Ñāṇa wrote:This is a non-starter. No one here has asserted that all methods lead to the same result.
There was a previous post you seemed to have been adopting which quoted some bhikkhu saying a method like "buddho" and all methods lead to the same result. I don't have time to hunt that down now.
Ñāṇa wrote:suttametta wrote:You are ignoring three suttas that describe nibbana as an eternal consciousness. So what of that?
I think your interpretation is misinformed. Not unlike your assertion a few weeks ago where you opined that the Theravāda is a broken system and Pāli translators don't understand Pāli. Around the same time you were trying to redefine the entire Yogācāra commentarial tradition. More recently you were trying to lump the Mahāyāna together with Vedic views, and simultaneously assert that guru yoga can't be accounted for without recourse to pantheism. And then there's the numerous times that you've gone off on erroneous tangents about dzogchen....
I'm very well informed. You just don't agree. I don't expect you to. This is an ad hom, by the way. You are impugning my personal credibility. You should understand that. Discuss the issues and you won't be ad homing.
Again, we can go into these issues if you like. I can assure you that I can hold my own based on a topical discussion. There is plenty of criticism to go around. It's not a bad thing. It's a good thing.
I am not the one who said Pali translators don't understand Pali, that comes from a teacher whom I respect, Ven. Madawala Punnaji. He stated many times that Theravada teachings are corrupted. He also says Theravada has lost the original teachings, and Pali translators tend to build on those misunderstandings with mistranslations.
You can challenge him. Perhaps he's misinterpreting. I tend to agree with his conclusions. Most of my comments about Theravada comes from my understanding of his lectures.
As to Yogacara, I merely meant to point out that there is another way to interpret the Alayavijnana and 8 consciousnesses based on the teachings of the Driking Kagyu practice lineage instructions, where the "seed" is an amalgam of 5th-7th consciousnesses, leaving the 8th to be primordially pure such that there is no revolution of the basis, which would bring the thinking together with Dzogchen's explanations about the gzhi.
Clearly, Mahayana, simply by incorporating mantras, and the notions of dharma as primordial sound, as in the Prajnaparamita of a Single Sound, has incorporated Vedic notions about AUM, which is the primordial sound of ultimate truth in Vedism. It doesn't take some heavy scholarship to understand that. Anyone who seriously practices Vedantic Yoga/Tantra and Mahayana will instantly recognize the commonalities. Whereas, the Pali teachings about sati are uniquely different as to methodology, although not as different as one might think as to result, given the Buddha's statements about nibbana being an eternal radiant consciousness.
Again, Guru Yoga and it's recourse to Pantheism doesn't come from me. It came as a response to a question I had for Garchen Rinpoche. He's the one who told me that Guru Yoga works because the dharmakaya is all-pervasive and teacher and student have no separation. My remark to him was that he was chiming Vedic. He responded that Buddha only meant to distance his teachings from a Creator God, not from the impersonal notion of Brahman.
Finally, my comments about Dzogchen are in line with this issue of commonality with the Vedic systems, namely, the Dzogchen Tantras' claim of emanating directing from primordial sound, a la, the Vedas.
All of this gets me down to my main point that what we have generally is a large batch of distinctions without a significant difference. Whatever distinctions there are can always get reworked in the model so that they reflect a commonality. There's nothing inherently true about the various commentators' writings. We are equally endowed with the right to rework these issues, just as they did. My grind with folks like you and Malcolm is due to your undue clenching onto your scholarship. In my opinion, latching onto these old writers prevents new good work from bring excellent dharma to light. You scholar types have an undue amount of influence on many people because you can write neat diacritics. But you are missing something very big, which is the fluid nature of all this.
For example, I put Punnaji's teachings into practice and I instantly recognized what he's describing is a very fast method that can take you all the way. I found no significant difference in that result from those of the other very high methods I know from practicing Tibetan Buddhism. I think that is a very significant finding. What he has discovered through his research is amazing.
Ñāṇa wrote:Calling into question you understanding of the Nikāyas isn't an ad hom.
Yes, it is. You are impugning my knowledge. You would do better to raise a topical issue, then we would have nothing to discuss. I can only defend the comment, "you don't have enough knowledge," by responding with comments about myself, what I learned, what I know, etc. Rather, we can demonstrate such matters by discussing dharma topics openly.