Unorthodox Ideas

[SSJ3Gogeta]

It's better to just agree with him. He is like an upturned cup. But you know everyone telling him he is wrong gets a bit embarrassing for him I should imagine. In Vajrayana creation and completion you get all of the three turnings of the dharma. All are of equal importance. Of course he has his own view so better leave him to it.

I don't think we should just agree with him, especially when he is blatantly wrong. This will further cement his misconceptions and propagate his mistaken notions to others who come here to learn. I think we should just correct him, and leave him be when he continues to insist on his errors.

My understanding is different. My understanding is that buddhahood is innate and exists to be demonstrated even to ordinary persons .Incidentally, this a vastly different proposition than the tathāgatagarbha sutra position, which holds that tathāgatgarbha can only be seen by buddhas. When one's innate buddhahood is demonstrated then liberation is possible; if not, liberation is not possible.

[pueraeternus]

My understanding is different. My understanding is that buddhahood is innate and exists to be demonstrated even to ordinary persons .Incidentally, this a vastly different proposition than the tathāgatagarbha sutra position, which holds that tathāgatgarbha can only be seen by buddhas. When one's innate buddhahood is demonstrated then liberation is possible; if not, liberation is not possible.

As Mr G said, you are totally taking what Namdrol wrote out of context, and it has nothing to do with the fact of tathagatagarbha's primary importance in the Buddhist tantra. Astus has earlier quoted a long list of established Tibetan masters words on this, and many others have chimed in as well, but I guess none of this is sinking in.

[SSJ3Gogeta]

As Mr G said, you are totally taking what Namdrol wrote out of context, and it has nothing to do with the fact of tathagatagarbha's primary importance in the Buddhist tantra. Astus has earlier quoted a long list of established Tibetan masters words on this, and many others have chimed in as well, but I guess none of this is sinking in.

You are right, none of your wrong information is sinking in.

[DarwidHalim]

Thank you for your reply, DarwidHalim. Your post made my point for me. Just as did you, Dharmakīrti used the literary device of a supposed opponent to make points for refutation.

Up to this point, you should remember that although Dharmakirti make a point for refutation, but after the refutation, he made a view. Prasangika will never do that. He will reject your statement, and let the thing open. Prasangika will not counter over with his view.

So, there is a very substantial difference here.

Relative perception (form, sound, touch, etc.) is unreal. However, the natural state of sights and sounds are within the aspect of primordial wisdom. Therefore, they are real. There is no contradiction between relative and ultimate truth.

Ultimate and relative truth has no contradiction if we really know how to blend them. If we don't know, it will contradict each other. Cittamantra has a view that even ultimate reality is just mind and this is their ultimate truth. And to Prasangika this is a contradiction.

Of course, each school will claim that their view doesn't have a contradiction between relative and ultimate truth. Cittamantra claim like that, Prasangika also claim like that.

Then, we as an outsider, we need to learn all of them and with our intelligent, we can see which one is true. How Prasangika refute the stand of Cittamantra. If after you see, it makes sense, then you can adopt, if not then you will not adopt.

It is important here that we have to study all views, because each view has its strength power to remove your ignorant from their unique point of view, and you will see their weakness as well.

You can't quantify ultimate reality.

Yes, that is true, ultimate cannot be quantified. But, ironically, if you study the views from different schools, somehow this ultimate is quantified. If you just see one school, you will see they don't quantify. But when you learn how other school reject the stand of others with their reasoning, then you can see.

[Astus]

DarwidHalim,

Practice is based on theory. Now, as you say, people can and do misunderstand the teachings. That doesn't make the teachings any different. Some realise it easily, others slowly. It makes no difference in that everybody has to go through the no gate. It is about this that Huangbo says (Chung-Ling Record, tr. Lok To):

"Some students attain the state of liberated Mind quickly, some slowly. After listening to a Dharma talk, some reach "no mind" directly. In contrast, some must first pass gradually through the ten grades of Bodhisattva faith, the Dasabhumi of Bodhisattva development, and the ten stages before attaining the Perfectly Awakened Mind. Whether one takes a long or a short time, however, once attained, "no mind" can never be lost."

[DarwidHalim]

Oh yes, there is a problem here "no mind". In here he assumed "no mind" is equivalent to "no mind" of Buddha.

But, other teaching doesn't follow that.

"no mind" still can varies according to different obscuration.

"no mind" of bodhisatta bhumi 1 or "no mind" bodhisatta bhumi 9?

Aryadeva is mahasiddha and tantric master, but in the book of his teaching 400 stanza, it is said that his "no mind" is just equivalent to the "no mind" of bodhisattva level 8.

Kamalasila is a tantric master who live for 500 years +. He still said that he went to listen the teaching of avalokiteshvara. So "no mind" of kamalasila is not same with "no mind" of avalokiteshvara.

[viniketa]

It is important here that we have to study all views, because each view has its strength power to remove your ignorant from their unique point of view, and you will see their weakness as well.

Agreed. Which was the point of my post. Had Buddhist philosophy 'stopped' at Prasaṅgika, falling into nihilism would have been easy. Study of 'all views' (and practice) helps us maintain and perfect our 'Buddha-nature'.

Just as I am about to observe that we have come full-circle to Astus' OP, I see you have posted more...

[DarwidHalim]

Normally prasangika view is the last one to be studied, because prasangika cannot be rejected and can be very confusing.

It has no view, even not the view of nihilism. How can we reject a school that has no view? Unless you say reality has a view, then you can reject no view as wrong and having view as right.

[viniketa]

It has no view, even not the view of nihilism

A Prasaṅgika may hold no 'view', but that is simply a logistical tool. No 'view' is not equivalent to 'empty mind'. Thus, infinite negation, if not tempered, can lead to nihilism.



*P.S. I tried to 'skip over' rangtong/zentong, but now we're right back into it!

[Astus]

DarwidHalim,

Entering The Tao of Sudden Enlightenment by Huihai (tr. Lok To) explains the meaning,

"No thought means no mind grasping anything whatsoever. It is being without any view whatever, not even the thought of seeking something or not seeking anything. Having no thought means that in the face of any object or form, not even a single thought arises. This being-without-thought is called Real Mind. However, if one grasps the thought that this being-without-thought is the Real Mind, then it is not right thought but merely the wrong view."

This is perfectly in agreement with Nagarjuna's explanation of emptiness as being free of views. How do you make differences here? Is there a higher and lower freedom from views, higher and lower non-attachment?

[viniketa]

"No thought means no mind grasping anything whatsoever.

This is perfectly in agreement with Nagarjuna's explanation of emptiness as being free of views.

Yes. Rather than constant negation and possible nihilism, 'hold' all views, even the contradictory ones, all at once. This is not 'grasping' at views.

[Jnana]

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

Madhyamaka is the foundation of Vajrayana and Mahamudra.

Astus and Jhana pointed to one connection to a Buddha Nature text in a book that is about 1000 pages and which only applies to sutra Mahamudra.

What about the other 999 pages which talks about Madhyamaka and Mahamudra?

It's good that you find The Center of the Sunlit Sky useful. I do too. I've also heard Karl teach on the Uttaratantraśāstra on a number of occasions. He knows the text and its commentaries well. If you're interested in mahāmudrā you would do well to study it and the texts Karl has translated in Luminous Heart, preferable under the guidance of a qualified teacher.

[pueraeternus]

If you're interested in mahāmudrā you would do well to study it and the texts Karl has translated in Luminous Heart, preferable under the guidance of a qualified teacher.

Excellent recommendation. I once asked Karl which of his works has the most emphasis on yogacara and tathagatagarbha, and he recommended the Luminous Heart.

[futerko]

"No thought means no mind grasping anything whatsoever.

This is perfectly in agreement with Nagarjuna's explanation of emptiness as being free of views.

Yes. Rather than constant negation and possible nihilism, 'hold' all views, even the contradictory ones, all at once. This is not 'grasping' at views.

The way I interpret this, on a more practical everyday level is - having no view means you have no object, having a view means it is in a two-way relationship with its object, therefore no view can ever be truly independent or value-free.

[viniketa]

"No thought means no mind grasping anything whatsoever.

This is perfectly in agreement with Nagarjuna's explanation of emptiness as being free of views.

Yes. Rather than constant negation and possible nihilism, 'hold' all views, even the contradictory ones, all at once. This is not 'grasping' at views.

The way I interpret this, on a more practical everyday level is - having no view means you have no object, having a view means it is in a two-way relationship with its object, therefore no view can ever be truly independent or value-free.

Thank you for your comment, futerko. Apologies, I am not sure I understand if you are commenting on my comment, or Astus', or if I understand the comment. Please correct me if I am interpreting poorly:

"Having no views means you have no view as an object.

Having a view means you have a view as an object.

No view is independent of other views, and most attach a 'value' to a view." (I do not see how this follows from the first two, however.)

Perhaps I should clarify my own post: Every 'view' has a negation (sometimes the negation is another 'view'). If one sees all views and all negations, one 'grasps' at no views (each 'cancels out' the other).

[futerko]

Yes, I was responding to your formulation...

Yes. Rather than constant negation and possible nihilism, 'hold' all views, even the contradictory ones, all at once. This is not 'grasping' at views.

and,

If one sees all views and all negations, one 'grasps' at no views (each 'cancels out' the other).

Surely this would result in a stance which says things like... Hitler was evil and a good man, this dinner is delicious and disgusting, that sunset is beautiful and ugly - you would start to sound like Statler and Waldorf from the Muppet show (I'm showing my age there!)

What I had in mind was a consquence of Nagarjuna's reasoning that all specific views were relative and dependently originated, so it would lead to ideas such as the observer effect in Physics, or Immanent Critique, where any view was placed into context and relativized - instead of there being any ultimate, definitive view (at least on a specific level), so that the object of any view is never taken in isolation from the subject taking such a viewpoint, and that in this way, a view may be "taken" without being "grasped".

[viniketa]

I think we are saying the same thing using different terms (I do not see how a 'view' can take an object, since it is not conscious). Every 'view' entails it's own negation. Once that is understood, then no view is 'grasped'.



P.S. BTW, Hitler's actions were both 'good and evil', a dinner is delicious when eating but may be disgusting to digestion or health, etc. etc.

[futerko]

I think we are saying the same thing using different terms (I do not see how a 'view' can take an object, since it is not conscious). Every 'view' entails it's own negation. Once that is understood, then no view is 'grasped'.

Yes, maybe. What I meant was that - putting aside any idea of the ultimate - even on a relative level the same holds true if we recognise that whatever manifests is one's self-mainfestation.

[viniketa]

...the same holds true if we recognise that whatever manifests is one's self-mainfestation.

When one 'takes' (contacts) an 'object', then whatever manifests is a self-manifestation, yes.

[futerko]

...the same holds true if we recognise that whatever manifests is one's self-mainfestation.

When one 'takes' (contacts) an 'object', then whatever manifests is a self-manifestation, yes.

ok, so what I'm getting at is, on a very simple level - if I hate broccoli - I don't need to see all other views, I can simply recognise it as my personal taste rather than the "truth" about broccoli, and that way I don't grasp it as truth.