Tathagatagarbha and Eternity

No holds barred discussion on the Buddhadharma. Argue about rebirth, karma, commentarial interpretations etc. Be nice to each other.

Re: God in Buddhism

Postby Malcolm » Wed May 04, 2011 2:44 am

adinatha wrote:
Namdrol wrote:I am just saying that your presentation is not consistent with Tathāgatagarbha sutra theory. It does not have to be.


The two aspects which Victors manifest
are like a moon in water.

-Uttaratantra


Supports my presentation of Tathagatagarbha Sutras


You are missing the point -- the rūpakāya is clearly presented in UT as a result of efforts and aspiration. It is really not possible to cherry pick citations to refute this. Well you can try but you wont't be successful.
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: 10187
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Tathagatagarbha and Eternity

Postby Malcolm » Wed May 04, 2011 2:52 am

adinatha wrote:
Like him, in a way which is effortless
and from this dharmakaya, which is without birth or death,
buddhas engage in activity, such as manifestation,
for as long as conditioned existence continues [forever].

-Uttaratantra


As long as there are sentient beings, buddhas will reflect in their minds. This does not mean a buddha is caused. The manifest appearance is interdependent, like a moon in water. Like Indra's reflection in all lower realms. But a Buddha does not have skandhas so cannot be caused.


Why not try presenting some citations about the rūpakāya?

Where did you get the idea that a nirmanakāya buddha does not have skandhas?

Anyway, I forgot to mention, I don't find the hermeneutics of the three turnings very convincing on any level, either doctrinally, since the third turning sutras often contradict each other, or historically.

I prefer the hermeneutics of Guhyasamaja i.e. "The single vajra word was heard differently by those of differing capacities."

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: 10187
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Tathagatagarbha and Eternity

Postby Sherab Dorje » Wed May 04, 2011 2:39 pm

Namdrol wrote:I prefer the hermeneutics of Guhyasamaja i.e. "The single vajra word was heard differently by those of differing capacities."
I ilke that one. Unfortunately one can then start value judgements on the higher and lower of the differing capacities. Well, that's samsara for you!
:namaste:
"When one is not in accord with the true view
Meditation and conduct become delusion,
One will not attain the real result
One will be like a blind man who has no eyes."
Naropa - Summary of the View from The Eight Doha Treasures
User avatar
Sherab Dorje
Former staff member
 
Posts: 7899
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Tathagatagarbha and Eternity

Postby Malcolm » Wed May 04, 2011 4:37 pm

gregkavarnos wrote:
Namdrol wrote:I prefer the hermeneutics of Guhyasamaja i.e. "The single vajra word was heard differently by those of differing capacities."
I ilke that one. Unfortunately one can then start value judgements on the higher and lower of the differing capacities. Well, that's samsara for you!
:namaste:



It just means that people hear the dharma they want to hear, and they block out the dharma they do not want to hear or cannot hear.

For me it means that the three turnings of the wheel are not effective hermeneutical criteria. Anyway, Maitreyanath points out in the Mahayanasutraalamkara that the three turnings all occur at the same time. They are not spread out over the teaching career of the Buddha as a kind of sequence of teachings.
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: 10187
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: God in Buddhism

Postby adinatha » Thu May 05, 2011 3:17 am

Namdrol wrote:
adinatha wrote:
Namdrol wrote:I am just saying that your presentation is not consistent with Tathāgatagarbha sutra theory. It does not have to be.


The two aspects which Victors manifest
are like a moon in water.

-Uttaratantra


Supports my presentation of Tathagatagarbha Sutras


You are missing the point -- the rūpakāya is clearly presented in UT as a result of efforts and aspiration. It is really not possible to cherry pick citations to refute this. Well you can try but you wont't be successful.


Right. Caused from a deluded standpoint.
CAW!
User avatar
adinatha
 
Posts: 886
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2011 4:07 am

Re: Tathagatagarbha and Eternity

Postby adinatha » Thu May 05, 2011 3:23 am

Namdrol wrote:Where did you get the idea that a nirmanakāya buddha does not have skandhas?


Vaguely remembering Mahaparinirvana Sutra? Anywhere says it does? Skandhas are deluded appearances.
CAW!
User avatar
adinatha
 
Posts: 886
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2011 4:07 am

Re: Tathagatagarbha and Eternity

Postby adinatha » Thu May 05, 2011 3:24 am

Namdrol wrote:Anyway, I forgot to mention, I don't find the hermeneutics of the three turnings very convincing on any level, either doctrinally, since the third turning sutras often contradict each other, or historically.


Lord Jigten Sumgon's presentation is clear.
CAW!
User avatar
adinatha
 
Posts: 886
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2011 4:07 am

Re: Tathagatagarbha and Eternity

Postby ground » Thu May 05, 2011 3:43 am

This thread's topic ... there you go again.

Kind regards
User avatar
ground
 
Posts: 1782
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:31 am

Re: Tathagatagarbha and Eternity

Postby adinatha » Thu May 05, 2011 4:51 am

In the example from the Tathagatagharba Sutra of the fully formed buddha inside the decaying lotus, the decaying lotus doesn't cause the Buddha. Wind blowing clouds doesn't cause a sun. The aspiration and effort doesn't create a Buddha. That's what these examples from the third turning mean. The thinking, "well, they cause them to appear to me," is a misunderstanding of causality. One thing following another is not one thing causing another. This is not me reading something into these Sutras that isn't there. It is the case of not misunderstanding the examples and not being a literalist. Longchenpa's explanations of spontaneous presence of appearances and possibilities is completely explained in the third turning sutras with examples like the Indra's reflection in all realms, and the like. We are talking about our true and complete condition in every moment.
CAW!
User avatar
adinatha
 
Posts: 886
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2011 4:07 am

Re: Tathagatagarbha and Eternity

Postby Malcolm » Fri May 06, 2011 8:01 pm

adinatha wrote:In the example from the Tathagatagharba Sutra of the fully formed buddha inside the decaying lotus, the decaying lotus doesn't cause the Buddha. Wind blowing clouds doesn't cause a sun. The aspiration and effort doesn't create a Buddha. That's what these examples from the third turning mean. The thinking, "well, they cause them to appear to me," is a misunderstanding of causality. One thing following another is not one thing causing another. This is not me reading something into these Sutras that isn't there. It is the case of not misunderstanding the examples and not being a literalist. Longchenpa's explanations of spontaneous presence of appearances and possibilities is completely explained in the third turning sutras with examples like the Indra's reflection in all realms, and the like. We are talking about our true and complete condition in every moment.



if you take these examples literally, you will go down a wrong path.
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: 10187
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Tathagatagarbha and Eternity

Postby adinatha » Fri May 06, 2011 8:15 pm

Namdrol wrote:
adinatha wrote:In the example from the Tathagatagharba Sutra of the fully formed buddha inside the decaying lotus, the decaying lotus doesn't cause the Buddha. Wind blowing clouds doesn't cause a sun. The aspiration and effort doesn't create a Buddha. That's what these examples from the third turning mean. The thinking, "well, they cause them to appear to me," is a misunderstanding of causality. One thing following another is not one thing causing another. This is not me reading something into these Sutras that isn't there. It is the case of not misunderstanding the examples and not being a literalist. Longchenpa's explanations of spontaneous presence of appearances and possibilities is completely explained in the third turning sutras with examples like the Indra's reflection in all realms, and the like. We are talking about our true and complete condition in every moment.



if you take these examples literally, you will go down a wrong path.


These examples are to be understood in the context of the path. And on the vajrayana path, they are made very clear.
CAW!
User avatar
adinatha
 
Posts: 886
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2011 4:07 am

Re: Tathagatagarbha and Eternity

Postby Malcolm » Fri May 06, 2011 8:20 pm

adinatha wrote:
Namdrol wrote:
adinatha wrote:In the example from the Tathagatagharba Sutra of the fully formed buddha inside the decaying lotus, the decaying lotus doesn't cause the Buddha. Wind blowing clouds doesn't cause a sun. The aspiration and effort doesn't create a Buddha. That's what these examples from the third turning mean. The thinking, "well, they cause them to appear to me," is a misunderstanding of causality. One thing following another is not one thing causing another. This is not me reading something into these Sutras that isn't there. It is the case of not misunderstanding the examples and not being a literalist. Longchenpa's explanations of spontaneous presence of appearances and possibilities is completely explained in the third turning sutras with examples like the Indra's reflection in all realms, and the like. We are talking about our true and complete condition in every moment.



if you take these examples literally, you will go down a wrong path.


These examples are to be understood in the context of the path. And on the vajrayana path, they are made very clear.


Even in terms of Vajrayāna, if you take these examples literally, you will go down a wrong path. The examples have an intentional meaning. They are not meant to taken at face value.
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: 10187
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Tathagatagarbha and Eternity

Postby adinatha » Fri May 06, 2011 10:14 pm

Namdrol wrote:
adinatha wrote:
Namdrol wrote:if you take these examples literally, you will go down a wrong path.


These examples are to be understood in the context of the path. And on the vajrayana path, they are made very clear.


Even in terms of Vajrayāna, if you take these examples literally, you will go down a wrong path. The examples have an intentional meaning. They are not meant to taken at face value.


Not so, otherwise you get distortion.
CAW!
User avatar
adinatha
 
Posts: 886
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2011 4:07 am

Re: Tathagatagarbha and Eternity

Postby Malcolm » Fri May 06, 2011 10:18 pm

adinatha wrote:
Not so, otherwise you get distortion.


This is not the case -- when you take something intentional at face value, then you create distortions.
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: 10187
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Tathagatagarbha and Eternity

Postby adinatha » Fri May 06, 2011 10:40 pm

Namdrol wrote:
adinatha wrote:
Not so, otherwise you get distortion.


This is not the case -- when you take something intentional at face value, then you create distortions.


You keep using this word "intentional," what do you mean by this?

I'm saying these examples are necessary to understanding the Ati and Mahamudra meaning of dharmakaya as the totality of "appearances and possibilities." The totality of all appearances and possibilities has two purposes, the picture of total completion subsuming the three times, and the inner practice of nonattachment and effortlessness. These two go together, and the examples open up these meanings on many many levels. These examples are extremely profound and should be contemplated often.
CAW!
User avatar
adinatha
 
Posts: 886
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2011 4:07 am

Re: Tathagatagarbha and Eternity

Postby Malcolm » Fri May 06, 2011 10:55 pm

adinatha wrote:
Namdrol wrote:
adinatha wrote:
Not so, otherwise you get distortion.


This is not the case -- when you take something intentional at face value, then you create distortions.


You keep using this word "intentional," what do you mean by this?

I'm saying these examples are necessary to understanding the Ati and Mahamudra meaning of dharmakaya as the totality of "appearances and possibilities." The totality of all appearances and possibilities has two purposes, the picture of total completion subsuming the three times, and the inner practice of nonattachment and effortlessness. These two go together, and the examples open up these meanings on many many levels. These examples are extremely profound and should be contemplated often.


Intentional means "says one thing, means another". It is different than provisional and not definitive.

If you are asserting that the husk or decaying lotus is an appearance, for example, and the Buddha inside it is a possibility, then you are asserting that the examples may not be taken literally, and that they merely point to a possibility for a sentient being to awaken despite his/her appearance of suffering.

Kagyus tend to very enthusiastic about Uttaratantra since for them it is a very important text. Your mileage will vary in the other three schools.
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: 10187
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Tathagatagarbha and Eternity

Postby adinatha » Fri May 06, 2011 11:04 pm

Namdrol wrote:
adinatha wrote:
Namdrol wrote:This is not the case -- when you take something intentional at face value, then you create distortions.


You keep using this word "intentional," what do you mean by this?

I'm saying these examples are necessary to understanding the Ati and Mahamudra meaning of dharmakaya as the totality of "appearances and possibilities." The totality of all appearances and possibilities has two purposes, the picture of total completion subsuming the three times, and the inner practice of nonattachment and effortlessness. These two go together, and the examples open up these meanings on many many levels. These examples are extremely profound and should be contemplated often.


Intentional means "says one thing, means another". It is different than provisional and not definitive.

If you are asserting that the husk or decaying lotus is an appearance, for example, and the Buddha inside it is a possibility, then you are asserting that the examples may not be taken literally, and that they merely point to a possibility for a sentient being to awaken despite his/her appearance of suffering.

Kagyus tend to very enthusiastic about Uttaratantra since for them it is a very important text. Your mileage will vary in the other three schools.


I'm asserting the decaying lotus constitutes a mistake of fact, and the Buddha inside is the fact. The lotus represents impermanence, an illusoriness. The Buddha inside represents our true condition of the inseparable three kayas.
CAW!
User avatar
adinatha
 
Posts: 886
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2011 4:07 am

Re: Tathagatagarbha and Eternity

Postby Malcolm » Fri May 06, 2011 11:57 pm

adinatha wrote:
I'm asserting the decaying lotus constitutes a mistake of fact, and the Buddha inside is the fact. The lotus represents impermanence, an illusoriness. The Buddha inside represents our true condition of the inseparable three kayas.


Then you must give an account for some reason why we are not all omniscient already. If our true condition is the resultant three kāyas, it makes no sense that we are deluded and buddhas at one and the same time. There are a number of unfavorable consequences that will ensue.

Unless of course you mean something else by "three kāyas".

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: 10187
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Tathagatagarbha and Eternity

Postby adinatha » Sat May 07, 2011 12:23 am

Namdrol wrote:
adinatha wrote:
I'm asserting the decaying lotus constitutes a mistake of fact, and the Buddha inside is the fact. The lotus represents impermanence, an illusoriness. The Buddha inside represents our true condition of the inseparable three kayas.


Then you must give an account for some reason why we are not all omniscient already. If our true condition is the resultant three kāyas, it makes no sense that we are deluded and buddhas at one and the same time. There are a number of unfavorable consequences that will ensue.

Unless of course you mean something else by "three kāyas".

N


That's the six million dollar question. In other words, there is no such account. The reason we do not utilize this talent is because we are mistaking the illusion for fact. It is only a misdiscrimination. A mistaken distinction does not exist. So it can't cease or be purified. This is crucial. We can say, "I no longer make this distinction, so I purified this thought," but that is just saying something without referring to anything. So it's not meaningless. We do understand a horn on a hare, but it is referenceless. Then a nonreferencing mind is the Buddha in the decaying lotus, the true meaningfulness.
CAW!
User avatar
adinatha
 
Posts: 886
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2011 4:07 am

Re: Tathagatagarbha and Eternity

Postby Malcolm » Sat May 07, 2011 12:46 am

adinatha wrote:
That's the six million dollar question. In other words, there is no such account. The reason we do not utilize this talent is because we are mistaking the illusion for fact. It is only a misdiscrimination. A mistaken distinction does not exist. So it can't cease or be purified. This is crucial. We can say, "I no longer make this distinction, so I purified this thought," but that is just saying something without referring to anything. So it's not meaningless. We do understand a horn on a hare, but it is referenceless. Then a nonreferencing mind is the Buddha in the decaying lotus, the true meaningfulness.


You still have not resolved the issue. How can Buddhas mistake illusions for facts?

Either you are not a Buddha because you made a mistake, or Buddhas make mistakes.
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: 10187
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

PreviousNext

Return to Open Dharma

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Johnny Dangerous, Norwegian and 9 guests

>