the ever-changing Western view of Madhyamaka

General forum on Mahayana.

Re: the ever-changing Western view of Madhyamaka

Postby adinatha » Wed Aug 03, 2011 10:09 pm

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.
CAW!
User avatar
adinatha
 
Posts: 886
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2011 4:07 am

Re: the ever-changing Western view of Madhyamaka

Postby Malcolm » Wed Aug 03, 2011 10:15 pm

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?


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

" The one who teaches the benefits of peace,
he is said to be a ṛṣī; the others are the opposite of him."

-- Uttaratantra
Malcolm
 
Posts: 10162
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: the ever-changing Western view of Madhyamaka

Postby adinatha » Wed Aug 03, 2011 10:19 pm

Namdrol wrote:
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?


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


Very nice. But can't one see one's own mind?
CAW!
User avatar
adinatha
 
Posts: 886
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2011 4:07 am

Re: the ever-changing Western view of Madhyamaka

Postby Malcolm » Wed Aug 03, 2011 11:42 pm

adinatha wrote:
Namdrol wrote:
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?


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


Very nice. But can't one see one's own mind?


Through what characeristic would it [the mind] be seen?
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

" The one who teaches the benefits of peace,
he is said to be a ṛṣī; the others are the opposite of him."

-- Uttaratantra
Malcolm
 
Posts: 10162
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: the ever-changing Western view of Madhyamaka

Postby adinatha » Thu Aug 04, 2011 12:19 am

Namdrol wrote:
adinatha wrote:
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


Very nice. But can't one see one's own mind?


Through what characeristic would it [the mind] be seen?


Seeing?
CAW!
User avatar
adinatha
 
Posts: 886
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2011 4:07 am

Re: the ever-changing Western view of Madhyamaka

Postby Malcolm » Thu Aug 04, 2011 12:27 am

adinatha wrote:
Seeing?


Seeing isn't a charateristic, it is an action.

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

" The one who teaches the benefits of peace,
he is said to be a ṛṣī; the others are the opposite of him."

-- Uttaratantra
Malcolm
 
Posts: 10162
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: the ever-changing Western view of Madhyamaka

Postby adinatha » Thu Aug 04, 2011 12:38 am

Namdrol wrote:
adinatha wrote:
Seeing?


Seeing isn't a charateristic, it is an action.

N


You mean as to mind what characteristic is capable of being seen? Nothing.

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!
User avatar
adinatha
 
Posts: 886
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2011 4:07 am

Re: the ever-changing Western view of Madhyamaka

Postby Malcolm » Thu Aug 04, 2011 12:46 am

adinatha wrote:Seeing and knowing continuous and effortless.


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.

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

" The one who teaches the benefits of peace,
he is said to be a ṛṣī; the others are the opposite of him."

-- Uttaratantra
Malcolm
 
Posts: 10162
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: the ever-changing Western view of Madhyamaka

Postby adinatha » Thu Aug 04, 2011 12:49 am

Namdrol wrote:
adinatha wrote:Seeing and knowing continuous and effortless.


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.

N


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?
CAW!
User avatar
adinatha
 
Posts: 886
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2011 4:07 am

Re: the ever-changing Western view of Madhyamaka

Postby Malcolm » Thu Aug 04, 2011 12:56 am

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 same thing applies "Apart from what has been known and what has not been known, there is no present knowing".

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

" The one who teaches the benefits of peace,
he is said to be a ṛṣī; the others are the opposite of him."

-- Uttaratantra
Malcolm
 
Posts: 10162
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: the ever-changing Western view of Madhyamaka

Postby adinatha » Thu Aug 04, 2011 1:03 am

Namdrol wrote:
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 same thing applies "Apart from what has been known and what has not been known, there is no present knowing".

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


Perception is not a position.

What is knowing what has not been known?

How do we see space? Is space an object?
CAW!
User avatar
adinatha
 
Posts: 886
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2011 4:07 am

Re: the ever-changing Western view of Madhyamaka

Postby Malcolm » Thu Aug 04, 2011 2:04 am

adinatha wrote:Perception is not a position.


No, but the statement "I know that I know", presented as an irreducible fact, is.

What is knowing what has not been known?


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.


How do we see space? Is space an object?


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.

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

" The one who teaches the benefits of peace,
he is said to be a ṛṣī; the others are the opposite of him."

-- Uttaratantra
Malcolm
 
Posts: 10162
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: the ever-changing Western view of Madhyamaka

Postby adinatha » Thu Aug 04, 2011 2:58 am

Namdrol wrote:And, we do not see space.


Really? How do you know that?
CAW!
User avatar
adinatha
 
Posts: 886
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2011 4:07 am

Re: the ever-changing Western view of Madhyamaka

Postby Malcolm » Thu Aug 04, 2011 3:05 am

adinatha wrote:
Namdrol wrote:And, we do not see space.


Really? How do you know that?


Through the definition of space i.e. as unconditioned and as absence of obstruction.

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

" The one who teaches the benefits of peace,
he is said to be a ṛṣī; the others are the opposite of him."

-- Uttaratantra
Malcolm
 
Posts: 10162
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: the ever-changing Western view of Madhyamaka

Postby adinatha » Thu Aug 04, 2011 3:08 am

Namdrol wrote:
adinatha wrote:
Namdrol wrote:And, we do not see space.


Really? How do you know that?


Through the definition of space i.e. as unconditioned and as absence of obstruction.

N


So when you look into space you see a definition?
CAW!
User avatar
adinatha
 
Posts: 886
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2011 4:07 am

Re: the ever-changing Western view of Madhyamaka

Postby Malcolm » Thu Aug 04, 2011 3:17 am

adinatha wrote:So when you look into space you see a definition?


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

" The one who teaches the benefits of peace,
he is said to be a ṛṣī; the others are the opposite of him."

-- Uttaratantra
Malcolm
 
Posts: 10162
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: the ever-changing Western view of Madhyamaka

Postby adinatha » Thu Aug 04, 2011 3:24 am

Namdrol wrote:
adinatha wrote:So when you look into space you see a definition?


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


How about the wide open sky?
CAW!
User avatar
adinatha
 
Posts: 886
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2011 4:07 am

Re: the ever-changing Western view of Madhyamaka

Postby Malcolm » Thu Aug 04, 2011 3:50 am

adinatha wrote:
Namdrol wrote:
adinatha wrote:So when you look into space you see a definition?


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


How about the wide open sky?


It's defined by the horizon and by its color; so, still part of rupadhātu.
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

" The one who teaches the benefits of peace,
he is said to be a ṛṣī; the others are the opposite of him."

-- Uttaratantra
Malcolm
 
Posts: 10162
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: the ever-changing Western view of Madhyamaka

Postby adinatha » Thu Aug 04, 2011 3:57 am

Namdrol wrote:
adinatha wrote:
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


How about the wide open sky?


It's defined by the horizon and by its color; so, still part of rupadhātu.


Oh okay. So unconditioned space is just a definition?
CAW!
User avatar
adinatha
 
Posts: 886
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2011 4:07 am

Re: the ever-changing Western view of Madhyamaka

Postby Malcolm » Thu Aug 04, 2011 4:00 am

adinatha wrote:
It's defined by the horizon and by its color; so, still part of rupadhātu.


Oh okay. So unconditioned space is just a definition?[/quote]

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

" The one who teaches the benefits of peace,
he is said to be a ṛṣī; the others are the opposite of him."

-- Uttaratantra
Malcolm
 
Posts: 10162
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

PreviousNext

Return to Mahāyāna Buddhism

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests

>