"the Self is real" according to T. Page

General discussion, particularly exploring the Dharma in the modern world.
Locked
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page

Post by Malcolm »

Sherab wrote:[
Merely saying that emptiness is defined as unconditioned does not addressed my question, which was how is it possible to have a thing that is both conditioned and unconditioned at the same time. Perhaps, you are saying it is possible as long as it is defined as possible.
"For those whom emptiness is possible, everything is possible, for those whom emptiness is not possible, nothing is possible"

Malcolm wrote: If emptiness is a synonym for dependent arising, that would imply that dependent arising is unconditioned. Or to put is more starkly, it would mean that dependent arising does not arise dependently.
There is no entity "dependent arising", there are only phenomena that arise in dependence. Space, the two cessations and emptiness do not arise at all, so they are by definition phenomena that do not arise in dependence. Of course, this does not mean that they are not relative, for both conditioned and unconditioned phenomena are relative. Since both conditioned and unconditioned phenomena are relative, their relationship is strictly a matter of definition.

As for dependently origination phenomena being unconditioned, the Prajñāpāramita states "Whatever arises in dependence, that in truth does not arise". The argument can be made that even so called dependently originated phenomena are unconditioned in reality, since their production cannot be ascertained at all when subjected to ultimate analysis. Again in this respect there is no contradiction between a conventionally conditioned entity having a conventionally unconditioned nature since in reality both are merely conventions. While the former bears the latter as its nature, in reality neither the former nor the latter can stand up to ultimate analysis. In other words there are no phenomena at all that can stand up to ultimate analysis.

Yes, unconditioned things can be truly existents or false existents that are not dependently arisen. But unconditioned things cannot include false existents that are dependently arisen, don't you agree?
Of course I do not agree: for example, space, an unconditioned phenomena, permeates all conditioned phenomena, and neither obstructs conditioned phenomena nor is obstructed by them. Emptiness, another unconditioned phenomena, likewise permeates all conditioned phenomena, neither obstructing them nor being obstructed by them.

It is precisely because of such contradictions that Garfield and Priest were forced to conclude from their study of Nagarjuna that ultimately there is no ultimate and that dependent arising is all there is.
Jay Garfield is a lovely guy, and an excellent analytical philosopher (he is a professor in the Philosophy Department at Smith college, along with my father (now retired)), however, he is wrong in so far that there isn't even dependent origination in the ultimate analysis.
Again, I don't think that giving a definition as an answer will resolve the logical contradiction that my question raises.
Your question presumes an entity/entity relationship, therefore your very question is flawed. Emptiness is not an entity, neither are phenomena, other than conventionally.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 9439
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

Malcolm wrote:
"For those whom emptiness is possible, everything is possible, for those whom emptiness is not possible, nothing is possible"
Everything can't be possible, because if everything were possible, then it would also be possible for some things not to be possible.
.
.
.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 9439
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

bob wrote: Nor can anyone who has not directly experienced the "Self" ...:
If there were a true 'self' that could be experienced,
and this 'self' were, by definition, infinite,
then the only thing that could experience such a 'self'
would be that self itself.

You can't say "I experience my self"
without admitting that the I being referred to is that self.
Otherwise, I and self would be two separate things
and that would contradict the definition of a true self being infinite.

Thus, if there really were a 'true self', it would be what is already being experienced right now
and seeking it would be pointless, like a dog chasing its own tail
because you would already be there
and in regarding it as something yet unrealized, you would be mistaken.
.
.
.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page

Post by Malcolm »

PadmaVonSamba wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
"For those whom emptiness is possible, everything is possible, for those whom emptiness is not possible, nothing is possible"
Everything can't be possible, because if everything were possible, then it would also be possible for some things not to be possible.
.
.
.
Yes, for example, true existents.
theanarchist
Posts: 820
Joined: Thu Dec 26, 2013 7:26 pm

Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page

Post by theanarchist »

Malcolm wrote:
Sherab wrote: Merely saying that emptiness is defined as unconditioned does not addressed my question, which was how is it possible to have a thing that is both conditioned and unconditioned at the same time. Perhaps, you are saying it is possible as long as it is defined as possible.
"For those whom emptiness is possible, everything is possible, for those whom emptiness is not possible, nothing is possible"
[/quote]


Cough cough... Rabbit horns..
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 9439
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

Malcolm wrote: Yes, for example, true existents.
Do you regard space as a true existent?
Hmmmm....come to think of it, do you regard anything at all as a true existent?
Do you assert that "true existent" is an impossibility?
.
.
.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page

Post by Malcolm »

theanarchist wrote:
Cough cough... Rabbit horns..
Āryāṣṭasāhasrikāprajñāpāramitāpañjikāsārottamā:
  • All phenomena do not arise,
    that is the non-existence of the inherent existence of all phenomena,
    therefore, that absence of arising is like the horns of a rabbit.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page

Post by Malcolm »

PadmaVonSamba wrote:
Malcolm wrote: Yes, for example, true existents.
Do you regard space as a true existent?
Hmmmm....come to think of it, do you regard anything at all as a true existent?
Do you assert that "true existent" is an impossibility?

  • Sentient beings are not bound by anything.
    If one recognizes that true existence is inherently nonexistent,
    taints are purified intrinsically,
    like muddy water self-purifying.
    All phenomena are the same in lacking inherent existence.
-- The String of Pearls Tantra
User avatar
Tom
Posts: 411
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2011 7:12 pm

Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page

Post by Tom »

Malcolm wrote:
It is precisely because of such contradictions that Garfield and Priest were forced to conclude from their study of Nagarjuna that ultimately there is no ultimate and that dependent arising is all there is.
Jay Garfield is a lovely guy, and an excellent analytical philosopher (he is a professor in the Philosophy Department at Smith college, along with my father (now retired)), however, he is wrong in so far that there isn't even dependent origination in the ultimate analysis.
Are you suggesting Jay asserts dependent origination from an ultimate stand point? I'm just not sure how you are using ultimate analysis here?

I know Jay quite well and there is no way he would suggest that dependent origination withstands ultimate analysis. It is only because ultimate analysis comes up empty handed that some of the analytical philosophers studying Buddhism have come to the conclusion "the ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth."

Also, while many of these scholars have been influenced by Gelug writers I imagine that they think the standard Gelug approach reifies ultimate truth since it describes emptiness with the characteristics of enduring, and importantly here, existing dependently. Perhaps their attempt to avoid this same problem is to say that there is no ultimate truth and only dependent origination and that now the opposite concern as to whether they are reifying dependent origination is coming up. However, to say that there exists only dependent origination is a long way from saying in the ultimate analysis dependent origination exists.
Schrödinger’s Yidam
Posts: 7885
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am

Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page

Post by Schrödinger’s Yidam »

Sherab Dorje wrote:
tobes wrote:Smjc - I don't think you're trolling at all. I've been close to a well known Kagyu Rinpoche (now passed) who presented things in a similar way.
I don't believe they are trolling either, I was just presenting the fact that none of the Karma Kagyu teachers I have received teachings from expressed the view of the existence of an undifferentiated consciousness.
I'm not surprised. There's a good chance they've never heard it either.

I remember going to Lama Norlha's monastery in N.Y. some time ago. Khenpo Tsultrim had just left after teaching on the Uttaratantra. The people there were all ordained monks and nuns, could read Tibetan for themselves, and had done at least one 3 year retreat. They were shocked by what they heard from him. Except for Kalu R., who never used the word "Shentong", I don't think any Kagyu lamas had made an issue of it before Khenpo Tsultrim.

And the truth be told, that's not all to the story evidently. Hookam's book is about sutra Shentong. She mentions in it that there is tantric Shentong too. What that is I have a strong suspicion, but I dare you to find a lama that will teach it. I guess there really are still some secrets about "secret Vajrayana".
Last edited by Schrödinger’s Yidam on Sun Jan 26, 2014 7:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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)
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 9439
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

Malcolm wrote:
PadmaVonSamba wrote:
Malcolm wrote: Yes, for example, true existents.
Do you regard space as a true existent?
Hmmmm....come to think of it, do you regard anything at all as a true existent?
Do you assert that "true existent" is an impossibility?
  • Sentient beings are not bound by anything.
    If one recognizes that true existence is inherently nonexistent,
    taints are purified intrinsically,
    like muddy water self-purifying.
    All phenomena are the same in lacking inherent existence.
-- The String of Pearls Tantra
Yes, that is very nice.
but what is your opinion?
Do you think anything arises which is not a composite?
and do you regard space as a phenomenon
or as something that phenomena arise in,
or both?
.
.
.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page

Post by Malcolm »

PadmaVonSamba wrote: Yes, that is very nice.
but what is your opinion?
Do you think anything arises which is not a composite?
and do you regard space as a phenomenon
or as something that phenomena arise in,
or both?
.
.
.
My opinion is stated in the quote.

Space is a phenomena. It is an unconditioned phenomena therefore it does not arise. It is actually merely nonobstruction.

Nothing arises which does not arise from conditions. Nothing exists that does not arise from conditions. Space is in fact a non-existent.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page

Post by Malcolm »

Tom wrote:
Are you suggesting Jay asserts dependent origination from an ultimate stand point? I'm just not sure how you are using ultimate analysis here?

I do not think that is what Jay is saying. Jay and I have a disagreement over what constitutes a "satya". I maintain that as a satya is an object of cognition, what is important is whether the cognition is veridical or non-veridical. But Jay asserts that the object (veridical or non-veridical) is what is important, and thus, he concludes, wrongly in my estimation, that there is no ultimate truth, or as you have stated, that the ultimate is that there is no ultimate truth.
Schrödinger’s Yidam
Posts: 7885
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am

Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page

Post by Schrödinger’s Yidam »

thus, he concludes, wrongly in my estimation, that there is no ultimate truth, or as you have stated, that the ultimate is that there is no ultimate truth.
Lol. :rolling: That's what I thought the "non-affirming negation" meant.
Last edited by Schrödinger’s Yidam on Sun Jan 26, 2014 7:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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)
bob
Posts: 151
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 5:37 pm

Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page

Post by bob »

PadmaVonSamba wrote:
bob wrote: Nor can anyone who has not directly experienced the "Self" ...:
Thus, if there really were a 'true self', it would be what is already being experienced right now
and seeking it would be pointless, like a dog chasing its own tail
because you would already be there
and in regarding it as something yet unrealized, you would be mistaken.
Exactly -- that is why failure to recognize what has always been the reality is called "ignorance", and why effort is required.
User avatar
Grigoris
Former staff member
Posts: 21938
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page

Post by Grigoris »

smcj wrote:And the truth be told, that's not all to the story evidently. Hookam's book is about sutra Shentong. She mentions in it that there is tantric Shentong too. What that is I have a strong suspicion, but I dare you to find a lama that will teach it.
I don't think I want to. Had enough of the whole "soul" deal during my childhood (Greek Orthodox upbringing, Catholic schooling, Protestant country). Thanks, but no thanks! :smile:
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde
Lotus_Bitch
Posts: 283
Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2012 12:24 am

Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page

Post by Lotus_Bitch »

Sherab Dorje wrote:
smcj wrote:And the truth be told, that's not all to the story evidently. Hookam's book is about sutra Shentong. She mentions in it that there is tantric Shentong too. What that is I have a strong suspicion, but I dare you to find a lama that will teach it.
I don't think I want to. Had enough of the whole "soul" deal during my childhood (Greek Orthodox upbringing, Catholic schooling, Protestant country). Thanks, but no thanks! :smile:
Apparently, it doesn't matter, because according to Malcolm:
http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.ph ... 1&start=20

The actual mode of meditation in rang stong and gzhan stong are not different at all. The difference lay primarily in how they conceptualize the view in post-meditation.....The basis in gzhan stong is still emptiness, albeit is an emptiness qualified by the presence of ultimate buddha qualities, where samsaric phenomena are considere extraneous. Why? Because these ultimate qualities are only held to appear to exist in post-equipoise, but their appearance of existence disappear when in equipoise.

The equipoise in both rang stong and gzhan stong is characterized as an equipoise free from extremes. In the case of commoners, this freedom from extremes is arrived through analysis that negate the four extremes in turn. This is necessary even in gshan stong because attachment to the luminosity described by the PP sutras will result in an extreme view, just as grasping to emptiness results in an extreme view.

As I said, the most salient difference between R and S is in their post-equipoise formulation. In terms of how adherents of the so called R and S views actually meditate, there is no ultimate difference.

The pitfall of both approaches is the same -- failure to eradicate all extremes results in the former grasping to non-existence as emptiness, and the latter grasping to existence as emptiness.

The purpose of Madhyamaka analysis is not to come to some imagined "correct" generic image of the ultimate, but rather to exhaust the mind's capacity to reify phenomena according to any extreme so that one's experience of conventional truth upon reaching the path of seeing in post-equipoise is that all phenomena are seen to be illusions, dreams and so on i.e. unreal and yet apparent due to the force of traces.
Many meditators know how to meditate,
But only a few know how to dismantle [mental clinging].
- Je Gyare
User avatar
Tom
Posts: 411
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2011 7:12 pm

Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page

Post by Tom »

Malcolm wrote:
Tom wrote:
Are you suggesting Jay asserts dependent origination from an ultimate stand point? I'm just not sure how you are using ultimate analysis here?

I do not think that is what Jay is saying. Jay and I have a disagreement over what constitutes a "satya". I maintain that as a satya is an object of cognition, what is important is whether the cognition is veridical or non-veridical. But Jay asserts that the object (veridical or non-veridical) is what is important, and thus, he concludes, wrongly in my estimation, that there is no ultimate truth, or as you have stated, that the ultimate is that there is no ultimate truth.
Generalizing, but these are the different interpretations of Candra's MMV 6:23 by Sakya and Gelug respectively. However, to take the Gelug position and then claim there is no ultimate truth is novel.
User avatar
dzogchungpa
Posts: 6333
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 10:50 pm

Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page

Post by dzogchungpa »

Malcolm wrote:I maintain that as a satya is an object of cognition, what is important is whether the cognition is veridical or non-veridical.
Forgive my ignorance, but what does it mean to say that a cognition is veridical?
There is not only nothingness because there is always, and always can manifest. - Thinley Norbu Rinpoche
Schrödinger’s Yidam
Posts: 7885
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am

Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page

Post by Schrödinger’s Yidam »

Sherab Dorje wrote:
smcj wrote:And the truth be told, that's not all to the story evidently. Hookam's book is about sutra Shentong. She mentions in it that there is tantric Shentong too. What that is I have a strong suspicion, but I dare you to find a lama that will teach it.
I don't think I want to. Had enough of the whole "soul" deal during my childhood (Greek Orthodox upbringing, Catholic schooling, Protestant country). Thanks, but no thanks! :smile:
I get more of a NeoPlatonist vibe with the threat of morphing into a type of Chinese monism. But then again that's just me.
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)
Locked

Return to “Dharma in Everyday Life”