Comments on Approaching Aro

Let's take it out of the

Karmakshanti — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 14:24:35 +0000

Let's take it out of the Tibetan and the religious context for a moment and consider two questions: Did Betsy Ross design the American flag? and Did Thomas Jefferson write the Declaration of Independence?

Neither of these questions have "empirical", "scientific", or "objective" answers because both describe unique and non-repeatable events in the past. All we have for either of them is the evidence of written testimony by outside observers, which is inherently subject to some degree of doubt in all cases. Observers can be mistaken, they can be deceived, or they can say what they do not believe. And there is no way to totally eliminate any of these alternatives for any written testimony.

The standard of belief in the study of history is exactly that of the standard of a verdict in a civil trial: "the preponderance of the of the evidence" and not "beyond a reasonable doubt". As of now, the preponderance of the evidence supports the conclusion that Betsy Ross didn't and Thomas Jefferson did. But since there is always a degree of doubt about any testimony, the verdict is still subject to revision in the light of new evidence.

Now consider two other questions: "Was the design of the American flag derived from elements in George Washington's coat of arms?" and "Was the Declaration of Independence inspired by God?" Both of these questions are beyond any standard of either "the preponderance of the evidence" or "beyond a reasonable doubt" since they are wholly internal, either internal to the text itself or internal to the designer and the author. Even the testimony of Betsy Ross or Thomas Jefferson would not be adequate evidence to answer these questions, since there is no way to independently reduce doubts about it. Further, the mere facts that GW's arms bears five pointed stars and the Declaration refers to "God given rights" is not testimony either for or against the questions--they are merely facts which suggest them. And the sensible historical stance toward either is the Scotch Verdict of "not proven", with the implicit understanding that they may also be "not provable".

This is basically the same verdict that should be drawn about Padmasambhava's "authorship" of termas--it is both "not proven" and "not provable" one way or the other, therefore moot. There simply is no independent testimony available. Much of this visionary "dilemma" is merely an artifact of confusing the text with the event of it's authorship. The "text" is what is written by the terton, in, say, 1654, and [redundantly] only written by the terton, since Guru Rinpoche was not around to write it. A text can either be written by an author or a stenographer, and no testimony inside the text is adequate proof of either alternative.

Historically, the authorship of terma by Guru Rinpoche is no more provable one way or the other than the Divine Inspiration of the Declaration of Independence. Thus, historically, it is a pseudo-problem. The only "objective" history of a terma which can be established is the emergence of the literal text and the later response of people to it. For that history it is sufficient to merely describe the belief [if it exists] that the terma was written by Guru Rinpoche. In fact, that is only what can be described.

All the rest of it is a priori reasoning from an exterior [and historically irrelevant] philosophical point of view, whether Materialist or Buddhist, Tibetan or Western. The "history" of any paranormal event is not "whether it really happened" but whether the people present believed it to have happened and said so. To say anything else is a radical confusion of totally separate categories of thought.

The Magisteria Clause

Sabio — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 23:20:34 +0000

Good answer, David. I get your position and agree. I run into far too many religious folks that do indeed make empirical claims constantly and often based on a factual history. They are often naughty and step out of their magisteria. Smile
Thank you

Visionary history

David Chapman — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 23:05:04 +0000

would you say the same of Islamic histories or Jewish histories or Greek histories?

Not sure I know enough about those to say, but probably yes.

are we to count Joseph's Smith's book of Mormon also "visionary history" with the same generosity you afford Tibetan texts?

Sure, why not?

we don't want to throw away the baby with the wash, but we don't want to keep the nasty wash, either.

Yup, I agree. I'll be washing a lot of dirty Tibetan laundry in public on my Wordpress blog soon.

I.e. I will discuss the politics of Tibetan religious history without pulling my punches too much.

I guess I'm not sure what you are looking for here. Maybe my point is that when religious claims are non-empirical, they can't be evaluated empirically.

This is more or less the "non-overlapping magisteria" approach (NOMA). As long as the magisteria don't overlap, then they don't contradict.

I gather that the standard objection to NOMA is that religions do make empirical claims. In those cases, I think they need to be evaluated empirically. Contrariwise, from the little I have read of the recent attempts to naturalize religious claims, I think they may be an illegitimate incursion of empiricism into the other magisterium.

Mormon & Hebrew "Visionary Truth"

Sabio — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 10:06:24 +0000

@ David :

You said

The histories written in Tibet are entirely different in principle and function from modern Western history.

Similarly, would you say the same of Islamic histories or Jewish histories or Greek histories? Al of these are have a "function" to inspire or motivate. Aren't fairy tales and such the same? So why attach the word "history" or the word "truth"? Well, I think that is obvious, "history" and "truth" deceive and motivate far better than "myth", "fable" or such.

And when discussing "visionary history", are we to count Joseph's Smith's book of Mormon also "visionary history" with the same generosity you afford Tibetan texts? Should we just pay attention to their principle and function? Sure, if we want to understand Mormons, I could see how such a phenomonlogical view is useful and how it is essential if we want to be Mormon or very close to Mormons. [BTW, I like most Mormons I have ever met -- and have many very personal experiences with them. So not a cut on Mormons here.]

It seems that you are agreeing with David Germano in that you are proposing that it is 'useful' to be forgiving of truth, if you want to get inside someone's head. Or some culture's head -- I agree, and have done this several times in my life.

But your last paragraphs seem to imply that there lies a space where some 'visionary truths' are revealed to the listener which model very useful constructs to build real truth -- benzene models, for instance. But then this implies that Hebrew visionary models of Yaheweh may have mythical quality but teach us something very real which we must respect. Same for Joseph Smith.

It is the flavor of the analogies and the use of vocabulary that seems to give a mixed message. I was hoping you could clarify.

For finally, after centuries of "truths" deceiving people, the naked King is being revealed. As we have developed tools to try to be more accurate in describing what is really happening, we don't want to throw away the baby with the wash, but we don't want to keep the nasty wash, either.

Violent agreement

David Chapman — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 18:24:43 +0000

Good, it sounds like we are in violent agreement, then!

If anyone else knows about the history of usage of "Buddhadharma", I'd love to hear it.

You may be correct that the

Anonymous — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 17:36:39 +0000

You may be correct that the term "buddhadharma " is not often found in sutras, and it may not be frequently used in medieval Indian literature, but I'm fairly confident it isn't a neologism. In any event your broader point about why the Kunjed Gyalpo allegedly doesn't mention "Buddhism" is quite correct. A Buddhismless Dzogchen may or may not be a desideratum for the modern age, but there is no point advancing the case with specious arguments.

Regarding tathagatagarbha and tantra, I don't particularly disagree with anything you say about, I just was objecting to the possible suggestion that the former grew out of the later exclusively. More of a quibble really, as you did not mean to suggest that.

Buddhadharma, Tantra, Shaivism, and Dzogchen

David Chapman — Sun, 05 Feb 2012 19:05:41 +0000

Thanks—correction accepted re the invention of Buddhism. Overstatement is my most glaring fault.

I am curious about "Buddhadharma". The Tibetan translation, sangs rgyas gyi chos lugs, does appear in one dictionary I have, but not others, and I suspect it's rare and/or a modern import. The common term is nang pa'i chos, "the Dharma of the insiders," as opposed to the false Dharma of outsiders (such as Hindus). I think that's an informal term, not something you'd find in scripture, though.

So anyway, I am wondering whether "Buddhadharma" might have been invented recently as a translation of the European "Buddhism". I don't read Sanskrit or Pali, so I'm totally ignorant here, and the answer may be "Buddhadharma" appears frequently in the Sutras?

I agree that Tantra owes a lot to Shaivism—and many other sources. The ones I mentioned are the key ones for understanding how Dzogchen grew out of Tantra, however. The Shaivite influence is key in Mahayoga, much less visible in Anuyoga, and is almost entirely absent in Dzogchen/Atiyoga.

The big issues in Tathagatagarbha, it seems to me, is "so what is this gharbha, then?" and "how do we make it turn into a tathagata?".

In the Mahaparinirvana Sutra, the gharbha is affirmed to be the atman. The rest of the Tathagatagarbha literature seems to experiment with various unconvincing explanations for how the garbha is not an atman. This problem carries over into Tantra, and Dzogchen claims to have a resolution.

Tantra itself is the answer to the question "how do we turn the garbha into tathagata". Dzogchen starts at the endpoint of Tantra: it takes Buddhahood as the base and goes forward from there. But it also claims that you can skip all the quasi-Shaivite Mahayoga folderol and go straight to real thing.

Good points all David,

Anonymous — Sun, 05 Feb 2012 15:25:00 +0000

Good points all David, although I sometimes think the case that "Buddhism" was invented is made a little too strongly. There was in fact a Sanskrit word for "Buddhist" - - Bauddha -- and for "Buddhism," more or less -- "Buddhadharma." There is also some sense among monks Xuanzang encountered in Buddhist monasteries, despite their myriad differences of doctrinal orientation and nationality, there was some sense among many or most of them that they were correligionists who could be demarcated from the rest of the Indian religious milleu. So I think there is at least a strong emic precedent for the later etic judgments of the British.

Regarding Tantra growing out o Tathagatagarbha, I would make the opposite point. I think it's clear that Tantra grew out of Tathagatagarbha opened the way for Tantra, but Tantra coalesced as a pan-Indian phenomenon that owes as much to Shaivism as to anything else.

Dzogchen and Buddhism

David Chapman — Sat, 04 Feb 2012 22:36:07 +0000

Hmm. This is a question about which reasonable people might disagree; but I think you would find that nearly all scholars and practitioners of Dzogchen disagree with you.

I have heard that some people teach that Dzogchen is not part of Buddhism, but don't know who says that. I'd be curious if you could tell me where you got this idea?

"Dzogchen" does name a state, which is self-existing, and independent of any conceptual apparatus or practice.

However, it does also name a system of texts, practices, historical lineages, and so forth. In that sense, it is a system, or even an -ism.

These usages are inseparable in practice, although perhaps separable in theory.

It is also true that Dzogchen is found in Bön. Bön has an ambiguous relationship with Buddhism—half in and half out. Is that what you are referring to?

The Kunjé Gyalpo doesn't mention "Buddhism" because "Buddhism" was invented in the 1800s by Europeans. No Buddhist scripture, of any yana, mentions "Buddhism".

The Kunjé Gyalpo does discuss the other eight yanas of Buddhism in detail. (See for example pages 142-145 in the Norbu-Clemente translation.) It also discusses many specifically Buddhist concepts at length.

More generally, if you understand how Shantarakishita unified Madhayamaka and Yogacara, and how Tantra grew out of Tathagatagarbha, and how the Tantric completion phase (Dzog-rim) works, then it's quite clear that Dzogchen is a logical development out of the Buddhism that was prevalent in the 800s-900s. Dzog-chen is the endpoint of Dzog-rim, combined with a sophisticated reconcilation of Madhyamaka and Tathagatagarbha.

Dzogchen a yana of Budhism,

Anonymous — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 19:41:25 +0000

Dzogchen a yana of Budhism, not at all the Great Perfection is not an ism

read the Kunjud Gyalpo the primary text of the Semsde series
not a word in there about Budhism