retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Mike,
I'll leave venerable Huifeng to answer your question, because I think it's an excellent question... but I'm not sure that "progression of knowledge in any field" is an apt analogy here, since the presence of the Dhamma in the world seems to be portrayed in classical literature as a cycle of rediscovery and decay.
mikenz66 wrote:Dear Venerable,Huifeng wrote:However, a definition of svabhava from Nagarjuna would still be useful here, however. And likewise too for the Theravada definition. Although it isn't really in use in the Tipitaka, that is avoiding the issue. How is it defined in the para-canonical literature? This is why I ask about the "Theravada" rather than "Pali sutta" definition.
Yes, it would be useful to have some insight into exactly how these things were regarded and discussed. The quotes from Tiltbillings that I gave above suggest to me that modern dismissals of the Theravada literature tend to paint rather simplistic picture of the depth of the discussion that went on. It seems extremely unlikely that, either in ancient times or now, there were one or two scholars, such as Nagarjuna or Nanananda, who saw things clearly, and the rest were a bunch of deluded fools.
The progression of knowledge in any field simply doesn't work like that in any field I know anything about.
This is the Dharma as the teachings. The Dharma as truth, to be discovered, or what have you, is in a sense off the table. Everyone claims to be expressing that truth, after all; and all the discussion takes place through various expressions, ie. Dharma as teachings.
Huifeng wrote:And in a case like this, the irony would be too much to bear!
Users browsing this forum: Alfredo and 10 guests