Now a note on emptiness or shunyata. It is very easy to equate emptiness with Dharma, but this is only partially correct. Dharma that is one with the true self is non-dual with emptiness, however emptiness is the final transmutation, not the gold, just as the ether in alchemy.

In the Lotus Sutra the Buddha describes the manner of teaching:

"If a person expounds this sutra,
he should enter the thus come one’s room,
put on the thus come one’s robe,
sit in the thus come one’s seat,
confront the assembly without fear
and broadly expound it for them, making distinctions.
Great pity and compassion are the room,
gentleness and patience are the robe,
the emptiness of all phenomena is the seat,
and from that position he should expound the Law for them."

This passage, again, describes the manifestation of the Buddha nature in reality: he reaches out to us with his compassion, as we approach we are treated with patient understanding despite our attachments, but the Buddha dwells on the seat of emptiness. Emptiness is his vehicle, his chariot, that which conveys the divine to all phenomena. It is his body. It is a sphere, a plane, the field of Dharma and it is none of these. By understanding emptiness we come to know the Dharma but Dharma is not emptiness, it is eternity, happiness, true self, and purity. It is our true selves.

I too believe that the Tantras of Tibet are the best means for the modern Bodhisattva, but it is my hope that the attainments of the wider Mahayana may benefit these new Dharma warriors in understanding their path.

I believe that the angry young men of the right taking up Buddhism is the most exciting thing to happen in the Buddhist context, at least, since the seventies. By all means, kick the "peace and love" crowd up the backside! Let's make Buddhism great again.

This debate has been formatted and responded to by Hammer and Vajra.
Only the replies in this document from Hammer and Vajra reflect the views of Hammer and Vajra.
In formatting no positions or content from other participants were changed.
---- Hammer and Vajra

We finish this exchange with an extract from the Mahaparinirvana Sutra:

"O good man! I, at that time, with mind-reading Wisdom, fathomed the mind of the Bramacarins and said to them: "What do you mean by saying that I talk of "not-is"? All the Brahmacarins said: "You, Gautama, have previously stated, here and there in the sutras, that all beings do not possess the Self. Now you say that there is no Self. How can you say that this is not the "not-is" theory? If “[there is]” no Self, who upholds the precepts and who violates “[them]”? I, the Buddha, said: "I have never said that all beings do not have the Self; I have always said that all beings have the Buddha-Nature. Is not the Buddha-Nature the Self? Thus, I have never spoken of "not-is". All beings do not see the Buddha-Nature. Hence, “[for them there is]” the non-Eternal, non-Self, non-Bliss, and non-Purity. Such are the views of "not-is". Then, all the Brahmacarins, on hearing that the Buddha-Nature is the Self, aspired to the unsurpassed Bodhi “[Enlightenment]” mind, and then, renouncing the world, practised the way of Bodhi. All flying birds and all those on water and land aspired to unsurpassed Bodhi, and having aspired, abandoned their bodies

"O good man! This Buddha-Nature is, truth to say, no Self “[i.e. no defiled, circumscribed ego”]. For the benefit of beings, I say Self.

"O good man! The Tathagata, when there is reason for “[so]” saying, says that non-Self is the Self. But, truth to say, there is no Self “[there]”. Though I speak thus, there is nothing “[here]” that is false.

"O good man! On account of causal relations, I state Self to be non-Self, “and, yet, truth to tell, there is the Self. It constitutes the world. I state “[this]” as non-Self. But nothing is wrong. The Buddha-Nature is non-Self. The Tathagata says Self. Because there is the quality of the Eternal. The Tathagata is the Self. And yet he states “[this]” as non-Self. Because he has unmolestedness” [i.e. complete freedom, unrestrictedness, the ability to do what he wills].

"Altogether, rebirth is a virtually inseparable part of Buddhist thinking. It is quite impossible to compress the richness of the Buddhist Rebirth and the Western Buddhist worldview, with each being evolving through a limitless variety of states over countless aeons, into the impoverished mental frame of those who deny it.

Since amateur writers on Buddhism never tire of making the absurd claim that the teaching of rebirth is somehow contradicted by the principle of Selflessness, we should point out that this is a thorough misconception.

In the main, as Har Dayal points out, "This difficulty has arisen from the regrettable mistake of translating atman by the English word 'soul.'" Since "soul" means, among other things, "the spiritual part of man regarded as surviving after death and as susceptible of happiness or misery in a future state," it is hard to see how it could ever have been considered a possible translation for the changeless, partless and independently self-existent atman that the Buddhists deny. Such an atman would be incapable of acting as a soul.

The principle of Selflessness negates certain deluded views of how such a soul, or anything else included in or imputed upon the aggregates, exists, but certainly does not deny that they exist at all. The nihilistic misinterpretation of Selflessness is the most dangerous of wrong views: "It were better, Kasyapa, to abide in a personality-view as big as Mount Sumeru, than the emptiness-view of the nihilist." Exactly as my personal continuum follows on from year to year in this life, each moment of my body and mind arising in dependence on the preceding moment, so it follows on from life to life, always changing."

Martin Willson, Rebirth and the Western Buddhist

Recollecting Rebirth Oneself and Spontaneous recall, by Martin Willson

"Spontaneous recall, generally the recollection by a child of his immediately preceding life, and often of how he passed from that death to the present birth, is more common than is often thought. Normally, especially in the West, a young child who talks of its previous life soon learns not to. Doubtless any mother would tend to tire of repeated requests by her child to go "home" to its previous family, perhaps telling her "My own mother is much better than you." A life spontaneously recalled is generally very recent, so that there are likely to be persons still living who remember the deceased person. In these circumstances, very strong confirmation is often possible.

The child may give much detailed information on his former family and home, often not very far away but unknown to his present family, which can be confirmed by visiting the past-life abode. If the child comes on such a visit (as he is generally eager to do), he recognises places, buildings, and people known to him in his former life, and his former possessions, comments on changes since he was there, asks after missing possessions and old acquaintances, and so on.

If he died by violence (which apparently makes quick rebirth and spontaneous recall more probable), he may give details of his murder which can be confirmed from police records and witnesses.

There can also be other circumstantial evidence supporting the child's claim. If he was known to his new mother in his previous life, she may well have had a significant dream or vision of his coming to her, before his birth. The child may carry birthmarks resembling and in the same place as the wounds which caused his previous death, or even reproducing a mark deliberately applied to his predecessor's body to enable identification if he should be reborn in that family.

Some 1600 cases of spontaneous recall in various parts of the world, including 241 in Europe, have been investigated with great thoroughness by Dr. Ian Stevenson of the University of Virginia. This work provides the strongest scientific evidence for rebirth that we yet have-anyone of a scientific tum of mind who still doubts the reality of rebirth should definitely read some of the reports of it, in full."

Waking up late, adultery,
living with hatred, harming others,
associating with bad friends, and greediness:
these six things ruin a person.

Gambling, associating with others’ wives,
drinking alcohol, infatuated with music and dance;
sleeping by day and roaming at night;
bad friends, and excessive greed:
these six things ruin a person.

- Buddha's advice to Sigālaka

“suffering is spontaneously present as great bliss; the obscurations
intrinsically blaze forth as wisdom.”

The Lamp (STMD)

"A person is a dependent imputation on the aggregates. There is no person self-sufficient or standing up on its own."

Geshe Lobsang Gyatso

"We beg you not to worry. After the Buddha has passed into extinction, in an age of fear and evil we will preach far and wide. There will be many ignorant people who will curse and speak ill of us and will attack us with swords and staves, but we will endure all these things.

In that evil age there will be monks with perverse wisdom and hearts that are fawning and crooked who will suppose they have attained what they have not attained, being proud and boastful in heart.

Or there will be forest-dwelling monks wearing clothing of patched rags and living in retirement, who will claim they are practicing the true way,
despising and looking down on all humankind.

Greedy for profit and support, they will preach the Law to white-robed laymen and will be respected and revered by the world as though they were arhats who possess the six transcendental powers. These men with evil in their hearts, constantly thinking of worldly affairs, will borrow the name of forest-dwelling monks and take delight in proclaiming our faults,
saying things like this:

“These monks are greedy for profit and support and therefore they preach non-Buddhist doctrines and fabricate their own noscriptures to delude the people of the world. Because they hope to gain fame and renown thereby they make distinctions when preaching this sutra.”

Because in the midst of great assemblies they constantly try to defame us, they will address the rulers, high ministers, Brahmans, and householders, as well as the other monks, slandering and speaking evil of us, saying, “These are men of perverted views who preach non-Buddhist doctrines!”

But because we revere the Buddha we will bear all these evils. Though they treat us with contempt, saying, “You are all no doubt buddhas!” all such words of arrogance and contempt we will endure and accept. In a muddied kalpa, in an evil age, there will be many things to fear.

Evil demons will take possession of others and through them curse, revile, and heap shame on us. But we, reverently trusting in the Buddha, will put on the armor of perseverance. In order to preach this sutra we will bear these difficult things."

LS ch.13, Encouraging Devotion.

For those of you who are brave enough to read the heavy Buddhist stuff.

Failing to believe that you can attain Buddhahood is the true offence Nichiren is warning against in this text. If you fail to believe in your potential to attain Buddhahood you will fall, not into one of the lesser hells, but into the great Avichi hell to remain there for one medium kalpa. The is what it really means to slander the Law (Dharma).

"Great hatred is the fetter of hell,
Great avarice the preta's chain,
Great delusion the animal's.
Great desire is the human fetter,
Great jealousy is the asura's,
And great pride the deva's chain. These are six fetters binding one from Freedom."

Milarepa

It seems this text has caused some confusion. Below is another quotation from Nichiren that I hope will make clear his meaning.

"You must never think that any of the eighty thousand sacred teachings of Shakyamuni Buddha’s lifetime or any of the Buddhas and bodhisattvas of the ten directions and three existences are outside yourself. Your practice of the Buddhist teachings will not relieve you of the sufferings of birth and death in the least unless you perceive the true nature of your life. If you seek enlightenment outside yourself, then your performing even ten thousand practices and ten thousand good deeds will be in vain. It is like the case of a poor man who spends night and day counting his neighbor’s wealth but gains not even half a coin. That is why the T’ien-t’ai school’s commentary states, 'Unless one perceives the nature of one’s life, one cannot eradicate one’s grave offenses.' This passage implies that, unless one perceives the nature of one’s life, one’s practice will become an endless, painful austerity. Therefore, such students of Buddhism are condemned as non-Buddhist. Great Concentration and Insight states that, although they study Buddhism, their views are no different from those of non-Buddhists.

"Whether you chant the Buddha’s name, recite the sutra, or merely offer flowers and incense, all your virtuous acts will implant benefits and roots of goodness in your life. With this conviction you should strive in faith."

Not all Dharmapālas are wrathful, and not all wrathful deities are Dharmapālas. Dharmapāla is a technical term and it should be used instead of the generic "protector deity" label, since, in theory, all deities protect beings, however not all have protection as a specific function.

https://youtu.be/K7lXta9XtGk

Related to previous post 💀🔱

"Dzongsar Jamyang Khyentse calls on Westerners to acknowledge the distortions we may bring to the study of Buddhism—through our cultural arrogance, the deceipt of ego, and simple ignorance. The successful transplant of such a subtle and challenging practice as Buddhism, he says, depends on thorough study and clear recognition of our habitual patterns.”

Editor, Shambhala Sun

https://www.siddharthasintent.org/resources/features/from-the-archives-distortion/

Greeks definitely knew this, btw.

Guru Rinpoche's advice on receiving empowerments and practicing tantra. Including a short biography of Padmasambhava.