the ever-changing Western view of Madhyamaka
Re: the ever-changing Western view of Madhyamaka
PS. Getting involved b/c once upon a time, those other lineages would put words in the mouths of the Buddhists, and some Buddhists might have bought into it, not fully appreciating what even the Buddha's early sermons meant. Buddhist life is not about having an opinion. It is about knowing that opinions are suffering. Opinions and views require a holder. Vidya releases the holder. Buddhist practice is method, method, method. Even the wisdom is method "to be free from..." everything.
With nothing embraced or rejected, uninvolved, transcend the contortion of views.
With nothing embraced or rejected, uninvolved, transcend the contortion of views.
CAW!
Re: the ever-changing Western view of Madhyamaka
How could Madhyamaka be a view? What is there that can be seen? But out of compassion for others addicted to views, first Buddha, than Nagarjuna, correct views via the middle way.adinatha wrote:So Madhyamaka is not really a view, but a destructive tactic when responding to others' opinions? Then taking evasive maneuvers when the opponent takes aim? I wonder about why one would get involved?
N
Re: the ever-changing Western view of Madhyamaka
Very nice. But can't one see one's own mind?Namdrol wrote:How could Madhyamaka be a view? What is there that can be seen? But out of compassion for others addicted to views, first Buddha, than Nagarjuna, correct views via the middle way.adinatha wrote:So Madhyamaka is not really a view, but a destructive tactic when responding to others' opinions? Then taking evasive maneuvers when the opponent takes aim? I wonder about why one would get involved?
N
CAW!
Re: the ever-changing Western view of Madhyamaka
Through what characeristic would it [the mind] be seen?adinatha wrote:Very nice. But can't one see one's own mind?Namdrol wrote:How could Madhyamaka be a view? What is there that can be seen? But out of compassion for others addicted to views, first Buddha, than Nagarjuna, correct views via the middle way.adinatha wrote:So Madhyamaka is not really a view, but a destructive tactic when responding to others' opinions? Then taking evasive maneuvers when the opponent takes aim? I wonder about why one would get involved?
N
Re: the ever-changing Western view of Madhyamaka
Seeing?Namdrol wrote:Through what characeristic would it [the mind] be seen?adinatha wrote:Very nice. But can't one see one's own mind?Namdrol wrote:How could Madhyamaka be a view? What is there that can be seen? But out of compassion for others addicted to views, first Buddha, than Nagarjuna, correct views via the middle way.
N
CAW!
Re: the ever-changing Western view of Madhyamaka
Seeing isn't a charateristic, it is an action.adinatha wrote:
Seeing?
N
Re: the ever-changing Western view of Madhyamaka
You mean as to mind what characteristic is capable of being seen? Nothing.Namdrol wrote:Seeing isn't a charateristic, it is an action.adinatha wrote:
Seeing?
N
But seeing is an action? I don't have to do anything to see or know. Seeing and knowing continuous and effortless.
I know that I know. I see that I see.
CAW!
Re: the ever-changing Western view of Madhyamaka
Seeing without an object to see? Such seeing is useless as well as impossible. Apart from what has been seen and what has not been seen, there is no present seeing.adinatha wrote:Seeing and knowing continuous and effortless.
N
Re: the ever-changing Western view of Madhyamaka
Not eye faculty seeing. "Seeing," as in "I know, I see." For example, how do we "see" space? Is space an object?Namdrol wrote:Seeing without an object to see? Such seeing is useless as well as impossible. Apart from what has been seen and what has not been seen, there is no present seeing.adinatha wrote:Seeing and knowing continuous and effortless.
N
When there's no seeing, how do you know?
CAW!
Re: the ever-changing Western view of Madhyamaka
The same thing applies "Apart from what has been known and what has not been known, there is no present knowing".adinatha wrote: Not eye faculty seeing. "Seeing," as in "I know, I see." For example, how do we "see" space? Is space an object?
When there's no seeing, how do you know?
The mental faculty is not exempt from this.
Once you take a position such as you have i.e. "I know that I know", you are dogmeat.
N
Re: the ever-changing Western view of Madhyamaka
Perception is not a position.Namdrol wrote:The same thing applies "Apart from what has been known and what has not been known, there is no present knowing".adinatha wrote: Not eye faculty seeing. "Seeing," as in "I know, I see." For example, how do we "see" space? Is space an object?
When there's no seeing, how do you know?
The mental faculty is not exempt from this.
Once you take a position such as you have i.e. "I know that I know", you are dogmeat.
N
What is knowing what has not been known?
How do we see space? Is space an object?
CAW!
Re: the ever-changing Western view of Madhyamaka
No, but the statement "I know that I know", presented as an irreducible fact, is.adinatha wrote: Perception is not a position.
It is part of the dialectic, something known depends on something which has not been known. What Nagarjunga is pointing out is that there is no "knowing". His dialectic serves to negate all present tense as well as infinitive verbal forms i.e. Apart from what has been perceived and not been perceived, there is no perception, etc.What is knowing what has not been known?
Space i.e. akasha, unconditioned space is not an object and it is not real. When Nagarjuna analyzes the five elements, he begins with space, shows that it is unreal because everyone accepts that space (as defined by Buddhists and other Indians) is unreal and then says, apply this reasoning to the other four elements.How do we see space? Is space an object?
And, we do not see space. It is not an object. This is one of the reasons Buddhists use it as a metaphor for the mind.
N
Re: the ever-changing Western view of Madhyamaka
Really? How do you know that?Namdrol wrote:And, we do not see space.
CAW!
Re: the ever-changing Western view of Madhyamaka
Through the definition of space i.e. as unconditioned and as absence of obstruction.adinatha wrote:Really? How do you know that?Namdrol wrote:And, we do not see space.
N
Re: the ever-changing Western view of Madhyamaka
So when you look into space you see a definition?Namdrol wrote:Through the definition of space i.e. as unconditioned and as absence of obstruction.adinatha wrote:Really? How do you know that?Namdrol wrote:And, we do not see space.
N
CAW!
Re: the ever-changing Western view of Madhyamaka
That kind of space is conditioned space, defined by enclosure and area -- for example, the space of a room. When talking about space, one ought to define which space one is referring to, conditioned or unconditioned space.adinatha wrote: So when you look into space you see a definition?
But even when one "looks into space" what one is seeing is not "area" qua "area" but rather a shape defined by apparant colors which is part of the rupadhātu, the object of the eye.
N
Re: the ever-changing Western view of Madhyamaka
How about the wide open sky?Namdrol wrote:That kind of space is conditioned space, defined by enclosure and area -- for example, the space of a room. When talking about space, one ought to define which space one is referring to, conditioned or unconditioned space.adinatha wrote: So when you look into space you see a definition?
But even when one "looks into space" what one is seeing is not "area" qua "area" but rather a shape defined by apparant colors which is part of the rupadhātu, the object of the eye.
N
CAW!
Re: the ever-changing Western view of Madhyamaka
It's defined by the horizon and by its color; so, still part of rupadhātu.adinatha wrote:How about the wide open sky?Namdrol wrote:That kind of space is conditioned space, defined by enclosure and area -- for example, the space of a room. When talking about space, one ought to define which space one is referring to, conditioned or unconditioned space.adinatha wrote: So when you look into space you see a definition?
But even when one "looks into space" what one is seeing is not "area" qua "area" but rather a shape defined by apparant colors which is part of the rupadhātu, the object of the eye.
N
Re: the ever-changing Western view of Madhyamaka
Oh okay. So unconditioned space is just a definition?Namdrol wrote:It's defined by the horizon and by its color; so, still part of rupadhātu.adinatha wrote:How about the wide open sky?Namdrol wrote:
That kind of space is conditioned space, defined by enclosure and area -- for example, the space of a room. When talking about space, one ought to define which space one is referring to, conditioned or unconditioned space.
But even when one "looks into space" what one is seeing is not "area" qua "area" but rather a shape defined by apparant colors which is part of the rupadhātu, the object of the eye.
N
CAW!
Re: the ever-changing Western view of Madhyamaka
Oh okay. So unconditioned space is just a definition?[/quote]adinatha wrote:
It's defined by the horizon and by its color; so, still part of rupadhātu.
Yes.