Dharma Wheel

A Buddhist discussion forum on Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism
It is currently Mon Dec 22, 2014 10:21 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Forum rules


Please click here to view the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 99 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu May 12, 2011 6:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:31 am
Posts: 1782
Sherab wrote:
retrofuturist wrote:
If it removes all traces of conditioning/forming/fabricating, then I see no inherent conflict.

So something changeable can become unchangeable?


Huh?

What's the connection between my statement and your question?


Kind regards


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 12, 2011 6:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2010 8:54 pm
Posts: 1850
OMG, TMingyur is Retro's troll?! :jawdrop:

_________________
Although many individuals in this age appear to be merely indulging their worldly desires, one does not have the capacity to judge them, so it is best to train in pure vision.
- Shabkar


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 12, 2011 6:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:31 am
Posts: 1782
Pero wrote:
OMG, TMingyur is Retro's troll?! :jawdrop:


No, sorry ... I mis-clicked ...

Kind regards


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 12, 2011 6:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:31 am
Posts: 1782
That's the right one ...

Sherab wrote:
TMingyur wrote:
... what is attainable is the cessation of obscurations and with this comes the cessation of papanca.

So something changeable can become something unchangeable, or something become completely nothing?


Huh?

What's the connection between my statement and your question?


Kind regards


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 12, 2011 6:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2010 8:54 pm
Posts: 1850
TMingyur wrote:
Pero wrote:
OMG, TMingyur is Retro's troll?! :jawdrop:


No, sorry ... I mis-clicked ...

Oh LOL! :smile:

_________________
Although many individuals in this age appear to be merely indulging their worldly desires, one does not have the capacity to judge them, so it is best to train in pure vision.
- Shabkar


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 13, 2011 12:38 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am
Posts: 806
Astus wrote:
Sherab wrote:
So composite things have no nature and are therefore unreal/untrue but there are real/true connections between them?


Like true love between imagined lovers? Unlikely, don't you think?

So dependent arising does not truly exist, you agree?

Astus wrote:
Sherab wrote:
So there is a permanent continua even though the components are impermanent? If so, is it not possible for all components to cease and therefore a cessation of the permanent continua?


To suppose a continuum besides components is like saying that there is a body besides the arms, legs, torso and head.

No such supposition. The point is when the components ceased, then there is no continua. Hence, no point using continua as an argument.

Astus wrote:
Sherab wrote:
What is it that previously has no such insight but now has this insight?


Insight is a direct understanding just like one understands how to ride a bike. To conceive there is a separate self understanding it is, again, falls under the concept of self-view, about which you may read in general Buddhist books.

The point is that there is still a change.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 13, 2011 12:43 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am
Posts: 806
Namdrol wrote:
Sherab wrote:
If your nature is changeable, buddhahood is not attainable since if your nature is changeable, the buddhahood attained could also change.
If your nature is unchangeable, no amount of practice will enable you to attain buddhahood, since your nature is unchangeable.

Yet Buddha taught that there is path to buddhahood.
And Buddha also taught that buddhahood is not attained.


Your whole line of reasoning is predicated in the idea of buddhahood being a thing. There is no substantial person, and no substantial buddhahood. Therefore, ignorance is possible, and also liberation.

I don't think my line of reasoning requires the assumption that buddhahood is a thing.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 13, 2011 12:46 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am
Posts: 806
TMingyur wrote:
That's the right one ...

Sherab wrote:
TMingyur wrote:
... what is attainable is the cessation of obscurations and with this comes the cessation of papanca.

So something changeable can become something unchangeable, or something become completely nothing?


Huh?

What's the connection between my statement and your question?


Kind regards

You mentioned obscurations. So when obscurations changes (in this case ceases), is there something unchangeable left behind or there is completely nothing?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 13, 2011 12:47 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am
Posts: 806
gregkavarnos wrote:
Sherab wrote:
If your nature is changeable, buddhahood is not attainable since if your nature is changeable, the buddhahood attained could also change.
If your nature is unchangeable, no amount of practice will enable you to attain buddhahood, since your nature is unchangeable.

Yet Buddha taught that there is path to buddhahood.
And Buddha also taught that buddhahood is not attained.
Don't you have some practice to do?

Well, what you waiting for then?

DO IT!
:namaste:

Thank you for your concern.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 13, 2011 1:15 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am
Posts: 12736
Sherab wrote:
Namdrol wrote:
Sherab wrote:
If your nature is changeable, buddhahood is not attainable since if your nature is changeable, the buddhahood attained could also change.
If your nature is unchangeable, no amount of practice will enable you to attain buddhahood, since your nature is unchangeable.

Yet Buddha taught that there is path to buddhahood.
And Buddha also taught that buddhahood is not attained.


Your whole line of reasoning is predicated in the idea of buddhahood being a thing. There is no substantial person, and no substantial buddhahood. Therefore, ignorance is possible, and also liberation.

I don't think my line of reasoning requires the assumption that buddhahood is a thing.


A nature is either substantial or it is not a nature.

_________________
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 May 13, 2011 1:37 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am
Posts: 806
Namdrol wrote:
A nature is either substantial or it is not a nature.

Substantial as in physically substantial or mentalistically substantial or both?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 13, 2011 2:02 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am
Posts: 12736
Sherab wrote:
Namdrol wrote:
A nature is either substantial or it is not a nature.

Substantial as in physically substantial or mentalistically substantial or both?



Either.

_________________
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 May 13, 2011 2:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am
Posts: 806
Namdrol wrote:
Sherab wrote:
Namdrol wrote:
A nature is either substantial or it is not a nature.

Substantial as in physically substantial or mentalistically substantial or both?

Either.

Is Buddhahood a state then?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 13, 2011 3:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2010 2:01 am
Posts: 299
http://www.purifymind.com/BuddhahoodSutra.htm


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 13, 2011 4:34 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:31 am
Posts: 1782
Sherab wrote:
You mentioned obscurations. So when obscurations changes (in this case ceases), is there something unchangeable left behind or there is completely nothing?


There is experience (i.e. the aggregates) before and there is experience after and experience is impermanent.

Kind regards


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 13, 2011 8:17 am 
Offline
Former staff member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Posts: 4203
Location: Budapest
Sherab wrote:
So dependent arising does not truly exist, you agree?

No such supposition. The point is when the components ceased, then there is no continua. Hence, no point using continua as an argument.

The point is that there is still a change.


Dependent arising means that phenomena appear based on causes and conditions. There is no separate dependent arising just as there is no separate emptiness. Where could you establish "dependent arising" itself as truly existent?

Components come and go but not without cause and effect. The idea of total cessation is the view of annihilation.

Again, such concepts as "change" and "permanence" are expressions only. Without understanding that change refers to impermanent phenomena it is easy to draw inaccurate conclusions.

_________________
"There is no such thing as the real mind. Ridding yourself of delusion: that's the real mind."
(Sheng-yen: Getting the Buddha Mind, p 73)

"Neither cultivation nor seated meditation — this is the pure Chan of Tathagata."
(Mazu Daoyi, X1321p3b23; tr. Jinhua Jia)

“Don’t rashly seek the true Buddha;
True Buddha can’t be found.
Does marvelous nature and spirit
Need tempering or refinement?
Mind is this mind carefree;
This face, the face at birth."

(Nanyue Mingzan: Enjoying the Way, tr. Jeff Shore; T2076p461b24-26)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 13, 2011 12:35 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:46 pm
Posts: 2445
Location: Washington DC
Your family and you occupy a space called house. And you have love for your parents and siblings. If you can extend this love to all beings who occupy space and time, then you are practicing Buddhism. We beings occupy the whole space and time and everywhere, this wholeness of space and time is us, our body. This is Buddha Nature/Mind.

_________________
NAMO AMITABHA
NAM MO A DI DA PHAT (VIETNAMESE)
NAMO AMITUOFO (CHINESE)

Linjii
―Listen! Those of you who devote yourselves to the Dharma
must not be afraid of losing your bodies and your lives―


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 13, 2011 1:33 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:46 pm
Posts: 2445
Location: Washington DC
Here some more philosophical headaches

If its empty, can you say it's cause or not caused?

Can it be both?

Or you cannot define it?

I'll just leave it to emptiness (truly empty of definitions and talks) as Taoism says the great tao. Now I am starting to believe that Buddha Nature and Mind cannot be defined but we can describe it, and in this confusion arises. By trying to define it, we are restricting to a thing. We delude ourselves to bring it to our understanding or possession by saying it is this and it is that or not this and that. This is grasping and attachment-delusion.

_________________
NAMO AMITABHA
NAM MO A DI DA PHAT (VIETNAMESE)
NAMO AMITUOFO (CHINESE)

Linjii
―Listen! Those of you who devote yourselves to the Dharma
must not be afraid of losing your bodies and your lives―


Last edited by LastLegend on Fri May 13, 2011 1:46 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 13, 2011 1:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am
Posts: 12736
Sherab wrote:
Is Buddhahood a state then?



Good question: we treat buddhahood as if it were a state -- the term state implies something steady -- when one thing changes into another thing, we call that a "change of state". But buddhahood is no more a state that ignorance is. In other words, ultimately there is no buddhahood. Buddhahood is just a name for a relative appearance. When the causes and conditions that support that appearance cease, so does buddhahood.

Buddhahood is just the realization of that principle.

N

_________________
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: Sat May 14, 2011 2:12 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am
Posts: 2845
Sherab wrote:
If your nature is changeable, buddhahood is not attainable since if your nature is changeable, the buddhahood attained could also change.
If your nature is unchangeable, no amount of practice will enable you to attain buddhahood, since your nature is unchangeable.

Yet Buddha taught that there is path to buddhahood.
And Buddha also taught that buddhahood is not attained.


The premise is misunderstood.
But in the context of the question, buddhahood already exists, so you are correct, it is not attained.
What you describe as "your nature" is actually the things that obscure realization of the real "your nature", which is buddhahood.
So, yes, your nature is unchangable. Practice is merely there to remove the obscurations.

It is like sweeping the dust off the floor. The floor doesn't change at all. Only the condition is changed from dirty to clean.

_________________
Profile Picture: "The Foaming Monk"
The Chinese characters are Fo (buddha) and Ming (bright). The image is of a student of Buddhism, who, imagining himself to be a monk, and not understanding the true meaning of the words takes the sound of the words literally. Likewise, People on web forums sometime seem to be foaming at the mouth.
Original painting by P.Volker /used by permission.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 99 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: LastLegend, Saoshun and 8 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