Faith

GKG quote.pdf (182.37 KB)


Bristollad, you really got me interested in that Shantideva passage, so I looked into it a bit. I’ve copied in the text of the Padmakara publication from the Kindle edition and I transcribed the text of the Tharpa version from the audio book (because I don’t have the print edition). I also checked GKG’s commentary called, Meaningful to Behold, which I’ve included as a pdf attachment.

I am not an a apologist for NKT and I am in no way involved with them any longer, but I do stand behind my assertion that GKG’s books gave me a solid foundation. If I’ve been misled I’d truly likely to see where NKT is doctrinally unsound (aside from that “Shugden taint”!). I often miss the subtleties that Tsongkhapa points out in others’ arguments, so that may be the case here. Please let me know if I’ve missed the import of the differences in these translations.

I think Shantideva's passage is a consequential (i.e. Prasangika) conversation intended to bring out the contradiction of confusing “mere I” and “inherent I”. Verse 96 expresses the exchange of self and others. Verse 97ab is the opponent’s counter argument with reference to the inherent, isolated I of this life: I don’t feel another’s pain so why is it my business? Verse 97cd is Shantideva’s response, making ironic reference to the fact that, due to impermanence, my present self is not my later self and yet I’m still concerned with that later person’s suffering.

The two verses 98 do seem to say opposite things, but the referent is different. Padmakara is talking about the inherent I. If the opponent thinks “I, Jeff, will have to bear it” in a future life, he’s wrong because when Jeff dies he’s gone forever. Tharpa is talking about the mere I. The non-inherently existing continuum I’m merely labelling Jeff right now, will experience the fruits of Jeff’s actions as a different, misconceived inherent I in another life. I think this meaning is apparent in GKG’s commentary on v.95-101, which I’ve included in a pdf document.

Hi Bristollad. I had several reasons for leaving NKT, mostly positive with respect to preferring FPMT. But one negative reason was just what you say about too much focus on GKG's texts to the exclusion of, not only originals, but a variety of commentaries.

I can't speak to whether it is a legitimate option to translate verse 98 in the affirmative or it's a mistake. I do think it must be a tricky passage for two reasons. First it is a consequentialist argument, using the Prasangika technique of purposely getting the opponent twisted up in his own contradictory statements. Second it plays the two senses of self against each other. But whether the NKT translation is justifiable or not, I read the verses as two ways to approach one point, not as two different points.

My real point here, though, is that I think condemnations of NKT too often lack equanimity. I don't understand the Shugden controversy, but I know the Tibetans do and they take it very seriously. Therefore I accept the schism on that basis. And I reject NKT on other grounds as well.

However, I don't accept that the discrepancy of this passage indicates bad teaching, even if it is a translation error. I studied Meaningful to Behold before studying the Bodhicharyavatara in different translations and with other commentaries, and I have studied the concepts of this passage in other contexts. I maintain that GKG and NKT did not mislead me in this particular instance.

Jeff, I am very impressed with your knowledge of this text and many others by the sound of it. I think you really have a solid foundation. As far as Dorje Shugden is concerned, I firmly believe that His Holiness the Dalai Lama is enlightened. It took me a long time to come to that conclusion, but there is no doubt in my mind about it now, and so I trust him implicitly. Also, I am no fan of Dorje Shugden or NKT, but both HHDL and Lama Yeshe, Veneragle Robina's main Gurus if I understood her right, had a far, far more profound exposure and connection to DS than you ever have. I think your exposure was very casual, so if that is behind you now as you say, I see no reason why you can't just move forward and feel really good about your foundation in Buddhist study and practice.


Any way, Clive (Bristolad) is quite the scholar, too, so this discussion of translations of Shantidiva's text is really fascinating to me. Keep it up guys, great work.

Just to be clear, I think GKG is a scoundrel, very very deluded and dishonorable individual, judging by his actions. But that does not mean you wasted your time, Jeff. I think it is clear you really learned a lot in his center that, as you say, is a solid foundation for further study and practice. As a Buddhist, and student of Buddhism, I am more on the practical side, I love the philosophy, and I have attended teachings for many years, but I rely on experience more, my path has been unusual to say the least. It sounds to me like your knowledge of texts is well beyond mine, and I know Clive's is too. So both you guys are doing really well with that. I hope we hear more from you both.

From the HsinHsinMing, 'Verses on the Faith Mind':

"For the unified mind in accord with the way
all self-centered striving ceases.
Doubts and irresolutions vanish
and life in true faith is possible.
With a single stroke we are freed from bondage:
Nothing clings to us and we hold to nothing.

"All is empty, clear, self-illuminating,
with no exertion of the mind’s power."

In the Chinese woodcuts known as the Ten Bulls, there is also a vision of the bull or unified mind, being gathered, disciplined, but this exertion not being an end in itself - that too transcended.



What really is faith? What does it do? There is a specific doctrinal dialogue to Christianity, a sect-defining one, and in the West we have a strong tendency to take an essentially Christian definition of faith unexamined.

The end of questions. If that means the end of listening, of curiosity, if that means closing off, it would be bad. But it may also mean that true practice has begun.

I see lots of Buddhist ideas as, not merely metaphors, but exercises, thought-experiments. I consider rebirth to be one such. What do different positions on the topic actually do to the person who takes them? Awakened beings told of these things, gave these teachings, if we can understand their mind they will help us - that is faith in awakening. Do not take them to be right, but to be awake. Do not pretend to the form of taking them up, but really seek to understand with these views as your own.

Buddha taught that the teaching of breath counting for a washerwoman, and contemplation of the uncleaness of the body for a blacksmith in one case made them icchantikas - Context, audience, era, all important. But these are not philosophical constructions for the sake of a towering intellectual edifice to command from, they are medicine for views that do damage, made just as complex as they need to be. Our context, our ailments, are no doubt different in subtle as well as more obvious ways from the Buddhas time. But the lesson of fighting over who will gain higher or lower rebirth, turned around and understood as a wheel of suffering, and used to point to another kind of motivation, is a subject for deep personal meditation, that is the realm for its evaluation, of the relevant experimental evidence.

Manjushri's sword is identified as transcendent wisdom. I think that is also faith-in-mind, trusting oneself based on being ready to be trusted. Decisive, yet not attached to that. You know what awakening is. You have always known, because it is your original nature. What will it mean to be ready to accept that?

There is no authority but the sutras.
Everything else is opinion.

I can see how that’s true in a certain sense, Dude. I have only read a very few of the shortest, most common sutras. I wouldn’t know where to look for an authoritative sutra to resolve my questions about authority.

It’s my understanding that Buddha admonishes us to become our own authority by subjecting his teachings to rigorous study and practical application in our lives. That is the path from “correct belief” to “certain knowledge”.

More importantly, the Prasangikas teach that some sutras are definitive and others are provisional, the distinction being whether specific teachings require interpretation or not. This is because the sutras contain all that is necessary for a single being to progress from ignorance to wisdom, and a being can only accept and/or absorb certain teachings at certain stages. Therefore, without understanding definitive and provisional teachings, we would encounter apparent contradictions among the sutras.

However, different schools consider different sutras definitive and provisional. HHDL says that the sutras themselves do not provide definitive guidance regarding which are which. And aside from the definitive/provisional debates, I believe there are disputes between legitimate schools of Buddhism contesting the authenticity of certain sutras.

For those reasons I think any Buddhist practitioner must rely on the authority of trusted teachers to be able to ascertain the truths which, ultimately, can be traced back to the sutras.

But none of those “authorities” are the ones I’m questioning. As with any religion’s authoritative texts and rules, the sutras, the sastras, the commentaries on and transmissions of sastras, the translations, and vast numbers of day-to-day regulations were all written down by fallible people. Some of those people, perhaps the overwhelming majority, were absolutely irreproachable. Other weren’t. My dilemma with religion, faith, and authority is about how to discern what is trustworthy.

My dilemma with religion, faith, and authority is about how to discern what is trustworthy.


Read more: viewonbuddhism.freeforums.net/thread/95/faith?page=2#ixzz3BdfTUHCT



Mine as well.

Good advice, Will, and the Three Principals of the Path is a wonderful text. I once attended a five day teaching and transmission of it by my teacher. It is only half a page long, but really embodies the Buddha's teachings in so many ways.