Dharma Wheel

A Buddhist discussion forum on Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism
It is currently Mon Dec 22, 2014 11:59 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Forum rules


Please click here to view the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 291 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 ... 15  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Nov 15, 2013 9:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am
Posts: 12736
dzogchungpa wrote:
Lotus_Bitch wrote:
Go tell an Advaitan that cit is conditioned by certain factors of mentality (nama) and materiality (rupa), dependent on contact to give rise to the 6 sense media and to practice by being mindful of the arising and passing of each. You will either get a confused look, be laughed at or both.

I believe they would accept all of that with regards to citta.



But not cit. That was the point.

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

How can you not practice the highest Dharma
at this time of obtaining a perfect human body?

-- Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 15, 2013 9:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 10:50 pm
Posts: 2295
Malcolm wrote:
dzogchungpa wrote:
Lotus_Bitch wrote:
Go tell an Advaitan that cit is conditioned by certain factors of mentality (nama) and materiality (rupa), dependent on contact to give rise to the 6 sense media and to practice by being mindful of the arising and passing of each. You will either get a confused look, be laughed at or both.

I believe they would accept all of that with regards to citta.

But not cit. That was the point.

Yes, I know. I was just pointing out that that kind of thinking would not be unfamililar to them.

_________________
ཨོཾ་ཏཱ་རེ་ཏུཏྟ་རེ་ཏུ་རེ་སྭཱཧཱ༔


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 15, 2013 9:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:30 pm
Posts: 1444
dzogchungpa wrote:
Yes, I know. I was just pointing out that that kind of thinking would not be unfamililar to them.

It would be unfamiliar to them though, because for the Advaitin, cit is inherently existent and is therefore independent of causes and conditions.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 15, 2013 9:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 10:50 pm
Posts: 2295
asunthatneversets wrote:
dzogchungpa wrote:
Yes, I know. I was just pointing out that that kind of thinking would not be unfamililar to them.

It would be unfamiliar to them though, because for the Advaitin, cit is inherently existent and is therefore independent of causes and conditions.

I think it would be familiar to them, they would just disagree with the Buddhists.

_________________
ཨོཾ་ཏཱ་རེ་ཏུཏྟ་རེ་ཏུ་རེ་སྭཱཧཱ༔


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 15, 2013 11:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:30 pm
Posts: 1444
dzogchungpa wrote:
asunthatneversets wrote:
dzogchungpa wrote:
Yes, I know. I was just pointing out that that kind of thinking would not be unfamililar to them.

It would be unfamiliar to them though, because for the Advaitin, cit is inherently existent and is therefore independent of causes and conditions.

I think it would be familiar to them, they would just disagree with the Buddhists.

If they agreed they would be a proponent of the dharma. This is the defining principle which separates the two traditions.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 15, 2013 11:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2012 12:24 am
Posts: 275
dzogchungpa wrote:
asunthatneversets wrote:
dzogchungpa wrote:
Yes, I know. I was just pointing out that that kind of thinking would not be unfamililar to them.

It would be unfamiliar to them though, because for the Advaitin, cit is inherently existent and is therefore independent of causes and conditions.

I think it would be familiar to them, they would just disagree with the Buddhists.


You should contemplate why the Advaitans would disagree on this point: since this actually exposes a fundamental divergence in view and practice. Don't be too hasty in concluding that both are the same because of superficial commonality of terminology.

_________________
Many meditators know how to meditate,
But only a few know how to dismantle [mental clinging].
- Je Gyare


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 16, 2013 12:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 10:50 pm
Posts: 2295
Lotus_Bitch wrote:
You should contemplate why the Advaitans would disagree on this point: since this actually exposes a fundamental divergence in view and practice. Don't be too hasty in concluding that both are the same because of superficial commonality of terminology.

Thanks for the advice, Lotus_Bitch.

_________________
ཨོཾ་ཏཱ་རེ་ཏུཏྟ་རེ་ཏུ་རེ་སྭཱཧཱ༔


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 5:58 am
Posts: 993
It seems that although the difference in view may be seen to be slight, and not knowing much about Advaitin practice maybe someone can either conform or deny this, but it seems to me that the implications for practice are quite far reaching.

_________________
we cannot get rid of God because we still believe in grammar - Nietzsche


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 16, 2013 4:32 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:30 pm
Posts: 1444
futerko wrote:
...It seems that although the difference it seems to me that the implications for practice are quite far reaching.

The Self [Brahman] of Advaita essentially fortifies and reinforces the personal self, and so (according to the buddhadharma) it fails to transcend samsara. Shakyamuni realized Brahman and found that it did not match the 'liberation free of birth and death' he had heard of, so he pressed on and actualized dharmakāya.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 16, 2013 7:08 am 
Offline
Global Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2010 5:02 am
Posts: 1140
asunthatneversets wrote:
futerko wrote:
...It seems that although the difference it seems to me that the implications for practice are quite far reaching.

The Self [Brahman] of Advaita essentially fortifies and reinforces the personal self, and so (according to the buddhadharma) it fails to transcend samsara. Shakyamuni realized Brahman and found that it did not match the 'liberation free of birth and death' he had heard of, so he pressed on and actualized dharmakāya.


Surely this lapses into the view that 'the other team' has the wrong view.

:anjali:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 16, 2013 7:57 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:30 pm
Posts: 1444
tobes wrote:
asunthatneversets wrote:
futerko wrote:
...It seems that although the difference it seems to me that the implications for practice are quite far reaching.

The Self [Brahman] of Advaita essentially fortifies and reinforces the personal self, and so (according to the buddhadharma) it fails to transcend samsara. Shakyamuni realized Brahman and found that it did not match the 'liberation free of birth and death' he had heard of, so he pressed on and actualized dharmakāya.


Surely this lapses into the view that 'the other team' has the wrong view.

:anjali:

The Dzogchen tantras refute Advaita by name. Shakyamuni's doctrine of anātman is a direct response to the ātman/Brahman of Vedanta.

It surely isn't as petty as 'lapsing into a view that the other team has it wrong', but the distinction and discrimination is necessary and warranted.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 16, 2013 8:37 am 
Offline
Global Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2010 5:02 am
Posts: 1140
asunthatneversets wrote:
The Dzogchen tantras refute Advaita by name. Shakyamuni's doctrine of anātman is a direct response to the ātman/Brahman of Vedanta.

It surely isn't as petty as 'lapsing into a view that the other team has it wrong', but the distinction and discrimination is necessary and warranted.


I'm not interested in defending Vedanta, but if you read the Anatta-Lakkhana Sutta carefully you could not conclude that Shakyamuni was directly responding to the ātman/Brahman of Vedanta. The discursive context is quite particular and sensitive to the problem of duḥkha. This is not to say that it is divorced from an Upaniṣadic context......but clearly a lot of philosophical disputes (i.e. Buddhist vs Orthodox Indian schools) about the nature of the self etc come later.

I agree that distinction and discrimination is necessary and warranted. But what could that possibly be, if not lapsing into a view?

:anjali:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 16, 2013 8:38 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:48 pm
Posts: 963
asunthatneversets wrote:
The Dzogchen tantras refute Advaita by name. Shakyamuni's doctrine of anātman is a direct response to the ātman/Brahman of Vedanta.


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

"Form, O monks, is not-self;
if form were self, then form would not lead to affliction
O monks, since form is not-self, therefore form leads to affliction."

The Buddha taught us anatta(not self) to show us what was not nirvana.The teaching wasnt a direct response against Brahma who actually begged the Buddha to teach Dharma after his Enlightenment.
As you can see from this quote anatta(not self) leads to suffering and the reason form leads to suffering is because it is not self(anatta)
If form were self then it would not lead to suffering.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 16, 2013 8:44 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:48 pm
Posts: 963
Wow Tobes we posted the same exact sutta at the same exact time......weird.

Also the Samyutta Nikaya is filled with like 30 suttas where the Buddha is teaching that Anatta(not self) is suffering,that which leads to suffering,and it goes as far in one sutta to say that whatever is without a self belongs to mara.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 16, 2013 9:17 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:30 pm
Posts: 1444
Son of Buddha wrote:
Wow Tobes we posted the same exact sutta at the same exact time......weird.

Also the Samyutta Nikaya is filled with like 30 suttas where the Buddha is teaching that Anatta(not self) is suffering,that which leads to suffering,and it goes as far in one sutta to say that whatever is without a self belongs to mara.

Actually, the Buddha never once taught that not-self is suffering, and xabir thoroughly refuted this erroneous claim of yours various times due to your inability to traverse your own confirmation biases. Apparently all for naught.

You continue to blatantly misinterpret the sūtras you post as alleged evidence to substantiate your deluded eternalist notions.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 16, 2013 9:30 am 
Online
Former staff member
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Posts: 10290
Location: Greece
Image

_________________
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 16, 2013 9:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:48 pm
Posts: 963
asunthatneversets wrote:
Son of Buddha wrote:
Wow Tobes we posted the same exact sutta at the same exact time......weird.

Also the Samyutta Nikaya is filled with like 30 suttas where the Buddha is teaching that Anatta(not self) is suffering,that which leads to suffering,and it goes as far in one sutta to say that whatever is without a self belongs to mara.

Actually, the Buddha never once taught that not-self is suffering, and xabir thoroughly refuted this erroneous claim of yours various times due to your inability to traverse your own confirmation biases. Apparently all for naught.

You continue to blatantly misinterpret the sūtras you post as alleged evidence to substantiate your deluded eternalist notions.


you sure about that?

SN 22.46 Impermanent (2) pg 885
At Savatthi. "Bhikkhus, form is impermanent.... Feeling is impermanent.... Preception is impermanent.... Volitional formations are impermanent.... Consciousness is impermanent. What is Impermanent is suffering. What is suffering is nonself. What is nonself should be seen as it really is with correct wisdom thus: This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self."

P.S. take the Buddhas word for it.
"Sn 22.59 O monks, since form is not-self, therefore form leads to affliction."

the reason why form leads to suffering is because it is not self.
BUT if form were self then............... please finish that sentence with what the Buddha actually said.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 16, 2013 10:21 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:30 pm
Posts: 1444
tobes wrote:
I agree that distinction and discrimination is necessary and warranted. But what could that possibly be, if not lapsing into a view?

 :anjali:

Views are unavoidable and implied in dualistic interaction. There is no way for the mind to escape views, the mind is a point of reference by definition. Discursive thought proliferates and feeds off its own momentum, and our reality unfolds.

Our expressed views are merely conventional fabrication, both accurate and inaccurate depending on context... no harm can come from discursive proliferation if you understand the nature of your relative condition. 

The cessation of views is accomplished by recognizing the unreality of the mind that suggests them, but departing from views is not something the mind can execute from its own relative vantage point. A cessation of views is impossible in the absence of the wisdom which directly apperceives the emptiness of mind. And so views simply appear, they're extrapolated, and are useful tools. The mind which seeks to reject views has merely adopted a new view. 

The negation of (and desire to go beyond) views [acceptance and rejection] is itself a subtle rebirth of the acceptance and rejection dichotomy. For you are clearly rejecting views and accepting what you consider to be apart from (or beyond) views, which is itself a view. This is inescapable. The moment a subject relates to an object, acceptance and rejection [attachment and aversion], are immediately present. There's no harm in implementing the conventional.

So express your views loud and proud, and if you lapse into a view then so be it.

"All discursive thoughts are emptiness, and the observer of emptiness is discursive thought. Emptiness does not destroy discursive thought, and discursive thought does not obstruct emptiness."
- Nyoshul Khenpo Rinpoche


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 16, 2013 10:29 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:30 pm
Posts: 1444
Son of Buddha wrote:
asunthatneversets wrote:
Son of Buddha wrote:
Wow Tobes we posted the same exact sutta at the same exact time......weird.

Also the Samyutta Nikaya is filled with like 30 suttas where the Buddha is teaching that Anatta(not self) is suffering,that which leads to suffering,and it goes as far in one sutta to say that whatever is without a self belongs to mara.

Actually, the Buddha never once taught that not-self is suffering, and xabir thoroughly refuted this erroneous claim of yours various times due to your inability to traverse your own confirmation biases. Apparently all for naught.

You continue to blatantly misinterpret the sūtras you post as alleged evidence to substantiate your deluded eternalist notions.


you sure about that?

SN 22.46 Impermanent (2) pg 885
At Savatthi. "Bhikkhus, form is impermanent.... Feeling is impermanent.... Preception is impermanent.... Volitional formations are impermanent.... Consciousness is impermanent. What is Impermanent is suffering. What is suffering is nonself. What is nonself should be seen as it really is with correct wisdom thus: This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self."

P.S. take the Buddhas word for it.
"Sn 22.59 O monks, since form is not-self, therefore form leads to affliction."

the reason why form leads to suffering is because it is not self.
BUT if form were self then............... please finish that sentence with what the Buddha actually said.

You are misinterpreting, misrepresenting and misunderstanding these quotes, but if you didn't benefit from the lucid explanation xabir gave you before, then there's no sense in revisiting and readdressing these points now. I enjoy many activities, but repeatedly beating my head against a wall is not one of them.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 16, 2013 12:21 pm 
Offline
Global Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2010 5:02 am
Posts: 1140
asunthatneversets wrote:
tobes wrote:
I agree that distinction and discrimination is necessary and warranted. But what could that possibly be, if not lapsing into a view?

 :anjali:

Views are unavoidable and implied in dualistic interaction. There is no way for the mind to escape views, the mind is a point of reference by definition. Discursive thought proliferates and feeds off its own momentum, and our reality unfolds.

Our expressed views are merely conventional fabrication, both accurate and inaccurate depending on context... no harm can come from discursive proliferation if you understand the nature of your relative condition. 

The cessation of views is accomplished by recognizing the unreality of the mind that suggests them, but departing from views is not something the mind can execute from its own relative vantage point. A cessation of views is impossible in the absence of the wisdom which directly apperceives the emptiness of mind. And so views simply appear, they're extrapolated, and are useful tools. The mind which seeks to reject views has merely adopted a new view. 

The negation of (and desire to go beyond) views [acceptance and rejection] is itself a subtle rebirth of the acceptance and rejection dichotomy. For you are clearly rejecting views and accepting what you consider to be apart from (or beyond) views, which is itself a view. This is inescapable. The moment a subject relates to an object, acceptance and rejection [attachment and aversion], are immediately present. There's no harm in implementing the conventional.

So express your views loud and proud, and if you lapse into a view then so be it.

"All discursive thoughts are emptiness, and the observer of emptiness is discursive thought. Emptiness does not destroy discursive thought, and discursive thought does not obstruct emptiness."
- Nyoshul Khenpo Rinpoche


I agree with all of this.

Except: a/ For you are clearly rejecting views and accepting what you consider to be apart from (or beyond) views, which is itself a view. This is inescapable. The moment a subject relates to an object, acceptance and rejection [attachment and aversion], are immediately present. There's no harm in implementing the conventional.

I'm simply not doing/advocating that.

All I'm saying is that taking down the Vedanta via Buddhist critique produces, in your words: The mind which seeks to reject views has merely adopted a new view.

If we both agree that there's no real issue with that, then let's move on.

:anjali:


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 291 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 ... 15  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group