Will samsara be emptied?

[ground]

We might be seeing things from within different lineages (or so I suspect), so rather than enter an endless and pointless debate with you, I would like to present you with an alternative perspective for what it's worth, which is also an authentic Mahayana perspective.

No these have been my thoughts. I do not follow a specific lineage, but I am very familiar with the view and lineage you are referring to.

I am neither interested in debate, because what is faith and/or belief does not qualify for debate.

I think all that needs to be said about Mahayana can be summarized with the words of Atisha: "Renounce the world and cultivate bodhicitta."

The philosophical views you are referring to are not necessarily required for that although your tradition wants it to be so.


Kind regards

[sukhamanveti]

We might be seeing things from within different lineages (or so I suspect), so rather than enter an endless and pointless debate with you, I would like to present you with an alternative perspective for what it's worth, which is also an authentic Mahayana perspective.

No these have been my thoughts. I do not follow a specific lineage, but I am very familiar with the view and lineage you are referring to.

I am neither interested in debate, because what is faith and/or belief does not qualify for debate.

I think all that needs to be said about Mahayana can be summarized with the words of Atisha: "Renounce the world and cultivate bodhicitta."

The philosophical views you are referring to are not necessarily required for that although your tradition wants it to be so.


Kind regards

I think that the views of the Geluk lineage are necessary for Gelukpas. I did not mean to imply that everyone should be a Gelukpa. If I came across that way, then I apologize. My basic attitude toward the various traditions is influenced by the Ri-me teaching of Jamgon Kongtrul the Great: if you understand the intention behind a viewpoint within another lineage, there is no conflict between that and a different viewpoint within your own lineage. Each viewpoint has a purpose and works within its respective lineage. Jamgon Kongtrul was able to assume very different perspectives within different practice contexts without a problem, because he saw the intentions behind them (and because he was a spiritual genius). Ringu Tulku explains this in the wonderful book The Ri-me Philosophy of Jamgon Kongtrul the Great. (BTW some think that Ri-me is about trying to master everything and not going far within any particular tradition. This is not so. "Followers of the Ri-me approach almost always follow one lineage for their main practice.")


If your perspective helps you within the context of your practice, then I think that is great.

[ground]

I think that the views of the Geluk lineage are necessary for Gelukpas.

Yes if one feels the need for this identification and if it helps within the context of one's practice, then this is acceptable. I would not call it "great" since I do not think that attachment is "great".

My basic attitude toward the various traditions is influenced by the Ri-me teaching of Jamgon Kongtrul the Great: if you understand the intention behind a viewpoint within another lineage, there is no conflict between that and a different viewpoint within your own lineage. Each viewpoint has a purpose and works within its respective lineage.

This is fine if it is so. However over the years I have excperienced that attachment to views is the main effect of all tibetan philosophical teachings. From that sectarianism often arises and a lack of respect for those who do not hold the same view. It is not rare that even lineage holders of other sects are ridiculed based on misconstrueing their view etc etc.
All this is caused by philosophical views engaging in thoughts about "existence" and "non-existence" and speculation. Neither thoughts about "existence" and "non-existence" nor speculation do comply with what the Buddha has taught.


Kind regards

[sukhamanveti]

I think that the views of the Geluk lineage are necessary for Gelukpas.

Yes if one feels the need for this identification and if it helps within the context of one's practice, then this is acceptable. I would not call it "great" since I do not think that attachment is "great".

My basic attitude toward the various traditions is influenced by the Ri-me teaching of Jamgon Kongtrul the Great: if you understand the intention behind a viewpoint within another lineage, there is no conflict between that and a different viewpoint within your own lineage. Each viewpoint has a purpose and works within its respective lineage.

This is fine if it is so. However over the years I have excperienced that attachment to views is the main effect of all tibetan philosophical teachings. From that sectarianism often arises and a lack of respect for those who do not hold the same view. It is not rare that even lineage holders of other sects are ridiculed based on misconstrueing their view etc etc.
All this is caused by philosophical views engaging in thoughts about "existence" and "non-existence" and speculation. Neither thoughts about "existence" and "non-existence" nor speculation do comply with what the Buddha has taught.


Kind regards

> I would not call it "great" since I do not think that attachment is "great".



I'm not sure what you are getting at. Are you saying that identifying oneself as something is attachment or belonging to a lineage or holding the perspective of a lineage (on the basis of spiritual pragmatism) or something else? I think that one need not be attached to do any of those things.



> However over the years I have excperienced that attachment to views is the main effect of all tibetan philosophical teachings. From that sectarianism
> often arises and a lack of respect for those who do not hold the same view.



I understand that attachment to views and sectarianism exist in Buddhism. Most of us are unenlightened after all (or at least I am). But I also know that the heads of the main lineages of Tibetan Buddhism are all Ri-me lamas with an appreciation for and interest in the other traditions, despite being learned in their own respective lineages (or rather because of it). Moreover, many revered Tibetan lamas of the past practiced more than one lineage: Tsele Natsok Rangdrol (17th century) practiced Kagyu and Nyingma, Shabkar (19th century), whose principal lineage was Nyingma, learned from masters of all lineages, Dodrupchen Jigme Tenpe Nyima (19th & 20th century) practiced Nyingma and Gelug, etc. In Tibetan Buddhism I think that a deeper understanding of one's lineage leads to nonsectarianism, even when one is focused on one's own tradition. In fact lamas often teach that sectarianism prevents the proper practice of one's own lineage. Many lamas who are not Nyingmapas revere Guru Rinpoche. Many lamas who are not Sakyapas are fond of quoting Sakya Pandita. Yes, sectarianism exists, but there is another side to the story.

[ground]

Yes, sectarianism exists, but there is another side to the story.

But with the arising of the "right view" taught by the Buddha, sectarianism cannot arise. That's the difference between "right view" and "philosophical views".

Kind regards

[sukhamanveti]

Yes, sectarianism exists, but there is another side to the story.

But with the arising of the "right view" taught by the Buddha, sectarianism cannot arise. That's the difference between "right view" and "philosophical views".

Kind regards

Buddhist philosophies are tools that can be misused like anything else in Buddhism, but they are primarily about practice not speculation. The practice of Abhidharma leads to dissolving one's sense of Self and one's clinging to the aggregates. Madhyamaka is a tool for undercutting the reification of concepts and the resultant clinging, paving the way for the realization emptiness. It is the basis for analytical, investigative meditation which leads to the realization of emptiness. Yogacara ("the practice of yoga"), which includes meditation connected to the philosophy, leads to the realization of the absence of any fixed, enduring entities and then, finally, to the experience of nonduality without any distinction between the perceiver and the perceived, a flow of experience stripped of all conceptualization. As in the other systems, there is ultimately nothing to cling to here. All of these systems serve a purpose on the path to enlightenment. Properly used, they lead away from clinging, discontent, self-centeredness and the like. When we forget what they are, however, and treat them as conceptual ends in themselves and objects of clinging rather than means to an end or when we use them for self-aggrandizement, we turn them into instruments of further entanglement in samsara. The fault is not in the philosophies. The fault lies in the misuse of the philosophies.

[ground]

Yes, sectarianism exists, but there is another side to the story.

But with the arising of the "right view" taught by the Buddha, sectarianism cannot arise. That's the difference between "right view" and "philosophical views".

Kind regards

Buddhist philosophies are tools ... ... The fault is not in the philosophies. The fault lies in the misuse of the philosophies.

No. Buddhist philosophies are distractions and thought proliferations, speculations about "existence" and "non-existence" which the Buddha rejected.

Kind regards

[sukhamanveti]

No. Buddhist philosophies are distractions and thought proliferations, speculations about "existence" and "non-existence" which the Buddha rejected.

I think you may have misunderstood the point about the middle way of expressing the truth (majjhena dhammadesana) between the extremes of existence and non-existence in early Buddhism. In the Pali Canon the Buddha explicitly identifies this teaching as the twelve links of dependent origination. These excerpts are from the Kaccanagotta Discourse in the Samyutta Nikaya, as translated by Bhikkhu Bodhi:


"This world, Kaccana, for the most part depends on a duality--upon the notion of existence and the notion of nonexistence. But for one who sees the origin of the world as it really is with correct wisdom, there is no notion of nonexistence in regard to the world. And for one who sees the cessation of the world as it really is with correct wisdom, there is no notion of existence in regard to the world.'


"This world, Kaccana, is for the most part shackled by engagement, clinging, and adherence. But this one [with right view] does not become engaged and cling through that engagement... he does not take a stand about 'my self.' He has no perplexity or doubt that what arises is only suffering arising, what ceases is only suffering ceasing...


""'All exists': Kaccana, this is one extreme. 'All does not exist': this is the second extreme. Without veering towards either of these extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma by the middle: 'With ignorance as condition, volitional formations [come to be]; with volitional formations as condition, consciousness.... Such is the origin of the whole mass of suffering..."


Nagarjuna refers to a Sanskrit version of this discourse at MMK XV.7. What he teaches is the same teaching.

[ground]

No. Buddhist philosophies are distractions and thought proliferations, speculations about "existence" and "non-existence" which the Buddha rejected.

I think you may have misunderstood the point about the middle way of expressing the truth (majjhena dhammadesana) between the extremes of existence and non-existence in early Buddhism.

But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

Whoever has understood correctly does not harbor thoughts of "existence" or "non-existence". The philosophers however are unable to refrain from exactly these thoughts.

But lets leave it at this and agree that we do not agree. I have experienced it too often in discussions with all sorts of so-called "madhyamakas" that attachment to philosophical views - especially if taugh by their lineage - cannot be severed.


Kind regards

[ground]

In this, his knowledge is independent of others. It's to this extent, Kaccayana, that there is right view.

And what is this so-called "right view"?

This is it:

...the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle: From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications. From fabrications as a requisite condition comes consciousness. From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form. From name-&-form as a requisite condition come the six sense media. From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering.

Kind regards

[Rael]

One must realize the emptiness of emptiness to fully understand the construct of the redundant conventionalist view ....

[ground]

One must realize the emptiness of emptiness to fully understand the construct of the redundant conventionalist view ....

This is what philosophers want to make others believe. However, one just has to practice the path taught by the buddha and discard what these philosophers are saying.

Kind regards

[ground]

So for some it may appear as if I am rejecting the Mahayana. Why may this appear that way if it appears that way? It is simply due to attachment to philosophical views deeply ingrained and continuously advocated by many in the sphere of Mahayana.
If one equates Mahayana with philosophical views then there cannot be Mahayana without philosophical views. But if one equates Mahayana with bodhicitta then philosophical views may be abandoned.

Kind regards

[Rael]

What if it takes both due to reliance on the conventional

you still have to wait for the food to come up the mountain...

you still have to deal with the fear in the times when the path ripens....

[ground]

What if it takes both due to reliance on the conventional

you still have to wait for the food to come up the mountain...

you still have to deal with the fear in the times when the path ripens....

I certainly do not negate a "conventional", but who's "conventional" are you referring to? There are so many "conventionals".

There is food and fear if there are the causes and conditiones for them to arise.

Kind regards

[sukhamanveti]

In this, his knowledge is independent of others. It's to this extent, Kaccayana, that there is right view.

And what is this so-called "right view"?

This is it:

...the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle: From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications. From fabrications as a requisite condition comes consciousness. From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form. From name-&-form as a requisite condition come the six sense media. From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering.

I sincerely do not understand why you are quoting this to me. This is precisely my point. As I said above, when I quoted the same passage, "In the Pali Canon the Buddha explicitly identifies this teaching as the twelve links of dependent origination." This quotation is where he does it. Ignorance and so forth are the twelve links of dependent origination. What lies between absolute existence and absolute nonexistence, between the false views of "eternalism" (Pali sassatavada) and "annihilationism" (Pali ucchedavada), is dependent arising, relative existence. This is also Nagarjuna's point. This very discourse (a Sanskrit version actually) is one of the principal sources of Nagarjuna's method: "The Victorious One, through knowledge Of reality and unreality, In the Discourse to Katyayana, Refuted both 'it is' and 'it is not.'" MMK XV.7 (Incidentally, there are at least six teachings that the Buddha explicitly identifies as Right View in the Pali scriptures. Dependent Arising is not the only one.)


If you are interpreting this to mean simply that the Buddha refused to say that anything exists or does not exist, this is demonstrably false. The Buddha did speak of things that he said did or did not exist on more than one occasion. For example, in the Khandhasamyutta of the Samyutta Nikaya in the second division of fifty there is the Puppha Sutta or "Flower Discourse." Bhikkhu Bodhi gives the title as "Flowers." (This is on p. 949 in BB's translation.) In it the Buddha says:


"Of that which the wise in the world agree upon as not existing, I too say that it does not exist. And of that which the wise in the world agree upon as existing, I too say that it exists.


"And what is it, bhikkhus, that the wise in the world agree upon as not existing, of which I too say that it does not exist? Form that is permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change... Feeling... Perception... Volitional formations... Consciousness that is permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change..." (He goes on to say that impermanent aggregates do exist.)


By your own interpretation (if I understand you correctly) the Buddha would seem to be a speculative philosopher here and one should not listen to him.

[Rael]

If you are interpreting this to mean simply that the Buddha refused to say that anything exists or does not exist, this is demonstrably false. The Buddha did speak of things that he said did or did not exist on more than one occasion. For example, in the Khandhasamyutta of the Samyutta Nikaya in the second division of fifty there is the Puppha Sutta or "Flower Discourse." Bhikkhu Bodhi gives the title as "Flowers." (This is on p. 949 in BB's translation.) In it the Buddha says:


"Of that which the wise in the world agree upon as not existing, I too say that it does not exist. And of that which the wise in the world agree upon as existing, I too say that it exists.


"And what is it, bhikkhus, that the wise in the world agree upon as not existing, of which I too say that it does not exist? Form that is permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change... Feeling... Perception... Volitional formations... Consciousness that is permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change..." (He goes on to say that impermanent aggregates do exist.)

I agree with you and you did it quite nicely..works for me..


Buddha explained this marvel of emptiness , when one grasps it intellectually you end up with a view of the world in which you "EXIST" ....

Teaching the nature of the illusion is not meant for one to say and come to the conclusion that we don't exist....

And it is vital during the completion stage practice to have a correct view....for a reason....hence my fear comment...and the mundane food being brought to one comment...

[ground]

By your own interpretation (if I understand you correctly) the Buddha would seem to be a speculative philosopher here and one should not listen to him.

Not necessarily because he does not reason about "existence" but restricts the application of existence to the scope of valid direct experience.

The philosophers however introduce speculation in that they reason about e.g. so called "ultimate" and so called "conventional" existence, put the experiential aspect aside and completely delve into the realm of mere thought.

The Buddha did not generate theories about existence.


Kind regards

[Rael]

Not necessarily because he does not reason about "existence" but restricts the application of existence to the scope of valid direct experience.

The philosophers however introduce speculation in that they reason about e.g. so called "ultimate" and so called "conventional" existence, put the experiential aspect aside and completely delve into the realm of mere thought.

The Buddha did not generate theories about existence.


Kind regards

Not necessarily because he does not reason about "existence" but restricts the application of existence to the scope of valid direct experience.

not so at all...thats your interpretation of the teachings.

The philosophers however introduce speculation in that they reason about e.g. so called "ultimate" and so called "conventional" existence, put the experiential aspect aside and completely delve into the realm of mere thought.

You have completely stopped talking about the Buddha's teachings here ,and the Masters abilities to allow the student to perceive the teachings.

sounds like you have a gripe though....

The Buddha did not generate theories about existence.

The Buddha's goal is to improve one's awareness of existence, your place in it, and what you actually are doing when you act in it....and the consequence of your actions....


i find you griping about something, and I don't think you know what has you griping .....lol....

your not comfortable with the teachings.
you have not fully experienced Sunyata and it has you in quandary....

[ground]

not so at all...thats your interpretation of the teachings.
...
You have completely stopped talking about the Buddha's teachings here ,and the Masters abilities to allow the student to perceive the teachings.

See it is just sort of "natural" that there is no agreement with those attached to philosophical views.

The Buddha's goal is to improve one's awareness of existence, your place in it.

No. It is just teaching the 8fold noble path.

you have not fully experienced Sunyata and it has you in quandary....

How could something that is mere thought be experienced? It may be experienced as a thought, okay ... but that's it.

Kind regards