The nameless one is Alex Henke. Are you forgetting we’ve got google boxes?

Your,
Dab

If you follow my original comments, you will also notice that there were several avenues of criticism which I didn’t take up. Of course I don’t see why Tibetan Renaissance shouldn’t be cited insofar as it makes original and reliable contributions. So what are they? If there is something I have missed, here on the Internet one can point it out at any time; though maybe my own blog would be a more appropriate forum than this one.

(I found it interesting, and I am happy to go to footnotes to find sources when I want them, so experiences may vary.)

I am reminded of a story told by a female student of Chogyam Trungpa in which she describes going to see him one day. (This story can be found in the ‘Chronicles Project’ archives project). He says to her, “Jump out the window.” And she tells this story by saying her response was, “Yes, sir. Right now?” And Chogyam Trungpa just laughs and tells her it isn’t necessary. Nonetheless, one cannot help but remember Tilopa and Naropa.

I recently listened to a talk by Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche in which he mentions the ancient mahasiddhas and talks about how he always wondered about them. His opinion was that they smelled, ate raw fish and misbehaved. One the one hand we admire them so much these days as the founders of tantrism and yet were they present among us what would we do? Dzongsar Khyenste Rinpoche says he would not have wanted to let them inside his house.

So if we are told to not speak of certain things because of the possible (and in this case considerable) misunderstandings, well, you have it right from the mouth of a tulku that even he does not or might not always perceive clearly. Or even be around that which might produce exactly what buddhism says it is about. All you have to do is remember the considerable upset that still surrounds some of the (and by ancient standards) mild beviour of Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche. At least he didn’t ask that lovely woman to REALLY jump out of the window. And here is another question while we’re at it – if he had said “yes, jump” and she had refused would that have been breaking samaya? Of course only Chogyam Trungpa could have answered that question but just to consider it should bring pause to those that think they know what is and is not samaya breakage. imo, it is always only between the guru and the student and no one else’s opinion counts for diddly-squat.

Clearly, a complicated issue for those who earnestly seek to practice. btw – in the same talk Dzongsar Khyenste mentions how the guru is someone “you hire to destroy you.” How well does that go down in today’s world??? Finally, Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche also mentions in the same talk Gangshar Rinpoche who reportedly said after the invasion of Tibet by the Chinese, (paraphrased here) “Finally, the Chinese did what we ourselves could not do.” YEOW!

As always, a thoughtful discusssion although I am aware that I have steered it somewhat away from the manuscript considerations that began the topic. My apologies. Return to your texts gentlemen.

It also appears unlikely to me that scholars or groups thereof rejected the tantras on the whole. But from what I know in those days a new type of scholar evolved, who was primarily concerned with the exposition of non-Tantric teachings. For example the 11th century was absolutely vital for the transmission of the main teaching lineages of Buddhist logic and epistemology to Tibet, and these subjects have very little to do with the tantras. I was indeed thinking of the abbots of Gsang phu, and this monastery appears to have been established in 1073, which makes it an 11th-century institution. To which degree the resident monks and scholars engaged in tantric practices will forever be unknown. I won’t deny that they are very likely to have studied tantric texts, so from this point of view I concede that I.S. was right to speculate that non-tantric Buddhist in 11th century Tibet, who entirely disavowed the tantric teachings, probably didn’t exist.
(Be careful when mentioning Davidson’s study, in Jinajik this work was labelled as a “book to avoid”… :-)
Must go now and phone home.

Thanks for that important point. The new scholasticism was of course very much on the rise during Bsod nam rtse mo’s time (the 12th century, not the 11th indeed!), and the latter studied at Gsang phu, perhaps the most important centre of scholasticism. (Ronald Davidson discusses this on pp.339-40 of his Tibetan Renaissance)

Still, it seems a bit of a stretch to infer that the proponents of the new scholasticism would have rejected the tantras to the extent that they needed to be convinced of the validity of the Vajrayana. (Of course there may be other evidence for this in the histories and biographies that I’m not aware of.) On the other hand, it seems reasonable to infer that Bsod nam rtse mo’s reliance on the objection/response model in his treatise is influenced by the scholastic methods taught at Gsang phu.