Unorthodox Ideas

[DarwidHalim]

Astus,

We can't see thing as only yes and no. If we see this, we have a problem. Like what you said, if we do a meditation on mind and we know the nature, then by right you must become a Buddha, there is no something called arhat, bodhisattva, and so on. And this view probably is just an orthodox view.

If we see thing as yes or no, we indeed can have that perception.

Let's take an example of death. Do you know death? Sure, you know that. When you see from this perspective, knowing death becomes like yes and no issue. But we forget something here, when we are talking about understanding, that yes has no limit. Someone who just see death from television has a very different view of death with someone who see death with naked eyes. Someone who see death of his parents has different view of death with someone who see death of his neighbor. Someone who see death of in one of his children has a different view with someone who see death with his only child. And someone who see death in his only child has a different view with someone who ever experience waking of long comma.

That is just illustration of it is not about the issue of you know death or not. It is about the issue of how deep you know it. All of us know death, but each of us has different level of death. We can't know how to take the red line to explain the boundary between knowing gross death and subtle death. The best thing we can do is only to differentiate death into gross, subtle, very subtle, and so on. And we can only say there is an obscuration then prevent him to know death from gross to subtle. But where is the exact culprit of that boundary, we can't know.

When thing already move to experiental level, the issue is no longer yes and no, the issue is already more than that. The issue is already obscuration.

Same thing here, someone who do a meditation on mind, can have various level of understanding the absence of self and characteristic.

If you see just for the absence of self, this is also not yes and no issue. You see sotapana, he know the absence of self at experiental level, but what he knows is just not deep enough to kick him out from samsara. You have another level, once returner, never returner, and so on. So, there are level here.

Now once you are quit from that absence of self, know you face another issue, which is absence of characteristics. The whole 10 bhumis are actually telling us about this. It no longer tells us about the absence of self, that previous multi layer already pass.

You can divide that 10 bhuminto just 5 bhumi or 20 or 100. It is not important how you divide it, because this division is always a tool to help us understand the whole process. The issue here is to tell you about the obscuration that you can face in your journey.

So, this is not about unorthodox or orthodox issue, because we are not talking about you know or don't know. We are talking about yes you know, but how deep you know.

We may also think that 3 aeons make no sense like too long or something. If you see, there is no bottom when we move the issue to how deep understanding can be. No limit. We can then appreciate that it can be very very long to understanding something.

The death that you know today is already different with te death you know tomorrow. The death you know tomorrow is already different with the death the day afterwards.

We just can't measure how deep we can understand this reality. 3 aeons, 5 aeons, who knows?

[DarwidHalim]

Yes. Again, it would seem that DKR's book is paraphrasing excerpt of a Dharmakīrti argument from the Pramāṇaviniścaya in response to a hypothetical question, and probably not a doctrinal position. See Sara McClintock's Omniscience and the Rhetoric of Reason: Santaraksita and Kamalasila on Rationality, Argumentation, and Religious Authority, p. 136-7

No, DKR didn't paraphrasing Dharmakirti argument or something related to it.

We have to see here, that book is the view of Madyamika Prasangika.

Why it is called Prasangika? Sometimes they are called consequeantialist.

In this group, they will not propose anything. They will not propose any view. Their position is if you propose something, I will show your mistaken point in your proposal.

Madyamika Prasangika is very different with Madyamika Svatantrika.

Svatantrika proposed something, propose a view. And that something or view is the truth in the conventional.

Before that we need to talk conventional truth. Conventional truth has 2 type: One is the normal conventional truth (Conventional conventional) and second is the conventional that try to talk about ultimate (conventional ultimate). The ultimate truth itself is unspoken, beyond your intellect. Like the taste of orange. You cannot express the taste of orange with words. If you try, that is already conventional truth.

Now,
Svatantrika said that this is vase. They said this vase is empty of inherent existence. But, Svatantrika said that this vase is not empty of vase.
FOr svatantrika, the vase is empty of inherent existence, but it doesn't empty of vase.

Prasangika reject that. Because if you cannot see the vase is empty of vase, then you see characteristics.

People always think that if you say this vase is empty of vase, then it is nihilism. That is not. Because Prasangika already reject the position of nihilism.

Then what do you mean by empty of vase? It means that Prasangika doesn't accept that the photo below has a characteristic called vase.



You need to see here.

If you can see the emptiness of inherent existence. You can say that vase is empty of inherent existence. And that is the position of Svatantrika.

But for Prasangika, besides that vase is empty of inherent existence. They also say that vase is empty of vase. So, in this sense, Prasangika doesn't accept that photo has self and characteristics.

Now, if you say empty of vase, do you mean nihilism. No.

For Prasangika, that photo cannot be said as vase. So, what can you say. You can't say anything. Remember, Prasangika doesn't have any view.

So, what do you mean by empty of vase. Please explain the meaning. This is the meaning:



"Just that".

Prasangika will not accept that is vase. Svatrantika reject that, because for Svatrantika, that is vase, which is empty of self. So, it is quite subtle here.

Which one is the right one? To me, it is Prasangika.

Why? Because you can see there is no inherent existence or self, it like the trace of bird in the sky.

Dashabhumika sutta said this and this is very interesting:
"When a bird flied in the sky, we cannot indicate the traces of his flight. How can we even talk about it? Likewise, we cannot express the qualities of bodhisattvas, so how can you even listen?"

So you see here. This can be very subtle.

If you do not see anything, there is no way you can express that.

In the same way, if you really do not see any inherent existence, there is no way you can express that as this or that.

So, Svatrantika has a mistake here. Because although he doesn't see inherent existence, he can still say this is vase. So, there is an obscuration here and that obscuration is characteristics.

Because you have this ability to divide that photo into vase with your concept. And that is wrong. Why? Because again, if you can say that is vase, you are actually saying the tbird fly in the sky has no trace.

You may think that it is not an issue to say that the sky has no trace. But this is a big issue.

Why? Because if something has no trace, you can never even talk about it, not even as traceless.

If you can say traceless, no matter what, you must see something, and that is character. It may not necessarily self, but it is already character.

In Zen, this is very very important.

In Zen, they express this unexpressable with symbol or with sign. They don't use words because once you use word, it is already a mistake. If they use words, it is beyond intellect. Is that vase? No, it is fire. Something like that. That is Koan, beyond your intellect. Because Koan is actually to kill your intellect. Too smart until becoming ignorant.

Kamalasila (Bodhidharma) was ask one time, please tell me about reality. How did he answer that? He took a cloth and cover his mouth. This really shows that he knows that that photo cannot even be expressed as vase.

Prasangika doesn't propose any view.

So, does it mean that Prasangika cannot speak? Actually yes. But they solve it in this way that whatever they say, they always know it is false.

If they say that is vase, they always knows it is false. All conventional truths are false to them.

Now, if you see the photo and if you just say that is not vase, but just appearances, you just make a mistake, and you see character.

Absolultely cannot be said as this or that. Even the statement like mere appearances or mere labels, that is already wrong and it shows you see characteristic.

Clear light, tathagarba in Prasangika are the same. Cannot be said as clear light, or tathagarba, or great seal, or anything.

If you ever say, I see clear light, it is very obvious you just don't know what is clear light. It cannot be spoken, not because it is mysterious.

The traceless of bird is not something mysterious. If you can understand this, you should know why saying clear light is always false.

FOr the sake of communication, we can know actually whether he really knows clear light or not. Because he has no choice for communication. He may know it. But, most of the time, people who say clear light, they just miss the point.

[pueraeternus]

This is probably the stupidest thing I ever read on this forum.

You should read "Center of the Sunlit Sky" by Karl B.

Madhyamaka is the foundation of Vajrayana and Mahamudra.

You really should reconsider your attitude, given how much you have exposed of how little or incomplete your knowledge is of Buddhism.

[SSJ3Gogeta]

This is probably the stupidest thing I ever read on this forum.

You should read "Center of the Sunlit Sky" by Karl B.

Madhyamaka is the foundation of Vajrayana and Mahamudra.

You really should reconsider your attitude, given how much you have exposed of how little or incomplete your knowledge is of Buddhism.

What are you talking about?

I pointed to a whole book about Madhyamaka being the basis of Mahamudra.

Center of the Sunlit Sky

Its like arguing with creationists.

[Josef]

The point is that the philosophical basis and infrastructure of tantra is derived from tathagatagarbha, since the inherent buddha nature is the raison d'être for tantric praxis.

You should read "Center of the Sunlit Sky" by Karl B.

Madhyamaka is the foundation of Vajrayana and Mahamudra.

Pueraeternus' point about tathagatagarbha and tantra is actually quite astute.

[SSJ3Gogeta]

Pueraeternus' point about tathagatagarbha and tantra is actually quite astute.

[Josef]

Pueraeternus' point about tathagatagarbha and tantra is actually quite astute.

Are you even a Vajryana practitioner?
Tathagatagarba is absolutely critical in the development of Vajrayana theory and practice. To assert that Pueraeternus' statement is "stupid" exposes both your attitude and understanding as juvenile.

[SSJ3Gogeta]

Pueraeternus' point about tathagatagarbha and tantra is actually quite astute.

You'll have to do better.

Like I said, its like arguing with creationists.

[Josef]

Like I said, its like arguing with creationists.

When did you say that?

[pueraeternus]

What are you talking about?

Do I really have to spell it out? Look, it is ok to have a different opinion and discuss or argue it here - that's what forums are for. It is also ok to get things wrong and learn it from others who know - just accept it and learn. What is not ok is to display such arrogance as you have done on several threads so far, and worse, unwarranted arrogance when you are clearly mistaken/misinformed on certain elementary aspects of the subjects in discussion.

Is this what your Dzogchen training has turned you into? Are you even mindful or aware of your speech?

[Josef]

Is this what your Dzogchen training has turned you into? Are you even mindful or aware of your speech?

I doubt there has been much, if any training.
Hopefully his attitude doesnt give people a negative impression of the teachings.

[SSJ3Gogeta]

Is this what your Dzogchen training has turned you into? Are you even mindful or aware of your speech?

I see no evidence of any training at all.

Nice fall back statement when you really have nothing to support your position.

[Josef]

Is this what your Dzogchen training has turned you into? Are you even mindful or aware of your speech?

I see no evidence of any training at all.

Nice fall back statement when you really have nothing to support your position.

Each one of your posts support it.
If you make an effort to convey your ideas clearly and respectfully you will get a better response.
This is getting wildly off topic.

[pueraeternus]

Is this what your Dzogchen training has turned you into? Are you even mindful or aware of your speech?

I see no evidence of any training at all.

I am afraid you are right. It is vital for a Dzogchen practitioner - actually any Buddhist practitioner - to be always aware of one's conduct. WIthout it, it shows there is neither rigpa nor basic mindfulness that one should switch to should one can't stay in rigpa.

[Josef]

Is this what your Dzogchen training has turned you into? Are you even mindful or aware of your speech?

I see no evidence of any training at all.

I am afraid you are right. It is vital for a Dzogchen practitioner - actually any Buddhist practitioner - to be always aware of one's conduct. WIthout it, it shows there is neither rigpa nor basic mindfulness that one should switch to should one can't stay in rigpa.

Basic mindfulness is a profound and essential practice for all practitioners no matter which yana.
Good work with the tathagatagarba post, I think a lot of people overlook the role of the third turning in the development of tantra etc.

[catmoon]

What are you talking about?

Do I really have to spell it out? Look, it is ok to have a different opinion and discuss or argue it here - that's what forums are for. It is also ok to get things wrong and learn it from others who know - just accept it and learn. What is not ok is to display such arrogance as you have done on several threads so far, and worse, unwarranted arrogance when you are clearly mistaken/misinformed on certain elementary aspects of the subjects in discussion.

Is this what your Dzogchen training has turned you into? Are you even mindful or aware of your speech?

You are the one who trashed Vajrayana, and specifically also people who obtained Buddhahood in the last 20 years. You talking about mindful speech is a joke.

They are an excellent path of skillful means and technique, but declarations of attaining complete Buddhahood in a single life time is going too far.

And you are free to believe what you will and enjoy the kool-aid.

[pueraeternus]

Good work with the tathagatagarba post, I think a lot of people overlook the role of the third turning in the development of tantra etc.

Thank you. In my view, Vajrayana is a such a rich tradition because it distills many of the essence of the developments in Buddhadharma, and it continues to do that, hence over centuries produces more and more vehicles as it refines the process and techniques. I don't agree with the triumphanist rhetoric, the use of origin myths, etc, but I consider it a upaya vehicle par excellence.

[Josef]

Good work with the tathagatagarba post, I think a lot of people overlook the role of the third turning in the development of tantra etc.

Thank you. In my view, Vajrayana is a such a rich tradition because it distills many of the essence of the developments in Buddhadharma, and it continues to do that, hence over centuries produces more and more vehicles as it refines the process and techniques. I don't agree with the triumphanist rhetoric, the use of origin myths, etc, but I consider it a upaya vehicle par excellence.

Buddhism in general likes triumphant rhetoric and myths. A lot of them are absurd but they can be entertaining at least.

[pueraeternus]

You are the one who trashed Vajrayana, and specifically also people who obtained Buddhahood in the last 20 years. You talking about mindful speech is a joke. Is there anything that you type, that isn't 100% bullshit?

You clearly don't get what I, Josef and a few others in other threads am trying to say. Whatever.

[catmoon]

Tathagatagarba is absolutely critical in the development of Vajrayana theory and practice. To assert that Pueraeternus' statement is "stupid" exposes both your attitude and understanding as juvenile.

In the Gelug tradition, the phrase Buddha nature merely refers to the potential of sentient beings to obtain Buddhahood. Certainly not like anything in the Tathagatagarba Sutras

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tath%C4%81 ... bha_Sutras

In the rest of the Tibetan traditions (except Jonang), Buddha nature refers to the inseperable clarity and emptiness of the mind. Again, nothing like Tathagatagarba Sutras.

The Tathagatagarba doctrine about a eternal Buddha homonculus and all that sort of crazy nonsense is not found in Vajrayana.