Dharma Wheel

Whether Shakyamuni did or did not teach Dzogchen is irrelevant. Someone did.

Oh lord, TF ... Me and Malcolm have provided quotes contrary to things that you have said but you still keep on repeating your opinion without referencing anyone (re dzogchen). Though even a lineage masters of your was quoted .. you continue to go on with your prejudiced views.

Saying vajradhara/samantabhadra did not teach dzogchen, even attempting to make the dharmakaya into something sectarian!! Amazing!

Malcolm wrote:

Anders wrote: . A series of durationless moments taking over from each other seamlessly doesn't make sense.

This is a mere assertion.

It is simple logic. If you assert a discrete object without duration then you have by definition asserted a non-temporal object.

What you propose is absurd.

Tsondru wrote:Oh lord, TF ... Me and Malcolm have provided quotes contrary to things that you have said but you still keep on repeating your opinion without referencing anyone (re dzogchen). Though even a lineage masters of your was quoted .. you continue to go on with your prejudiced views.

Saying vajradhara/samantabhadra did not teach dzogchen, even attempting to make the dharmakaya into something sectarian!! Amazing!

It is useless to continue this line of discussion with TKf because his POV is clearly a minority view, even amongst Gelugpas.

dharmagoat wrote:

Anders wrote:A series of durationless moments taking over from each other seamlessly doesn't make sense.

An infinite number of durationless moments does.

Not if these moments are partless and therefore discrete.

Anders wrote:

Malcolm wrote:

Anders wrote: . A series of durationless moments taking over from each other seamlessly doesn't make sense.

This is a mere assertion.

It is simple logic. If you assert a discrete object without duration then you have by definition asserted a non-temporal object.

What you propose is absurd.

Did I assert any discrete objects without duration? No.

You need to review Nagarjuna's refutation of time.

Anders wrote:

dharmagoat wrote:

Anders wrote:A series of durationless moments taking over from each other seamlessly doesn't make sense.

An infinite number of durationless moments does.

Not if these moments are partless and therefore discrete.

If they are discrete they form a series that leads to perception of time, that is the point.

Malcolm wrote:
If they are discrete they form a series that leads to perception of time, that is the point.

Without duration there is no way for discrete objects to form a series.

Anders wrote:

Malcolm wrote:
If they are discrete they form a series that leads to perception of time, that is the point.

Without duration there is no way for discrete objects to form a series.

A moment that has parts or duration leads to negative consequences as shown by Nagarjuna. In other words, moments will have arising, duration, and cessation. If moments have these three, these three parts must also have parts and so on. In this case then you are left with an infinite regress. Not only that, you are left with a definition of moments in which all three, past, present and future must exist simultaneously. Otherwise a moments arising does not exist now, its ceasing does not exist now, and its present duration can only exist with duration because the duration of the present moment is merely a conceptual designation.

Anders wrote:

Malcolm wrote:
If they are discrete they form a series that leads to perception of time, that is the point.

Without duration there is no way for discrete objects to form a series.

Isn't the other way around ?
If there are no discrete objects there can't be duration...

Without duration there is no way for discrete objects to form a series.

That is similar to the Buddhist argument against atoms, i.e. , if they have no size, then they have no parts, and cannot come into contact with anything, because if they are to come into contact, they must have a part which contacts.

The other point that occurred to me in relation to this thread, is that it reinforces the fact that Buddhists oughtn't cling to dogma. Every single possible dogmatic view or philosophical position is subject to criticism. That doesn't mean that they don't have their place or their use, but, like anything else, they are transient, not ultimate.

So the lesson is, don't be attached to views.

And - Happy New Year.

alpha wrote:Isn't the other way around ?
If there are no discrete objects there can't be duration...

The issue is with discrete objects lacking duration and nonetheless being temporal.

non-discrete objects lacking duration isn't as iffy.

Malcolm wrote: A moment that has parts or duration leads to negative consequences as shown by Nagarjuna. In other words, moments will have arising, duration, and cessation. If moments have these three, these three parts must also have parts and so on. In this case then you are left with an infinite regress.

It is simply the same 'infinite' regress of composite causality. All things are composed of each other and distinctions between moments and objects are fundamentally arbitrary. There's no Lego block units at the bottom level of the universe.

Malcolm wrote:If they are discrete they form a series that leads to perception of time, that is the point.

They don't need to be any more discrete than apparently discrete objects in space like "table", "chair" or "atoms" for that to happen. That is, apparently discrete but not fundamentally so.

Without duration there is no way for discrete objects to form a series.

Here, again, is that little snag where people can so easily get caught up:
"discrete objects"...having, or not having ...any characteristics whatsoever,
and thus, being inherently existent to begin with.

Don't get me wrong...I'm not arguing against this quote.
Just making an observation, it's easy to fall into the trap of
starting with the seeming reality of things
and then trying in vain to dismantle that reality.

saying, "discreet objects have no duration"
is different than saying,
"no duration (of time) occurs from which a discreet object can be said to emerge".

By switching the point of origin around,
one no longer faces the problem of how something can exist for no time at all.

That being said, happy new year anyway.!
.
.
.

Anders wrote:

alpha wrote:Isn't the other way around ?
If there are no discrete objects there can't be duration...

The issue is with discrete objects lacking duration and nonetheless being temporal.

non-discrete objects lacking duration isn't as iffy.

Doesn's "duration" equal "in time" or "temporal"

If discrete entities cannot be established due to their lack of an identifiable essence how can we talk about them entering time or not entering time but being temporal ?

Also how can we talk about non-discrete entities since they would need an essence on the basis of which we could differentiate them from the discrete entities ?
This doesn't make sense to me.
Or does it ?


"If the entity is not established
A non-entity is not established
An entity that has become different
Is a non-entity people say."

Anders wrote:

Malcolm wrote:If they are discrete they form a series that leads to perception of time, that is the point.

They don't need to be any more discrete than apparently discrete objects in space like "table", "chair" or "atoms" for that to happen. That is, apparently discrete but not fundamentally so.

In the context of knowledge these three things have a unique nature and they are not discrete.
Since a mind sees things in terms of "essences" it would naturally see discrete entities

PadmaVonSamba wrote:

Without duration there is no way for discrete objects to form a series.

Here, again, is that little snag where people can so easily get caught up:
"discrete objects"...having, or not having ...any characteristics whatsoever,
and thus, being inherently existent to begin with.

Don't get me wrong...I'm not arguing against this quote.
Just making an observation, it's easy to fall into the trap of
starting with the seeming reality of things
and then trying in vain to dismantle that reality.

saying, "discreet objects have no duration"
is different than saying,
"no duration (of time) occurs from which a discreet object can be said to emerge".

By switching the point of origin around,
one no longer faces the problem of how something can exist for no time at all.

That being said, happy new year anyway.!
.
.
.

The point is , there is no point of origin since that would entail the extreme of something arising out of itself which would lead to permanence where things would duplicate themselves continuously.
This would give rise to the absurd position where in the origin we would have duplicates of the same thing coexisting in a mysterious manner.The coexistence of multiples in one point of origin is again absurd.Another point is how these multiples communicate to give rise to the thing number "ONE" ?

Tsongkhapafan wrote: I'm saying three things:

1. Buddha Shayamuni/Buddha Vajradhara did not teach Dzogchen - his teachings are the Sutras and Tantras. These teachings are a complete system that lead to liberation and enlightenment by removing all mental obscurations.

Shakyamuni never taught tantra either. The Indian Mahasiddhas taught tantra. They are also full Buddhas.

Tsongkhapafan wrote: 2. The true nature of phenomena is emptiness, lack of inherent existence.

Emptiness being a lack of inherent existence is only according to Tsongkhapa.

Malcolm wrote: It is useless to continue this line of discussion with TKf because his POV is clearly a minority view, even amongst Gelugpas.

Exactly.