Dharma Wheel

A Buddhist discussion forum on Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism
It is currently Mon Dec 22, 2014 6:15 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Forum rules


Please click here to view the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Taktsang & Dharmakirti
PostPosted: Wed May 07, 2014 6:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon May 05, 2014 1:50 am
Posts: 112
I have been reading about Taktsang's critique of Gelug Sautrantika, namely that functioning things are not ultimate phenomena. Am I correct in understanding that Taktsang is saying that functioning things can not be ultimate phenomena because only irreducible particles are ultimate phenomena, and thus functioning things must be conventional things as they are capable of being broken down? My question is that in the Gelug Sautrantika concepts are conventional things as, by this system's definition, they can not perform a function. According to Taktsang, what are concepts? Do they not exist? Are there any Sakya resources in translation? The only materials I have found are from Gelug sources.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 07, 2014 6:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Mar 28, 2012 10:50 am
Posts: 117
Hmmm, i am not very sure about what you are asking about (as I am really not very acquainted with Taktsang and his interpretations), but as far as I gather, the view of irreducible particles as the ultimate phenomena, under the gelugpa systems of tenets, actually falls under the Sautantrika Followers of Scriptures. This school generally aserts the same idea of ultimate phenomena (which is irreducible particles) as the Vaibhashikas. So there might (not sure though!) be again a mismatch in the definition of both schools. I acquired my information from

http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/en/ar ... ntika.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Hope it helps! :namaste:

_________________
Homage to the Mother of Buddhas as well as of the groups of Hearers and Bodhisattvas
which through knowledge of all leads Hearers seeking pacification to thorough peace
And which through knowledge of paths causes those helping transmigrators to achieve the welfare of the world,
And through possession of which the Subduers set forth these varieties endowed with all aspects.

- Ornament of Clear Realisation


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 11, 2014 12:57 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 6:09 am
Posts: 432
gelug and nongelug are both buddhists so they both accept the general presentation on how mental images/concepts come about from dignaga/dharmakirti. what they disagree about is particular very subtle points that in the end have big implications


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 11, 2014 1:47 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 8:31 am
Posts: 1934
Location: Sydney AU
that is a deep question, the only advice I could offer is perusal of Recognizing Reality by Georges Dreyfus:

Quote:
Dreyfus examines the central ideas of Dharmakirti, one of the most important Indian Buddhist philosophers, and their reception among Tibetan thinkers. During the golden age of ancient Indian civilization, Dharmakirti articulated and defended Buddhist philosophical principles. He did so more systematically than anyone before his time (the seventh century CE) and was followed by a rich tradition of profound thinkers in India and Tibet. This work presents a detailed picture of this Buddhist tradition and its relevance to the history of human ideas. Its perspective is mostly philosophical, but it also uses historical considerations as they relate to the evolution of ideas.


As a general observation on your question, the notion of 'ultimate phenomena' is self-contradictory, because 'phenomena' by definition are 'that which is to be explained'.

I think it is also a bit misleading to think of the Buddhist view of 'dharmas' as 'ultimate particles' insofar as these are of momentary duration, that is, they come into and pass out of existence continually. They are not like the 'ultimate particles' of atomism, which persist in time.

As to the status of concepts in Buddhist philosophy generally, Dreyfus' book considers that question here.

_________________
Learn to do good, refrain from evil, purify the mind ~ this is the teaching of the Buddhas


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 12, 2014 11:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 6:09 am
Posts: 432
Wayfarer wrote:
As a general observation on your question, the notion of 'ultimate phenomena' is self-contradictory, because 'phenomena' by definition are 'that which is to be explained'.


its not contradictory according to their usage of ultimate and conventional/deceptive

this is explained thoroughly in the good book you recommended

Quote:
I think it is also a bit misleading to think of the Buddhist view of 'dharmas' as 'ultimate particles' insofar as these are of momentary duration, that is, they come into and pass out of existence continually. They are not like the 'ultimate particles' of atomism, which persist in time.


there may be no ultimate particles but there is ultimate physical form that is not compounded, whether this is the 4 elements or whether it is an actual particle comprised of the 4 is debatable


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group