Mahayana ultimative or relative?

[Hanzze]

Mr. Gordo warned:

If you forget the relative, you may step out into the street and get hit by car that lacks inherent self-existence.

as for to be

attached to the ultimate

It actually could really easy happen:



But is it really a question of Ultimate or just a danger of a kind of ignorance.

I thought the Mahayana way is the way of the ultimate, to get not into the danger of relativity which always would have its counterparts and makes one stick in right and wrong.

Did I get it wrong?

[Mr. G]

But is it really a question of Ultimate or just a danger of a kind of ignorance.

It's a question of having "Right View".

I thought the Mahayana way is the way of the ultimate, to get not into the danger of relativity which always would have its counterparts and makes one stick in right and wrong.

Did I get it wrong?

Yes, you did get it wrong. Madhyamaka is the rejection of nihilism and eternalism.

[Hanzze]

Ohh this "right" view, would there be any more struggle if we would understand that ultimate has neither right nor wrong. It looks like I got Mahayana wrong.

[Mr. G]

Ohh this "right" view, would there be any more struggle if we would understand that ultimate has neither right nor wrong.

If you've acquired a level of attainment yes. If not, then no.

It looks like I got Mahayana wrong

Yes, and most likely Theravada and Vajrayana as well.

[Hanzze]

"If you've acquired a level of attainment yes. If not, then no."

Dear Mr. Gordo,
did the Buddha teach the higher teaching (if there is a higher or lower) in a relative way? Are there any disciples of the Buddha, how where taught in a relative way - are there some Mahayana Sutras (which could be refered to "by the Buddha taught") which are relative?

Or does it simply mean, if there is no level of attainment, it makes no sense to walk this way?

[Mr. G]

Dear Mr. Gordo,
did the Buddha teach the higher teaching (if there is a higher or lower) in a relative way?

Are you serious?

[Hanzze]

The cause of the OP was your statement (better to stay relative...), and I still try to find out if I do understand something wrong. And I am no and never serious, I dont like to lose my beautiful image

[Mr. G]

The cause of the OP was your statement (better to stay relative)

I never said that. Take the time to re-read what I wrote.

[Hanzze]

Dear Mr. Gordo,

Actually you are right, that was just a conclusion of mine (might it be relative)

You are conflating the ultimate with the relative, and seem attached to the ultimate. If you forget the relative, you may step out into the street and get hit by car that lacks inherent self-existence.

which was originated in "Racism in Buddhism"

Looks like I am caught in a loop. Maybe I don't have the view.

But we still have no answers to to questions in the original topic post (from a relative view)

[Mr. G]

But we still have no answers to to questions in the original topic post (from a relative view)

I gave a simple answer here:

viewtopic.php?f=77&t=3300&p=26859#p26758

I think you need to clarify more on your thoughts.

[Hanzze]

So you refer eternalism as ultimate? Seems that I really understand everything wrong.

[Mr. G]

So you refer eternalism as ultimate?

No. Where did I write that?

[Hanzze]

Just a conclusion again:

I thought the Mahayana way is the way of the ultimate, to get not into the danger of relativity which always would have its counterparts and makes one stick in right and wrong.

Did I get it wrong?

your answer: "Yes, you did get it wrong. Madhyamaka is the rejection of nihilism and eternalism."

I could not create the idea that Ultimate is a kind of nihilism, or does you answer have a total different meaning and is maybe off topic.

[Mr. G]

Just a conclusion again:

I thought the Mahayana way is the way of the ultimate, to get not into the danger of relativity which always would have its counterparts and makes one stick in right and wrong.

Did I get it wrong?

your answer: "Yes, you did get it wrong. Madhyamaka is the rejection of nihilism and eternalism."

I could not create the idea that Ultimate is a kind of nihilism, or does you answer have a total different meaning and is maybe off topic.

Read Mahayana Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations by Paul Willams (2nd Ed). His third chapter clarifies alot.

[Hanzze]

Thanks for sharing,
That would be a possibility for those how do not abstain from taking and those who like interpretations. What do you mean to the questions of the original post? Or is there a vow to abstain from freely giving?

[Mr. G]

Thanks for sharing,
That would be a possibility for those how do not abstain from taking and those who like interpretations.

What?

[Hanzze]

I read your wonderful signation: "If you are attached to your own purpose, you do not have bodhicitta, the thought of enlightenment" and thought it might be unwholesome to take what is not given.

[muni]

two extremes:

Things are permanent, independent of their parts, and independent of our labelling.
Things do not exist at all (nihilism).

[Hanzze]

two extremes:

Things are permanent, independent of their parts, and independent of our labelling.
Things do not exist at all (nihilism).

Muni, what do you think: Mahayana is the a path of involvement in a ultimate way or the path of involvement in a relative way. Or does it not seek any middle? Maybe there is no ultimate middle?

[ground]

Mahayana is the a path of involvement in a ultimate way or the path of involvement in a relative way. Or does it not seek any middle? Maybe there is no ultimate middle?

Whatever "Mahayana" arises in your mind ...

Therefore then, Subhuti, the Bodhi-being, the great being, after he has got rid of all
perceptions, should raise his thought to the utmost, right and perfect enlightenment. He should produce a thought which is unsupported by forms, sounds, smells, tastes, touchables, or mindobjects, unsupported by dharma, unsupported by no-dharma, unsupported by anything. And why? All supports have actually no support.

The Diamond Sutra (by Edward Conze)

Kind regards