self you deconstruct existence and return to the flow where there is no time, hence, there is no suffering. This is the return to the Ultimate Nature of reality. Conventional truth is the perspective obtained through the illusory self while Ultimate Truth is the perspective obtained through Anatman; in reality, as the Gelug’s point out, there is no difference between the two. It’s really quite simple . . .

“[…] Therefore, Shariputra, in emptiness there is no form, no feelings, no perceptions, no mental formations, and no consciousness. There is no eye, no ear, no nose, no tongue, no body, and no mind. There is no form, no sound, no smell, no taste, no texture, and no mental objects. There is no eye-element and so on up to no mind-element including up to no element of mental consciousness. There is no ignorance, there is no extinction of ignorance, and so on up to no aging and death and no extinction of aging and death. Likewise, there is no suffering, origin, cessation, or path; there is no wisdom, no attainment, and even no non-attainment.

Therefore, Shariputra, since bodhisattvas have no attainments, they rely on this perfection of wisdom and abide in it. Having no obscurations in their minds, they have no fear, and by going utterly beyond error, they will reach the end of nirvana. […]”

– the noble Avalokiteshvara, the bodhisattva, the great being as quoted in “The Blessed Mother, the Heart of the Perfection of Wisdom,” translated by Geshe Thupten Jinpa in H. H. the Dalai Lama’s, “Essence of the Heart Sutra” (http://www.wisdompubs.org/book/essence-heart-sutra).
218

Dorje on October 1, 2014 at 10:27 pm
Reply

“The reason the autor has a Gelug bias is probably because of the subject matter. The Gelugs have the most subtle interpretation of The Two Truths: there really is no difference.”

No. The reason he had a Gelug bias was because he was a Gelugpa. Duh.

Sorry, Joanne, I missed your reply until NΦN kindly contributed. I’m not saying the book was totally useless just that a presentation of Gorampa’s views would perhaps be better done by someone that agrees with them. I think we should always try to study the different views and ideas straight from the mouths (or books) of those that propounded them. This includes studying cittamatra, for example, from cittamatrins, shentong from shentongpas, etc. I think the Tibetan tradition of going through all the lesser presentations before presenting your own pinnacle of insight and wisdom is daft because all you learn about the other schools is that they were wrong. The descriptions are nothing more than a useless line of straw men.

The Rime approach to studying Madhyamaka, as pioneered by Khenpo Shenga, was to return to the root texts and bypass the thousand years of chatter which, to be honest, did nothing to improve on Nagarjuna at all. As Khenpo Shenga said,
“In Tibet there have appeared highly accomplished saints who were no different from the vidyadharas of India, the Land of the Aryas. Yet although there have been countless eminent scholars, none of them might be compared with the Six Ornaments and Two Supreme Ones of India in terms of wisdom and enlightened activity. Some Tibetan scholars took as their basis the excellent Indian treatises but then added explanations based on their own clever ideas, with the result that on occasions their statements no longer accord with scripture or valid reasoning. In particular, the works of Nagarjuna and his successors have been fervently debated among Tibetans, with the assertions of earlier Tibetan scholars subjected to a great deal of presumptuous refutation and affirmation by later scholars.”
http://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Khenpo_Shenga
- 219
  
  Sam Hoff on October 4, 2014 at 3:49 am
  Reply
  
  Yes that’s what many people say.
  
  Just read Indian Madhyamaka texts and *not* Tibetan Madhyamaka texts.
- 220
  
  Sam Hoff on October 4, 2014 at 3:50 am
  Reply
  
  If only Gelugs took that approach….
221

joanneclark7 on October 2, 2014 at 1:24 pm
Reply

Yes, Dorje, I agree that to really understand a point of view, one has to read the root texts of that view. However, compare-and-contrast method also has its merits, especially for beginners such as myself! I do feel that the author of that text, while admitting to his Gelug bias, placed his first loyalty while writing on presenting an accurate viewpoint, towards presenting simply a compare-and- contrast towards better understanding. Reading it did not make me more convinced of one side or the other.

And I also found it very helpful to read a compare-and-contrast because it deepened my understanding of the issues involved. I am very far from determining which is the “right” viewpoint. In fact, one distinction the author made that was really helpful for me was to view ideas from a soteriological perspective. That’s why, I think I’ve said to you before that I find understanding all the views, chittamatrin, svatantrika, Gorampa, Tsongkhapa to be helpful in terms of my own progress on the path.

In fact, one thought that kept occurring to me, while reading that text, was the idea that a correct realization of emptiness, one that doesn’t fall into either extreme, is so far beyond linguistic expression that every philosophical standpoint is limited and can only be seen as soteriological. Even the debate itself is soteriological and has nothing to do with the ultimate state of Buddhahood. In which case, just as we all have different propensities and quirks, the different philosophical standpoints, along with the debates they inspire, are all there to help and guide.

So that’s all to say that our debate has been very helpful for me, so thank you! Maybe in a few eons we can meet again and I can tell you whose viewpoint I have decided on!
- 222
  
  Sam Hoff on October 3, 2014 at 11:23 pm
  Reply
  
  I stick to the viewpoint of Perfection of Wisdom Sutras, Indian Madhyamaka, tantra and Dzogchen where emptiness = Anutpada (nonarising)
- 223
  
  Dorje on October 8, 2014 at 11:17 pm
  Reply
  
  Yes, Joanne, I agree. I didn’t mean to sound dismissive of the book. It’s very informative and I’d recommend it to anyone that wants to better understand the differences between Tsongkhapa’s presentation and Gorampa’s. Both presentations are valid, but I sometimes feel something should be said if people just assume that one of these Tibetan scholars presents Nagarjuna better than the others, for example, but you might have guessed that by now.
224

Om Amitabha on October 3, 2014 at 6:15 pm
Reply

“No. The reason he had a Gelug bias was because he was a Gelugpa. Duh.”

Gee whiz, I didn’t read every single comment and had no idea what I was wading into here! Perhaps he was a Gelugpa because the Gelugs have the most subtle interpretation of the Two Truths: there is no difference between the two!

“Similarly, since one does not discern the abiding nature, which is the fundamental reality of all things, one is cast into cyclic existence, not knowing that appearances are to be identified with the mind, and, not discerning one’s own mind to be Buddha, nirvana becomes obscured. THE APPARENT DICHOTOMY BETWEEN CYCLIC EXISTENCE AND NIRVANA IS DUE TO THE DICHOTOMY BETWEEN IGNORANCE AND AWARENESS BUT THERE IS IN REALITY NO TEMPORAL DIVIDE BETWEEN THESE TWO, EVEN BY A SINGLE MOMENT . . . Yet even though all those appearances, of which one is aware in one’s own mind, do arise as discernible manifestations, Buddhahood is present simply when they are NOT SUBJECTIVELY APPREHENDED OR GRASPED. BEWILDERMENT DOES NOT COME ABOUT ON ACCOUNT OF THESE APPEARANCES BUT IT DOES COME ABOUT THROUGH THEIR SUBJECTIVE APPREHENSION. Thus, if the subjectively apprehended thoughts are known to be of the single nature of mind, they will be liberated of their own accord.”

What does that say to you? What it says to me is that there is no difference between Conventional Truth and Ultimate Truth; the only separation between the two is perceptual. And this perceptual difference comes about solely due to subjective apprehension – as opposed to anatman! Is this not what I essentially stated above? And this is from a Dzogchen verse; Dzogchen is ati yoga, the pinnacle of understanding! But of course the definitive understanding comes through direct experience NOT intellectual understanding:

“Similarly, even though all beings actually possess the seed of Buddhahood, sentient beings will not attain Buddhahood without experiential cultivation. Yet even a cowherd will attain liberation if he or she engages in experiential cultivation. For even though one may not know how to elucidate this state intellectually, one will, through experiential cultivation, become manifestly established in it. One whose mouth has actually tasted molasses does not need others to explain its taste. But even learned scholars who have not realized this single nature of mind, will remain the victims of bewilderment. For however learned and knowledgeable in explaining the nine vehicles they may be, they will be like those who spread fabulous tales of remote places they have never seen. And as far as the attainment of Buddhahood is concerned, they will not approach it, even for an instant.”

To me the whole argument is intellectually settled in this simple but quite beautiful verse, “Introduction to Awareness: Natural Liberation Through Naked Perception.” But of course to be definitively settled would require the Naked Perception part, Ha, Ha, Ha . . .

May all obstacles be averted, may they be no more, may they be pacified!
- 225
  
  Dorje on October 3, 2014 at 10:25 pm
  Reply
  
  He was probably a Gelugpa because he was given to a gelug monastery as a child. As a Gelugpa he probably wouldn’t agree with a single word you wrote after that. Tsongkhapa was against the idea of rang rig, if I recall correctly, and in dzogchen there is no conventional reality
226

Walks With Turtle on October 8, 2014 at 7:51 pm
Reply

“He was probably a Gelugpa because he was given to a gelug monastery as a child.” Okay, and why was he given to a gelug monastery as a child – as opposed to some other?

“As a Gelugpa he probably wouldn’t agree with a single word you wrote after that.” If true, which I doubt with a probability approaching unity, then I would be forced to infer that he was one of those scholars spreading fabulous tales of remote places he had never seen.

“Tsongkhapa was against the idea of rang rig, if I recall correctly, and in dzogchen there is no conventional reality.” His Holiness follows Tsongkhapa in many relevant areas of his commentary on The Blessed Mother, The Heart of the Perfection of Wisdom and His Holiness states, in multiple places in his commentary (Essence of the Heart Sutra), that emptiness is established on the basis of conventional reality (I believe the exact quote I have in mind is on page 117 or 118). And consider the Dzogchen verse I quoted above, just what, exactly, do you think cyclic existence is? And what, dare I ask, is subjective apprehension – sans rang rig?

You’re arguing with the wrong Anatman, Dorje! Ha, Ha, Ha . . .

May all obstacles be averted, may they be no more, may they be pacified!
- 227
  
  Dorje on October 8, 2014 at 11:24 pm
  Reply
  
  “Okay, and why was he given to a gelug monastery as a child – as opposed to some other?”
  Local politics, family affiliations, it was the only monastery that would take him? Your guess is as good as mine but I’d bet my last momo it wasn’t because of Gelugpa’s supposed subtle understanding of the two truths.
  - 228
    
    Khedrup on October 9, 2014 at 6:39 am
    Reply
    
    It is really in the West that one can “choose” a lineage.
    In Tibet this was very rare, only in a few exceptional cases would someone “choose” their lineage.
    More often than not, it is a geographical consideration- one is born in an area where the nearest monastery is Karma Kagyu, or Gelugpa etc.
    OR- one has a brother, an uncle or a cousin at the nearest Gelugpa, Sakya, Kagyu or Nyingma monastery. I believe this is the case with KG, as his uncle was the medium for the Shugden oracle and thus connected with the Gelug school. It makes sense that when parents send their children to the monastery they are more comfortable if an uncle, cousin or brother of the young monk is in the same institution so they can maintain a connection to the family, as well as support and encourage eachother.
    - 229
      
      tenpel on October 9, 2014 at 8:19 am
      Reply
      
      Yes, this is how I too understand it.
    - 230
      
      Dorje on October 10, 2014 at 5:04 pm
      Reply
      
      Yes, I meant to include geographic prominity in my list of reasons for ‘choosing ‘ one lineage over another. This probably also applies, to a degree, in the ‘west’ where one is quite likely to attend one’s local ‘centre’. This is a reason people get suckered into ‘traditions’ that have lots of ‘centres’ everywhere like the NKT.
- 231
  
  dharmaanarchist on October 9, 2014 at 8:18 pm
  Reply
  
  ““Tsongkhapa was against the idea of rang rig, if I recall correctly, and in dzogchen there is no conventional reality.” His Holiness follows Tsongkhapa in many relevant areas of his commentary on The Blessed Mother, The Heart of the Perfection of Wisdom and His Holiness states, in multiple places in his commentary (Essence of the Heart Sutra), that emptiness is established on the basis of conventional reality (I believe the exact quote I have in mind is on page 117 or 118). And consider the Dzogchen verse I quoted above, just what, exactly, do you think cyclic existence is? And what, dare I ask, is subjective apprehension – sans rang rig?”
  
  That’s nonsense. Dzogchen very much teaches the two truths and karma. Here it’s called “ond ground, two paths”
  - 232
    
    Sam Hoff on October 10, 2014 at 12:53 am
    Reply
    
    Dzogchen rejects the 2 truths. I already showed this several times.
    
    In fact Tsongkhapa criticizes Dzogchen for rejecting the 2 truths.
    - 233
      
      dharmaanarchist on October 10, 2014 at 7:53 pm
      Reply
      
      It doesn’t.
      
      I heard about the two truths from multiple Nyingma teachers. Wouldn’t have been possible if Dzogchen rejected it.
      - 234
        
        Sam Hoff on October 10, 2014 at 10:26 pm
        Reply
        
        Nyingma is not Dzogchen.
        
        Nyingma includes even Sutra.
  - 235
    
    Sam Hoff on October 10, 2014 at 1:00 am
    Reply
    
    According to Rongzom, tantra in general rejects the truths.
  - 236
    
    Dorje on October 10, 2014 at 4:57 pm
    Reply
    
    The two paths are knowledge and ignorance. There is no conventional truth, only delusion. Anyway, I’m really not interested in getting into a chat about it.
    - 237
      
      dharmaanarchist on October 10, 2014 at 7:59 pm
      Reply
      
      But delusion functions as conventinal truth. For example karma, although of course it has no ultimate existance, it still follows very stringent laws and the experience can not be avoided by the beings who have accumulated it.
      
      Though my view is as spacious as the sky,
      My actions and respect for cause and effect are as fine as grains of flour.
      Padmasambhava
      
      That makes it very clear that Padmasambhava had great respect of the relative truth and did not reject it.
      - 238
        
        Dorje on October 10, 2014 at 9:27 pm
        Reply
        
        If there is delusion, there is not truth. According to the Nyingma view samsara doesn’t just lack “ultimate existence”, it lacks existence. It isn’t ‘like’ an illusion, it is an illusion.
        
        Dharma Anarchist, as I said, I can’t be bothered to chat about this but your comments kind of sum up the reason I chirped up on this thread in the first place; the unexamined acceptance of the general Gelugpa presentation of Madhyamaka without even realising that other traditions differ considerably and other views shouldn’t just be dismissed as inferior, wrong, nihilistic, svatantrika, etc.
        
        Gorampa was influencial in Nyingma, too. Read the book that Joanne mentions above or Jamgon Mipham’s commentary on the Madhyamakavatara. As far as Dzogchen goes, a good teacher would be useful. Finally, Padma taught all nine yanas.
      - 239
        
        Sam Hoff on October 10, 2014 at 10:27 pm
        Reply
        
        Padmasambhava is not a historical person.
        
        240
        
        tenpel on October 10, 2014 at 10:30 pm
        Reply
        
        I think we decided to stop the discussion about this. This blog is not a play ground for your thought games.
        No further comments are approved. Finished now. You had your say, Sam.

	Stardust on Whitewashing, Dishonesty &…
	tenpel on Whitewashing, Dishonesty &…
	anonymous on Whitewashing, Dishonesty &…
	Alan J.W. on Whitewashing, Dishonesty &…
	tenpel on Karmapa Agrees to Multimillion…
	anonymous on Whitewashing, Dishonesty &…
	Tim on Whitewashing, Dishonesty &…
	Stardust on Karmapa Agrees to Multimillion…

Rate this:

Share this:

Like this:

Related