"...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
-
- Posts: 303
- Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2013 6:33 pm
Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Malcolm,
Would you agree that emptiness, in general, refers to nonarising / illusion?
Would you agree that emptiness, in general, refers to nonarising / illusion?
- conebeckham
- Posts: 5718
- Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:49 pm
- Location: Bay Area, CA, USA
Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
In an attempt to have a discussion, I will reply.....though I anticipate only some sort of rote NKT-formulaic response:Tsongkhapafan wrote:
I'm saying three things:
1. Buddha Shayamuni/Buddha Vajradhara did not teach Dzogchen - his teachings are the Sutras and Tantras. These teachings are a complete system that lead to liberation and enlightenment by removing all mental obscurations.
2. The true nature of phenomena is emptiness, lack of inherent existence. There is no attainment of enlightenment without realising this because grasping at its opposite is the cause of all mental obscurations.
3. There is no path to higher attainments that doesn't depend upon meditating on emptiness. The meaning of emptiness was explained by Buddha and reiterated by Nagarjuna and Chandrakirti.
1.Many dispute that the Tantras were taught by the Buddha. Surely you're aware of this. Vajrayana is not accepted Dharma in many Buddhist traditions. In fact, Malcolm has provided one instance of a "pro-tantra" authority who disputes a given specific instance of this.
2. Ignorance is the root cause of all mental obscurations. If one is attached to emptiness, and sees it as the "opposite" of existence, then one is still mired in the thicket of concepts, however subtly. Although it's fair to say that grasping is certainly part of one's bondage, we can also say there is no "opposite" of emptiness to be grasped in the first place. There is, first of all, merely a mistake. Grasping comes after. It's not a matter of choosing one side or the other, in the end, but a matter of freedom from extremes, and transcendence of conceptual activity.
3. There are many methods of practice where "emptiness" is not the primary object of meditation, and some assert that "higher attainments" can indeed be had by such methods. Certainly, understanding "emptiness" is not a bad thing, we can even say "emptiness" is a factor of many systems, but Dzogchen and Mahamudra, as well as the completion stage practices of Highest Yoga Tantra, do not take "Emptiness" as the primary subject or object, a la Nagarjuna, Chandrakirti, etc.
དམ་པའི་དོན་ནི་ཤེས་རབ་ཆེ་བ་དང་།
རྟོག་གེའི་ཡུལ་མིན་བླ་མའི་བྱིན་རླབས་དང་།
སྐལ་ལྡན་ལས་འཕྲོ་ཅན་གྱིས་རྟོགས་པ་སྟེ།
དེ་ནི་ཤེས་རབ་ལ་ནི་ལོ་རྟོག་སེལ།།
"Absolute Truth is not an object of analytical discourse or great discriminating wisdom,
It is realized through the blessing grace of the Guru and fortunate Karmic potential.
Like this, mistaken ideas of discriminating wisdom are clarified."
- (Kyabje Bokar Rinpoche, from his summary of "The Ocean of Definitive Meaning")
རྟོག་གེའི་ཡུལ་མིན་བླ་མའི་བྱིན་རླབས་དང་།
སྐལ་ལྡན་ལས་འཕྲོ་ཅན་གྱིས་རྟོགས་པ་སྟེ།
དེ་ནི་ཤེས་རབ་ལ་ནི་ལོ་རྟོག་སེལ།།
"Absolute Truth is not an object of analytical discourse or great discriminating wisdom,
It is realized through the blessing grace of the Guru and fortunate Karmic potential.
Like this, mistaken ideas of discriminating wisdom are clarified."
- (Kyabje Bokar Rinpoche, from his summary of "The Ocean of Definitive Meaning")
Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
“You don’t know it. You just know about it. That is not the same thing.”
Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche to me.
Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche to me.
- PadmaVonSamba
- Posts: 9511
- Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am
Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
The "point of origin" referred to here, is the arising of appearances.alpha wrote:
The point is , there is no point of origin since that would entail the extreme of something arising out of itself which would lead to permanence where things would duplicate themselves continuously.
But appearances are not self-arising.
it is absurd to say, "this appearance has no beginning, no end, no duration"
because appearances do have duration, even though they may be mere hallucinations.
But it is not absurd to say
"there is no beginning, no end, and duration of anything essential..."
(meaning inherently existent, self-arising)
"...from which this appearance arises".
.
.
.
.
.
.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
-
- Posts: 303
- Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2013 6:33 pm
Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Shakyamuni never taught Tsongkhapa's "Madhyamaka"
-
- Posts: 7885
- Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am
Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Sure he did. He put it in a time capsule and gave it to some sea serpents to keep at the bottom of the ocean for 1,000 years until Nagarjuna came to pick it up. Tshogkhapa just modified it a little.ConradTree wrote:Shakyamuni never taught Tsongkhapa's "Madhyamaka"
1.The problem isn’t ‘ignorance’. The problem is the mind you have right now. (H.H. Karmapa XVII @NYC 2/4/18)
2. I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against lama abuse.
3. Student: Lama, I thought I might die but then I realized that the 3 Jewels would protect me.
Lama: Even If you had died the 3 Jewels would still have protected you. (DW post by Fortyeightvows)
2. I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against lama abuse.
3. Student: Lama, I thought I might die but then I realized that the 3 Jewels would protect me.
Lama: Even If you had died the 3 Jewels would still have protected you. (DW post by Fortyeightvows)
Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Emptiness, in Mahāyāna, specifically refers to the absence of the four extremes in phenomena. This is the profound emptiness taught in Mahāyāna according to Gorampa and many other critics of Tsongkhapa, not the mere emptiness of inherent existence which is common which the śravaka systems.ConradTree wrote:Malcolm,
Would you agree that emptiness, in general, refers to nonarising / illusion?
Since phenomena cannot be found by any of the four extremes, they are illusory, and ultimately nonarisen.
Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Happy new year Jeeprs.jeeprs wrote: The other point that occurred to me in relation to this thread, is that it reinforces the fact that Buddhists oughtn't cling to dogma. Every single possible dogmatic view or philosophical position is subject to criticism. That doesn't mean that they don't have their place or their use, but, like anything else, they are transient, not ultimate.
So the lesson is, don't be attached to views.
And - Happy New Year.
I agree. Maybe I'm oversensitive, but it seems to me like some (most?) people like a good old fashioned sectarian dispute more than anything else.
-
- Posts: 18
- Joined: Fri Dec 27, 2013 4:08 am
Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
smcj wrote:Sure he did. He put it in a time capsule and gave it to some sea serpents to keep at the bottom of the ocean for 1,000 years until Nagarjuna came to pick it up. Tshogkhapa just modified it a little.ConradTree wrote:Shakyamuni never taught Tsongkhapa's "Madhyamaka"
I've often wondered about that. I've never had any problem seeing Nagas and the stories that portray them - like Nagarjuna or the Buddha (with Mucalinda) - as metphors being used to illustrate certain ideas. They're often portrayed as protectors of treasure in Buddhist stories. So, you have that principal being applied to the Buddha's life, the Mahayana teachings, and so on. I find that sort of telling and hearing rather fascinating. Precisely what they mean escapes me, though.
But real beings? Geez I dunno. I've never seen one.....
Last edited by IdleChater on Tue Dec 31, 2013 11:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- conebeckham
- Posts: 5718
- Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:49 pm
- Location: Bay Area, CA, USA
Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Not to put too fine a point on it, but it is not absurd to say that "this appearance has no beginning, no end, no duration" because, in truth, there is no reality that can be attached to the beginning, end, or duration of the appearance. A discrete appearance, appearing to have beginning, end, and duration, does appear, but no reality or existence for the appearance, the beginning of the appearance, the duration of the appearance, nor the end of that appearance can be posited at all.PadmaVonSamba wrote:The "point of origin" referred to here, is the arising of appearances.alpha wrote:
The point is , there is no point of origin since that would entail the extreme of something arising out of itself which would lead to permanence where things would duplicate themselves continuously.
But appearances are not self-arising.
it is absurd to say, "this appearance has no beginning, no end, no duration"
because appearances do have duration, even though they may be mere hallucinations.
But it is not absurd to say
"there is no beginning, no end, and duration of anything essential..."
(meaning inherently existent, self-arising)
"...from which this appearance arises".
\
.
དམ་པའི་དོན་ནི་ཤེས་རབ་ཆེ་བ་དང་།
རྟོག་གེའི་ཡུལ་མིན་བླ་མའི་བྱིན་རླབས་དང་།
སྐལ་ལྡན་ལས་འཕྲོ་ཅན་གྱིས་རྟོགས་པ་སྟེ།
དེ་ནི་ཤེས་རབ་ལ་ནི་ལོ་རྟོག་སེལ།།
"Absolute Truth is not an object of analytical discourse or great discriminating wisdom,
It is realized through the blessing grace of the Guru and fortunate Karmic potential.
Like this, mistaken ideas of discriminating wisdom are clarified."
- (Kyabje Bokar Rinpoche, from his summary of "The Ocean of Definitive Meaning")
རྟོག་གེའི་ཡུལ་མིན་བླ་མའི་བྱིན་རླབས་དང་།
སྐལ་ལྡན་ལས་འཕྲོ་ཅན་གྱིས་རྟོགས་པ་སྟེ།
དེ་ནི་ཤེས་རབ་ལ་ནི་ལོ་རྟོག་སེལ།།
"Absolute Truth is not an object of analytical discourse or great discriminating wisdom,
It is realized through the blessing grace of the Guru and fortunate Karmic potential.
Like this, mistaken ideas of discriminating wisdom are clarified."
- (Kyabje Bokar Rinpoche, from his summary of "The Ocean of Definitive Meaning")
Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
One thing that is escaping this discussion is that general buddhist concept of moments (relevant to Indian Buddhism in general from the Kosha) is actually based on the duration of a thought. That duration is something approximating 7 nanoseconds (it takes five nanoseconds for an impulse to travel across a neutron in the brain, longer for neurons in the body). This aside, Sapan's argument is pretty tight:Anders wrote:They don't need to be any more discrete than apparently discrete objects in space like "table", "chair" or "atoms" for that to happen. That is, apparently discrete but not fundamentally so.Malcolm wrote:If they are discrete they form a series that leads to perception of time, that is the point.
Because the three times do not arise at once,
the present moment is partless.
This partless moment perishes as soon as its arises. It perishes immediately.
Partless moments are possible precisely because the three times are not substantially established.
Sapan maintains with respect to the question of whether such moments are ultimate or not, "...it is not the ultimate free from proliferation because of being perishable; the ultimate of efficient capability, because in the context of the investigating the empirical conventional authority all delusion and non-delusion depends upon moments."
In the case of the continuum of mind, for example, this is possible because the present moment of mind is neither the same nor different nor different than the previous moment of mind, indeed it is the same with all series [see MMK, chapter on Samskaras]. The series of partless moments will cease as soon as the conditions supporting it cease. Hence, the only way a continuum is actually possible requires partless moments. If moments have parts, there is no way to ensure the continuation of any series, because moments will have parts, and thus causes and their effects will be different, and thus one will have a large series of negative consequences stemming from this.
M
Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Not really, but when pushed to it...tobes wrote:
I agree. Maybe I'm oversensitive, but it seems to me like some (most?) people like a good old fashioned sectarian dispute more than anything else.
- PadmaVonSamba
- Posts: 9511
- Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am
Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
no beginning, duration or end to the reality.conebeckham wrote:
Not to put too fine a point on it, but it is not absurd to say that "this appearance has no beginning, no end, no duration" because, in truth, there is no reality that can be attached to the beginning, end, or duration of the appearance. A discrete appearance, appearing to have beginning, end, and duration, does appear, but no reality or existence for the appearance, the beginning of the appearance, the duration of the appearance, nor the end of that appearance can be posited at all.
but your quote is still here.
.
.
.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
- dzogchungpa
- Posts: 6333
- Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 10:50 pm
Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
I have heard this expression before, and it has never made sense to me.Malcolm wrote:In the case of the continuum of mind, for example, this is possible because the present moment of mind is neither the same nor different nor different than the previous moment of mind...
There is not only nothingness because there is always, and always can manifest. - Thinley Norbu Rinpoche
- conebeckham
- Posts: 5718
- Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:49 pm
- Location: Bay Area, CA, USA
Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Sure. I'd be a fool to deny appearances!PadmaVonSamba wrote:no beginning, duration or end to the reality.conebeckham wrote:
Not to put too fine a point on it, but it is not absurd to say that "this appearance has no beginning, no end, no duration" because, in truth, there is no reality that can be attached to the beginning, end, or duration of the appearance. A discrete appearance, appearing to have beginning, end, and duration, does appear, but no reality or existence for the appearance, the beginning of the appearance, the duration of the appearance, nor the end of that appearance can be posited at all.
but your quote is still here.
.
.
.
དམ་པའི་དོན་ནི་ཤེས་རབ་ཆེ་བ་དང་།
རྟོག་གེའི་ཡུལ་མིན་བླ་མའི་བྱིན་རླབས་དང་།
སྐལ་ལྡན་ལས་འཕྲོ་ཅན་གྱིས་རྟོགས་པ་སྟེ།
དེ་ནི་ཤེས་རབ་ལ་ནི་ལོ་རྟོག་སེལ།།
"Absolute Truth is not an object of analytical discourse or great discriminating wisdom,
It is realized through the blessing grace of the Guru and fortunate Karmic potential.
Like this, mistaken ideas of discriminating wisdom are clarified."
- (Kyabje Bokar Rinpoche, from his summary of "The Ocean of Definitive Meaning")
རྟོག་གེའི་ཡུལ་མིན་བླ་མའི་བྱིན་རླབས་དང་།
སྐལ་ལྡན་ལས་འཕྲོ་ཅན་གྱིས་རྟོགས་པ་སྟེ།
དེ་ནི་ཤེས་རབ་ལ་ནི་ལོ་རྟོག་སེལ།།
"Absolute Truth is not an object of analytical discourse or great discriminating wisdom,
It is realized through the blessing grace of the Guru and fortunate Karmic potential.
Like this, mistaken ideas of discriminating wisdom are clarified."
- (Kyabje Bokar Rinpoche, from his summary of "The Ocean of Definitive Meaning")
Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
The fool being to claim they are nothing more than appearances..... on paper.conebeckham wrote:Sure. I'd be a fool to deny appearances!PadmaVonSamba wrote:no beginning, duration or end to the reality.conebeckham wrote:
Not to put too fine a point on it, but it is not absurd to say that "this appearance has no beginning, no end, no duration" because, in truth, there is no reality that can be attached to the beginning, end, or duration of the appearance. A discrete appearance, appearing to have beginning, end, and duration, does appear, but no reality or existence for the appearance, the beginning of the appearance, the duration of the appearance, nor the end of that appearance can be posited at all.
but your quote is still here.
.
.
.
Rape,incest,slavery, children of the god of abraham etc...only appearances?
Thank full for the paper work.
Last edited by brendan on Wed Jan 01, 2014 2:08 am, edited 3 times in total.
Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Bringing out the "don't be sectarian line" is passive aggressive new ageism.Malcolm wrote:Not really, but when pushed to it...tobes wrote:
I agree. Maybe I'm oversensitive, but it seems to me like some (most?) people like a good old fashioned sectarian dispute more than anything else.
The enlightened cognitions or final results of the paths Hinayana, Sutrayana, Tantrayana and Dzogchen are clearly marketed as all being different.
- PadmaVonSamba
- Posts: 9511
- Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am
Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
They are appearances.brendan wrote:
The fool being to claim they are nothing more than appearances..... on paper.
Rape,incest,slavery, children of the god of abraham etc...only appearances?
thank full for the paper work.
But who said, 'nothing more?'
The issue of social injustices is a different topic.
Nobody is denying that they occur.
.
.
.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
So I guess in your view, HHDL is a passive aggressive new ager?brendan wrote:
Bringing out the "don't be sectarian line" is passive aggressive new ageism.
.
Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
What a strange comment.Malcolm wrote:So I guess in your view, HHDL is a passive aggressive new ager?brendan wrote:
Bringing out the "don't be sectarian line" is passive aggressive new ageism.
.
The paths and cognitions of the different yanas are marketed as different.
They clearly are not marketed as being all the same.
Unless one has realised all of the different paths how can there not be sectarianism?....providing it is non violent it seems fine.