Dharma Wheel

A Buddhist discussion forum on Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism
It is currently Thu Dec 25, 2014 8:14 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Forum rules


Please click here to view the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 27 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Feb 13, 2011 5:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2010 1:40 pm
Posts: 256
Mr. Gordo warned:
Quote:
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
Quote:
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?

_________________
Just that! :-)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 13, 2011 6:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 6:36 am
Posts: 4027
Location: Spaceship Earth
Hanzze wrote:
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".

Quote:
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.

_________________
    How foolish you are,
    grasping the letter of the text and ignoring its intention!
    - Vasubandhu


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 14, 2011 1:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2010 1:40 pm
Posts: 256
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.

_________________
Just that! :-)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 14, 2011 1:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 6:36 am
Posts: 4027
Location: Spaceship Earth
Hanzze wrote:
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.

Quote:
It looks like I got Mahayana wrong


Yes, and most likely Theravada and Vajrayana as well.

_________________
    How foolish you are,
    grasping the letter of the text and ignoring its intention!
    - Vasubandhu


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 14, 2011 2:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2010 1:40 pm
Posts: 256
"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?

_________________
Just that! :-)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 14, 2011 2:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 6:36 am
Posts: 4027
Location: Spaceship Earth
Hanzze wrote:
Dear Mr. Gordo,
did the Buddha teach the higher teaching (if there is a higher or lower) in a relative way?


Are you serious?

_________________
    How foolish you are,
    grasping the letter of the text and ignoring its intention!
    - Vasubandhu


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 14, 2011 2:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2010 1:40 pm
Posts: 256
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 :hi:

_________________
Just that! :-)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 14, 2011 2:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 6:36 am
Posts: 4027
Location: Spaceship Earth
Hanzze wrote:
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.

_________________
    How foolish you are,
    grasping the letter of the text and ignoring its intention!
    - Vasubandhu


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 14, 2011 2:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2010 1:40 pm
Posts: 256
Dear Mr. Gordo,

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

Quote:
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)

_________________
Just that! :-)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 14, 2011 3:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 6:36 am
Posts: 4027
Location: Spaceship Earth
Hanzze wrote:
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.

_________________
    How foolish you are,
    grasping the letter of the text and ignoring its intention!
    - Vasubandhu


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 14, 2011 3:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2010 1:40 pm
Posts: 256
So you refer eternalism as ultimate? Seems that I really understand everything wrong.

_________________
Just that! :-)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 14, 2011 3:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 6:36 am
Posts: 4027
Location: Spaceship Earth
Hanzze wrote:
So you refer eternalism as ultimate?


No. Where did I write that?

_________________
    How foolish you are,
    grasping the letter of the text and ignoring its intention!
    - Vasubandhu


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 14, 2011 3:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2010 1:40 pm
Posts: 256
Just a conclusion again:

Quote:
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.

_________________
Just that! :-)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 14, 2011 3:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 6:36 am
Posts: 4027
Location: Spaceship Earth
Hanzze wrote:
Just a conclusion again:

Quote:
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.

_________________
    How foolish you are,
    grasping the letter of the text and ignoring its intention!
    - Vasubandhu


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 14, 2011 3:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2010 1:40 pm
Posts: 256
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?

_________________
Just that! :-)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 14, 2011 3:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 6:36 am
Posts: 4027
Location: Spaceship Earth
Hanzze wrote:
Thanks for sharing,
That would be a possibility for those how do not abstain from taking and those who like interpretations.


What?

_________________
    How foolish you are,
    grasping the letter of the text and ignoring its intention!
    - Vasubandhu


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 14, 2011 4:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2010 1:40 pm
Posts: 256
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.

_________________
Just that! :-)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 14, 2011 5:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:59 am
Posts: 3044
two extremes:

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

_________________
There is only nature and all is nature. Any discrimination is ones’ own delusion.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 15, 2011 4:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2010 1:40 pm
Posts: 256
muni wrote:
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?

_________________
Just that! :-)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 15, 2011 4:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:31 am
Posts: 1782
Hanzze wrote:
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 ...

Quote:
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


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 27 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 7 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