Early Buddhism and Mahayana

General forum on Mahayana.

Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana

Postby Astus » Fri Sep 27, 2013 11:44 am

Sherab wrote:
Malcolm wrote:The core of the conditioned is unconditioned.

So the core of the compounded is uncompounded, the core of the born is unborn, the core of the transcended is untranscended?

If yes, then it simply means what is experienced as conditioned is really unconditioned, what is experienced as compounded is really uncompounded, what is experienced as born is really unborn, and what is experience as transcended is really untranscended. That would simply mean that there is no conditioned, no compounded, no born, no transcended. And that would simply mean that all that is experienced is nothing but an illusion, a hallucination.

And since, in a non-dual state, the experiencer is the experienced, the experiencer must also be an illusion. So we could all be merely part of a computer simulation such as The Matrix and the Buddha is part of that as well. Or the Hindu belief that we are all the dream of the God Brahma is correct and Buddha is also part of the dream.

And that would be a problem.


You talk of compounded and uncompounded as two different things. Rather, because appearances are compound phenomena they are empty, dependent. Because things are born they are unborn. Unborn means that there is no actual fixed independent essence that is really born of something (or nothing, from itself or another...). If there were such an essence it could not be born, either it was existent or non-existent but change could never happen. That's why emptiness is not different from appearances at all.

There is neither an experiencer nor an experienced, there is just experience, and even that is empty.
"There is no such thing as the real mind. Ridding yourself of delusion: that's the real mind."
(Sheng-yen: Getting the Buddha Mind, p 73)

“Don’t rashly seek the true Buddha;
True Buddha can’t be found.
Does marvelous nature and spirit
Need tempering or refinement?
Mind is this mind carefree;
This face, the face at birth."

(Nanyue Mingzan: Enjoying the Way, tr. Jeff Shore; T51n2076, p461b24-26)
User avatar
Astus
Former staff member
 
Posts: 4226
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Budapest

Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana

Postby Astus » Fri Sep 27, 2013 12:01 pm

Sherab wrote:My view is that reflexivity has to be the nature of any form of awareness. Otherwise, there is no possibility of an awareness being an awareness. In other words, for awareness to be aware, it has be aware that it is aware.


It is aware that it is aware, and it is aware that it is aware it is aware, etc. I think it's rather that appearances and consciousness are inseparable. Whatever is experienced is necessarily perceived. This need for a special self-reflection comes up when awareness is believed to be an entity on its own that shines outside, as if it were like the physical eye, however, I consider it an incorrect metaphor.
"There is no such thing as the real mind. Ridding yourself of delusion: that's the real mind."
(Sheng-yen: Getting the Buddha Mind, p 73)

“Don’t rashly seek the true Buddha;
True Buddha can’t be found.
Does marvelous nature and spirit
Need tempering or refinement?
Mind is this mind carefree;
This face, the face at birth."

(Nanyue Mingzan: Enjoying the Way, tr. Jeff Shore; T51n2076, p461b24-26)
User avatar
Astus
Former staff member
 
Posts: 4226
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Budapest

Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana

Postby Malcolm » Fri Sep 27, 2013 2:02 pm

Sherab wrote:
Malcolm wrote:The core of the conditioned is unconditioned.

So the core of the compounded is uncompounded, the core of the born is unborn, the core of the transcended is untranscended?


I agree.
Last edited by Malcolm on Fri Sep 27, 2013 2:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

Though there are infinite liberating gateways of Dharma,
there are none not included in the dimension of the knowledge of the Great Perfection.

-- Buddha Samantabhadri
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 12033
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana

Postby Malcolm » Fri Sep 27, 2013 2:04 pm

Sherab wrote:That would simply mean that there is no conditioned, no compounded, no born, no transcended. And that would simply mean that all that is experienced is nothing but an illusion, a hallucination.


Correct.
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

Though there are infinite liberating gateways of Dharma,
there are none not included in the dimension of the knowledge of the Great Perfection.

-- Buddha Samantabhadri
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 12033
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana

Postby Malcolm » Fri Sep 27, 2013 2:35 pm

Sherab wrote:Actually I was trying to make the point that the conclusion is not that simple.



It's pretty simple.
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

Though there are infinite liberating gateways of Dharma,
there are none not included in the dimension of the knowledge of the Great Perfection.

-- Buddha Samantabhadri
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 12033
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana

Postby Son of Buddha » Fri Sep 27, 2013 2:36 pm

Astus wrote:
Son of Buddha wrote:to be fair Not-Self was treated worse in the Nikayas than "Self"

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .mend.html

"Form, O monks, is not-self; if form were self, then form would not lead to affliction and it should obtain regarding form: 'May my form be thus, may my form not be thus'; and indeed, O monks, since form is not-self, therefore form leads to affliction and it does not obtain regarding form: 'May my form be thus, may my form not be thus.'

people forget the Pali canon is like 20,000 pages long........and many of those Nikayas say No self is suffering,No self is what leads to suffering,to abandon no self,one sutta even says no self is what belong to Mara("the devil")


No-self is not a thing, it is a statement that something is without self, that is, a permanent identity. Self, on the other hand, is the concept that there is a permanent identity. If form, etc. had a permanent identity, it wouldn't change, therefore we couldn't do anything about it, no matter whether it's pleasurable or painful. So, a permanent identity makes zero sense to me. If you say that an unchangeable thing or being is a useful idea, that's your decision.


yes No- Self is a statement that something is without a Self......and it is stated that whatever is of a selfless Nature leads to affliction and if it did have self nature it would not lead to affliction hence the quote up above from SN 22.59

you say a permanent Identity makes no sense to you......so did Shakyamuni Permanently get rid of rid greed anger and hatred when he became Enlightened or did those traits arise again in his life time???

once a person "becomes" Enlightened do the ever slip back into Samsaric ways,falling back into death and rebirth or are they Permanently Enlightened?

here is a list if all the things that belong to Mara

(SN 23.24)
4 (2)-34 (12) Subject to Mara, tc.

... "Radha, you should abandon desire, you should abandon lust, you should abandon desire and lust, for whatever is subject to Mara ' .. [199] ". for whatever is impermanent ... for whatever is of an impermanent nature for whatever is suffering ...
for whatever is of a painful nature for whatever is nonself ' .. for whatever is of a selfless nature ... for whatever is subject to destruction ... for whatever is subject to vanishing ... for what¬ever is subject to arising ... for whatever is subject to cessation. And what, Radha, is subject to cessation? Form is subject to ces¬sation. Feeling ... Perception ... Volitional formations ... Consciousness is subject to cessation. Seein thus ' .. He understands:
there is no more for this state of being.''

but again it all depends on your teacher what sect or tradition you follow and what suttas/sutras you adhere to.
User avatar
Son of Buddha
 
Posts: 882
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:48 pm

Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana

Postby Malcolm » Fri Sep 27, 2013 2:40 pm

Son of Buddha wrote:
No-self is not a thing, it is a statement that something is without self, that is, a permanent identity. Self, on the other hand, is the concept that there is a permanent identity.



You're completely ensnared into a dualism vis a vie self and no self.
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

Though there are infinite liberating gateways of Dharma,
there are none not included in the dimension of the knowledge of the Great Perfection.

-- Buddha Samantabhadri
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 12033
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana

Postby Son of Buddha » Fri Sep 27, 2013 2:43 pm

Malcolm wrote:Obviously Dolbupa erred in attributing truly existent characteristics to the signless.

M

as did all the Tantras and Sutras err in doing the same thing.

are you not doing the same thing right now??
for something to be labeled as "signless" it has to exist to be labeled as such.

even a cartoon character Vampire exists in a mental and relative sense to recieve the title "Blood Sucker"
User avatar
Son of Buddha
 
Posts: 882
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:48 pm

Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana

Postby Son of Buddha » Fri Sep 27, 2013 2:48 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Son of Buddha wrote:
No-self is not a thing, it is a statement that something is without self, that is, a permanent identity. Self, on the other hand, is the concept that there is a permanent identity.



You're completely ensnared into a dualism vis a vie self and no self.


were all ensnared in dualism,the very WORDS we use were created to seperate one thing from another,our very words were created for the purpuse of duality.
your very disagrement with me is a duality itself.

I represent one view you represent another view...........hence a living example of your duality.

which hand is your left hand which is your right hand????...........Malcolm your completely ensnared in dualism

:cheers:

(P.S. that is not my quote that you attributed to me)
User avatar
Son of Buddha
 
Posts: 882
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:48 pm

Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana

Postby anjali » Fri Sep 27, 2013 3:03 pm

Astus wrote:
Sherab wrote:My view is that reflexivity has to be the nature of any form of awareness. Otherwise, there is no possibility of an awareness being an awareness. In other words, for awareness to be aware, it has be aware that it is aware.


It is aware that it is aware, and it is aware that it is aware it is aware, etc. I think it's rather that appearances and consciousness are inseparable. Whatever is experienced is necessarily perceived. This need for a special self-reflection comes up when awareness is believed to be an entity on its own that shines outside, as if it were like the physical eye, however, I consider it an incorrect metaphor.


Just to confirm: you take the position that self-reflexive knowing is not possible (the knowing quality of the mind can't know itself in a direct, nondual way)?
  • The object of the game is to go on playing it. --John Von Neumann
  • All activities are like the games children play. If started, they can never be finished. They are only completed once you let them be, like castles made of sand. --Khenpo Nyoshul Rinpoche
anjali
 
Posts: 349
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 10:33 pm

Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana

Postby Malcolm » Fri Sep 27, 2013 3:09 pm

Son of Buddha wrote:as did all the Tantras and Sutras err in doing the same thing.




The sūtras and tantras do not make that error at all.

As Kamalaśila points out in his commentary on the Vajracchedika sūtra, "While the Tathāgata cannot be seen because by perfect marks, nevertheless, he can be seen through ultimate dharmatā."
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

Though there are infinite liberating gateways of Dharma,
there are none not included in the dimension of the knowledge of the Great Perfection.

-- Buddha Samantabhadri
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 12033
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana

Postby Malcolm » Fri Sep 27, 2013 3:11 pm

Son of Buddha wrote:
I represent one view you represent another view...........hence a living example of your duality.


I don't represent a view or a tenet system. But when I examine what is stated in Buddhist texts, I do not see your view of them to be a very accurate picture.

For example, The Aryātajñāna-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra claims:
    The mind is realized; since it is wisdom one should meditate on the idea of not seeking buddhahood elsewhere.

The tenet system of you, Ardent, Vidyārāja, etc., is too seek a buddhahood that lies outside of the mind, the opposite of this.
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

Though there are infinite liberating gateways of Dharma,
there are none not included in the dimension of the knowledge of the Great Perfection.

-- Buddha Samantabhadri
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 12033
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana

Postby Son of Buddha » Fri Sep 27, 2013 3:52 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Son of Buddha wrote:as did all the Tantras and Sutras err in doing the same thing.




The sūtras and tantras do not make that error at all.

As Kamalaśila points out in his commentary on the Vajracchedika sūtra, "While the Tathāgata cannot be seen because by perfect marks, nevertheless, he can be seen through ultimate dharmatā."


Malcolm all the Sutras and Tantras were written with words so ALL of them can be said to "err" by you in this manner.
ALL words are a DUALITY you say "signless' well that word is DUALITY for that which has a "Sign" hence the word "Signless" is a duality to the word "Sign"
no words escape duality (the very purpose for the creation of words was to describe one thing from another hence they were created for the purpose of dualism)
so when you say that Enlightenment is "signless" you stuck in dualism also.

[Queen Srimala Sutra] 8-9. The Dharmakaya and the Meaning of Void-ness
"Lord, the cessation of suffering is not the destruction of Dharma. Why so? Because the Dharmakaya of the Tathágata is named 'cessation of suffering,' and it is beginning-less, un-create, unborn, undying, free from death; permanent, steadfast, calm, eternal; intrinsically pure, free from all the defilement-store; and accompanied by Buddha natures more numerous than the sands of the Ganges, which are non-discrete, knowing as liberated, and inconceivable. This Dharmakaya of the Tathágata when not free from the store of defilement is referred to as the Tathágata-garbha.

Nirvana sutrta chapter 3
Even though he has said that all phenomena [dharmas] are devoid of the Self, it is not that they are completely/ truly devoid of the Self. What is this Self? Any phenomenon [dharma] that is true [satya], real [tattva], eternal [nitya], sovereign/ autonomous/ self-governing [aisvarya], and whose ground/ foundation is unchanging [asraya-aviparinama], is termed 'the Self' [atman]. This is as in the case of the great Doctor who well understands the milk medicine. The same is the case with the Tathagata. For the sake of beings, he says "there is the Self in all things" O you the four classes! Learn Dharma thus!"
User avatar
Son of Buddha
 
Posts: 882
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:48 pm

Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana

Postby Son of Buddha » Fri Sep 27, 2013 4:04 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Son of Buddha wrote:
I represent one view you represent another view...........hence a living example of your duality.


I don't represent a view or a tenet system. But when I examine what is stated in Buddhist texts, I do not see your view of them to be a very accurate picture.

For example, The Aryātajñāna-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra claims:
    The mind is realized; since it is wisdom one should meditate on the idea of not seeking buddhahood elsewhere.

The tenet system of you, Ardent, Vidyārāja, etc., is too seek a buddhahood that lies outside of the mind, the opposite of this.


sure you represent a view..............you disagree with me don't you? :rolling:
to disagree with me is to express dualism. (i.e opposites of view)

you represent the tenet system called Dzogchen.........hence why it has a label for which to label itself and its followers.
you say i'm ensnared in Dualism.......well Malcolm your not doing much better.
did you have a teacher????
well that means you must have been a student.
are you left handed or right handed?
is the sky up or down?
are you asleep or awake??

whats the difference between Middle way and Non Duality??

(P.S. when did I say Buddhahood lies outside the mind?)
and if i did would you have the opposite view?....i.e dualism
User avatar
Son of Buddha
 
Posts: 882
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:48 pm

Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana

Postby Astus » Fri Sep 27, 2013 4:23 pm

Son of Buddha wrote:you say a permanent Identity makes no sense to you......so did Shakyamuni Permanently get rid of rid greed anger and hatred when he became Enlightened or did those traits arise again in his life time???

once a person "becomes" Enlightened do the ever slip back into Samsaric ways,falling back into death and rebirth or are they Permanently Enlightened?


When there is no cause for something to occur it does not occur. When the root afflictions/causes are removed then there is no more birth, no more afflictions. That's how not just buddhas don't fall back but even a stream-enterer doesn't fall back from the path.

but again it all depends on your teacher what sect or tradition you follow and what suttas/sutras you adhere to.


I wonder, if you don't mind answering, what tradition do you follow?
"There is no such thing as the real mind. Ridding yourself of delusion: that's the real mind."
(Sheng-yen: Getting the Buddha Mind, p 73)

“Don’t rashly seek the true Buddha;
True Buddha can’t be found.
Does marvelous nature and spirit
Need tempering or refinement?
Mind is this mind carefree;
This face, the face at birth."

(Nanyue Mingzan: Enjoying the Way, tr. Jeff Shore; T51n2076, p461b24-26)
User avatar
Astus
Former staff member
 
Posts: 4226
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Budapest

Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana

Postby Malcolm » Fri Sep 27, 2013 4:28 pm

Son of Buddha wrote:
(P.S. when did I say Buddhahood lies outside the mind?)


When you said that your truly existent self lies outside of the aggregates, and that that is buddhahood.
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

Though there are infinite liberating gateways of Dharma,
there are none not included in the dimension of the knowledge of the Great Perfection.

-- Buddha Samantabhadri
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 12033
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana

Postby Astus » Fri Sep 27, 2013 4:52 pm

anjali wrote:Just to confirm: you take the position that self-reflexive knowing is not possible (the knowing quality of the mind can't know itself in a direct, nondual way)?


Mind is itself knowing. Knowing is the essential quality of mind and a mind without awareness is not mind at all. There is no mental phenomena that could be without consciousness. Therefore, to say that "knowing knows itself" is redundant and unnecessary, as there is no mental phenomena without awareness, but also there is no fixed phenomena as "knowing itself" that should be self-aware.
"There is no such thing as the real mind. Ridding yourself of delusion: that's the real mind."
(Sheng-yen: Getting the Buddha Mind, p 73)

“Don’t rashly seek the true Buddha;
True Buddha can’t be found.
Does marvelous nature and spirit
Need tempering or refinement?
Mind is this mind carefree;
This face, the face at birth."

(Nanyue Mingzan: Enjoying the Way, tr. Jeff Shore; T51n2076, p461b24-26)
User avatar
Astus
Former staff member
 
Posts: 4226
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Budapest

Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana

Postby Son of Buddha » Fri Sep 27, 2013 5:00 pm

"Astus"
When there is no cause for something to occur it does not occur. When the root afflictions/causes are removed then there is no more birth, no more afflictions. That's how not just buddhas don't fall back but even a stream-enterer doesn't fall back from the path.


so Shakyamuni did put a Permanent end to greed anger and hatred when he became Enlightened correct??

so the "cause" was permanently put to an end correct?

is Enlightenment Permanent or can i slip back into Samsaric ways?


I wonder, if you don't mind answering, what tradition do you follow?

(Jonang)

I also studied with Wat Dhammakaya
and some Yogacara Chinese groups
User avatar
Son of Buddha
 
Posts: 882
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:48 pm

Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana

Postby Malcolm » Fri Sep 27, 2013 5:16 pm

Son of Buddha wrote:you represent the tenet system called Dzogchen.........hence why it has a label for which to label itself and its followers.


Dzogchen is not a tenet system.
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

Though there are infinite liberating gateways of Dharma,
there are none not included in the dimension of the knowledge of the Great Perfection.

-- Buddha Samantabhadri
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 12033
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana

Postby Son of Buddha » Fri Sep 27, 2013 5:17 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Son of Buddha wrote:(P.S. when did I say Buddhahood lies outside the mind?)

When you said that your truly existent self lies outside of the aggregates, and that that is buddhahood.

Do you consider the Mind to be an Aggregate?

SN 22.59
"Now what do you think of this, O monks? Is consciousness permanent or impermanent?"

"Impermanent, O Lord."

"Now, what is impermanent, is that unsatisfactory or satisfactory?"

"Unsatisfactory, O Lord."

"Now, what is impermanent, unsatisfactory, subject to change, is it proper to regard it as: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self'?"

Nirvana sutra
"Also, emancipation is giving up the actions of one's childhood days. It is the same with emancipation. It does away with the five skandhas. Abandoning the five skandhas is true emancipation. True emancipation is the Tathagata.

"We say that we base ourselves [depend] upon Wisdom and not upon consciousness. The Wisdom alluded to is the Tathagata. If any sravaka does not well understand the virtues of the Tathagata, such a consciousness is not to be depended upon. If he knows that the Tathagata is the Dharma-Body, such true Wisdom can indeed be depended upon. If a person sees the expedient body of the Tathagata and says that it belongs to the five skandhas, the eighteen realms [i.e. the six sense-organs, the six sense-fields, and the six consciousnesses], and the twelve spheres [the six sense-organs and the six sense-fields], and that it arises from feeding, such is not to be depended upon. This means that even consciousness is not to be depended upon. If a sutra says thus, it cannot be depended upon.
User avatar
Son of Buddha
 
Posts: 882
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:48 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Mahāyāna Buddhism

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: LolCat and 10 guests

>