cooran wrote:Hello all,
Came across this and thought it may be of interest:
Message from His Holiness the Dalai Lama. . . .
mikenz66 wrote:Thanks Cooran for the interesting post.
I had noticed that B. Alan Wallace refers to the Visuddhimagga quite a lot in his books and talks.
In the second of these two interviews (numbers 62 and/or 63) about the Shamatha Project here: http://feeds.feedburner.com/BuddhistGeeksPodcast he specifically compares Tibetan Shamatha and the Visuddhimaga Jhanas.
Ben wrote:Hi Tilt
Well, you're right. But none the less, it is still interesting that he did say something about the Vism.
From the Wallace point of view, it is just the usual sectarian crap of the Gelugs are the true Buddhists who have it right and everyone else? Well, they mean well, but....Ben wrote:Hi Tilt
I wonder if that (Wallace's) article was written before his "An attention revolution". My wife brought home his An attention revolution from the "Mind and its potential" conference in Sydney earlier this year. It is predominantly focused on tibetan shmatha. Despite his glowing appraisal by his peers I found it a real disappointment. Couldn't get over the constant belittling of Theravada practice.
2008 for the Tricycle interview and 2006 for the book.Ben wrote:Hi Tilt
I wonder if that (Wallace's) article was written before his "An attention revolution".
Why would you expect anything different, given that the Theravada is hinayana and has not got things quite right? Get me cranky enough and I might go through the interview as I did on the obviously defunct Grey Forum.Couldn't get over the constant belittling of Theravada practice.
My own personal view is that Tenzing Gyatso's view of the Vissudhimagga should not be rejected out of hand. It is as interesting as that of any intelligent person who has pondered the points it makes. No more, no less.
Ben wrote:I was just interested in the provenance of the article and the circumstances of its origin.
I understand that English is not your primary language. I did not say Vajrayana teachings are ignorant. I said that Wallace's approach was grossly sectarian, essentially claiming that the Theravada, especially the vipassana tradition, did not get it right and that the vipassana tradition distorts the Dhamma.Sönam wrote:hello tiltbillings, ... if vajrayana teachings are so "ignorant" why to be so irritated ?
may you found happiness and appeasement !
Users browsing this forum: dhammapal and 9 guests