Naturally occuring

[Nicholas Weeks]

Nagarjuna on the nature of everything, even buddha-nature or tathagatagarbha, being sunyata:

57
Just as sweetness is the nature of molasses
And heat the nature of fire,
Likewise we maintain that
The nature of all phenomena is emptiness.
58
When one speaks of emptiness as the nature [of phenomena],
One in no sense propounds nihilism;
By the same token one does not
Propound eternalism either.

[Grigoris]

Does a field of unplowed earth have the inherent potential of corn on the cob? Does the sun have the inherent potential of corn on the cob? Does the rain have the inherent potential of corn on the cob? Does the farmer have the inherent potential of corn on the cob? Does fertilizer have the inherent potential of corn on the cob? Does seed corn have the inherent potential of corn on the cob?

No to all of them. So I guess when we "acquire" it at the market God must have created it out of nothing.

No to all of them, yes to all of them, both yes and no to all of them, neither yes nor no to all of them.

Be careful, because your stated view tends towards nihilism.

I think you'll find that Nagarjuna also spent a considerable amount of time and effort expounding teachings on the middle way as well as on emptiness. Don't ignore them!

[sangyey]

It seems like someone who has a valid cognition or at least is trying to acquire it would naturally feel a sense of compassion for those beings without valid cognition. Perhaps this is the very basis on a conventional sense to establish that love and compassion are qualities of the mind when the mind is focused on other beings.

[muni]

"If we consider all with kindheartedness, have patience, love and compassion and learn to see other beings as *pure*,
they provide us with means to achieve buddhahood.
Empty clear nature of mind' all encompassing compassion is naturally".
Shechen Rabjam Rinpoche.

[ground]

It seems like someone who has a valid cognition or at least is trying to acquire it would naturally feel a sense of compassion for those beings without valid cognition. Perhaps this is the very basis on a conventional sense to establish that love and compassion are qualities of the mind when the mind is focused on other beings.

This valid cognition should be valid with reference to the mind of others so someone who is "at least is trying to acquire it" would lack the basis for compassion to arise.

However if you define valid cognition in a way that includes knowledge of scripture then you can argue that because scripture says so you practice and foster compassion.

It is more consistent to say that compassion arises due to two reasons:
1. observation of suffering that is even known as "suffering" "in the world" (worldly suffering)
2. projection of one's own suffering onto others. If one would not know "suffering" through one's own experience then one could not assume "suffering of others" because one would not know what "suffering" means.


Kind regards

[Grigoris]

It is more consistent to say that compassion arises due to two reasons:
1. observation of suffering that is even known as "suffering" "in the world" (worldly suffering)
2. projection of one's own suffering onto others. If one would not know "suffering" through one's own experience then one could not assume "suffering of others" because one would not know what "suffering" means.

Essentially there are three categories of suffering: 1. the suffering of suffering (dukha-dukha) ie the suffering of pain, death, birth, sickness, sorrow, etc... 2. the suffering of change (viparinama-dukha) ie the suffering that occurs when one goes from a pleasant sensation to a neutral or painful sensation or more generally the suffering that arises because we cling to situation as if they are permanent when in fact they are impermanent. 3. all pervasive suffering (sankhara-dukha) which is the suffering that arises as a consequence of our cling to the five aggregates as though they are a truly existing self.

Due to the fact that we have been born, died and reborn countless times, chances are that we have experienced all forms of suffering (this goes for all sentient beings of course) so there is no reason to "project" anything on anyone anywhere. (On the contrary) In Tonglen practice, the practitoners first task is to "get in touch" (yes, it does sound new-age) with their own suffering and use this as the basis through which they understand that all sentient beings suffer in exactly the same manner (apparently they do). On that basis they then try to train their mind with the thought that: "all beings, like me, are suffering and wish to be free of their suffering, I will be the medium through which all beings overcome their suffering". The emphasis is on the "all" as we do not want to discriminate between beings we like and those we dislike. The practitioner then tries to take in all the suffering of all sentient beings and transform it, through the "power" of wisdom, into its opposite: the joy that is beyond the extremes of aversion and attraction.

This is all, of course, at the relative "worldly" level since that is the level that we are currently able to perceive/conceive of.

SN 38.14
Dukkha Sutta: Stress

translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu

On one occasion Ven. Sariputta was staying in Magadha in Nalaka Village. Then Jambukhadika the wanderer went to Ven. Sariputta and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. After this exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to Ven. Sariputta: "'Stress, stress,' it is said, my friend Sariputta. Which type of stress [are they referring to]?"

"There are these three forms of stressfulness, my friend: the stressfulness of pain, the stressfulness of fabrication, the stressfulness of change. These are the three forms of stressfulness."

"But is there a path, is there a practice for the full comprehension of these forms of stressfulness?"

"Yes, there is a path, there is a practice for the full comprehension of these forms of stressfulness."

"Then what is the path, what is the practice for the full comprehension of these forms of stressfulness?"

"Precisely this Noble Eightfold Path, my friend — right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration. This is the path, this is the practice for the full comprehension of these forms of stressfulness."

"It's an auspicious path, my friend, an auspicious practice for the full comprehension of these forms of stressfulness — enough for the sake of heedfulness."

[Malcolm]

However if you define valid cognition in a way that includes knowledge of scripture then you can argue that because scripture says so you practice and foster compassion.

There are three pramanas (authorities aka valid cognitions) in Buddhism: direct perception of a non-defective sense organ; inference based on such direct perceptions; testimony of reliable witnesses, such as āryas.

N

[ground]

However if you define valid cognition in a way that includes knowledge of scripture then you can argue that because scripture says so you practice and foster compassion.

There are three pramanas (authorities aka valid cognitions) in Buddhism: direct perception of a non-defective sense organ; inference based on such direct perceptions; testimony of reliable witnesses, such as āryas.

N

Listen "there are ... in buddhism ..." is invalid phrasing. There is however a convention in buddhism that says so. And one may agree to "testimony of reliable witnesses" being valid cogniition or not and the question also is "what is a "reliable witness"?" and "is scripture the same? "
And that is exactly the meaning of my words "if you define ... then ..."
Conditional statement: "If (condition) then (consequence)"

Kind regards

[Malcolm]

Listen "there are ... in buddhism ..." is invalid phrasing.
Kind regards

Don't be silly.

[Malcolm]

And one may agree to "testimony of reliable witnesses" being valid cogniition or not and the question also is "what is a "reliable witness"?" and "is scripture the same? "

If you accept a given text represents the words of the Buddha, then you may accept it as an authority.

Of course, this only functions for Buddhists. Non-Buddhists will never regard Buddhist texts as authorities.

[ground]

Listen "there are ... in buddhism ..." is invalid phrasing.
Kind regards

Don't be silly.

There is a variety of views within buddhism. You know that.

Kind regards

[Malcolm]

Listen "there are ... in buddhism ..." is invalid phrasing.
Kind regards

Don't be silly.

There is a variety of views within buddhism. You know that.

Kind regards

That the testimony of reliable witnesses is accepted even in the Pali Canon can be ascertained in the Pubbakotthaka Sutta.

I know of no Buddhist school that rejects this third pramana.

Further, of the two remaining pramanas, only materialists reject inference as pramana.

Sadly, there is a disturbing and pernicious trend in modern Buddhism which is taking a crypto-materialist approach by abandoning inference and testimony as pramanas.

N

[ground]

I know of no Buddhist school that rejects this third pramana.

If you refer to Buddha Shakyamuni exclusively then you may be right. However since there is no tape recording and not all scriptures are generally accepted or interpreted the same way. Considering this this pramana is not worth much.
But then you also have to add that the other two pramanas are not necessarily accepted by all schools in addition to that one as equaly valid

So it again boils down to one of many conventions being accepted or not.

kind regards

[Malcolm]

I know of no Buddhist school that rejects this third pramana.

If you refer to Buddha Shakyamuni exclusively then you may be right. However since there is no tape recording and not all scriptures are generally accepted or interpreted the same way. Considering this this pramana is not worth much.
But then you also have to add that the other two pramanas are not necessarily accepted by all schools in addition to that one as equaly valid

So it again boils down to one of many conventions being accepted or not.

kind regards

This sutta is shared by all canons of early buddhists.

You misunderstood -- all Buddhist schools accept three pramanas. They may disagree about what texts can be considered Buddhavacana, but they all accept sutras as authorities.

There are certain Buddhists, who recognizing that non-Buddhists will not accept vacana as authorities try to the prove the buddha is authority through direct perception and inference so that they will accept vacana as an authority. These scholars themselves accept vacana as an authority.

The third category are the non-Buddhist lokayatis, materialists. Materialist views have begun to make inroads into Buddhism; for example insisting that direct perception along is valid. You seem to follow the latter line of thinking.

N

[Tom]

I know of no Buddhist school that rejects this third pramana.

I thought for Buddhist there are only two means of knowledge: perception and inference. That actually testimony is not a third means of knowledge but a type of inference. This is in contrast to the non-Buddhist school, Nyaya which claims four means of knowledge and includes testimony as one of the four.

I would be happy to be corrected on this if I am incorrect.

Cheers.

[ground]

I know of no Buddhist school that rejects this third pramana.

If you refer to Buddha Shakyamuni exclusively then you may be right. However since there is no tape recording and not all scriptures are generally accepted or interpreted the same way. Considering this this pramana is not worth much.
But then you also have to add that the other two pramanas are not necessarily accepted by all schools in addition to that one as equaly valid

So it again boils down to one of many conventions being accepted or not.

kind regards

This sutta is shared by all canons of early buddhists.

You misunderstood -- all Buddhist schools accept three pramanas. They may disagree about what texts can be considered Buddhavacana, but they all accept sutras as authorities.

Still this is only one of three pramanas.

Materialist views have begun to make inroads into Buddhism; for example insisting that direct perception along is valid. You seem to follow the latter line of thinking.

Huh?
I follow the buddha who says that experience is decisive.

Kind regards

[Grigoris]

Yet when qusetioned about your meditative experience you are anything but decisive in answering.

[Malcolm]

Still this is only one of three pramanas.

Then you accept that testimony is a pramana, as you stated below:

Materialist views have begun to make inroads into Buddhism; for example insisting that direct perception alone is valid. You seem to follow the latter line of thinking.

Huh?
I follow the buddha who says that experience is decisive.

And whose experience? An ordinary deluded persons experience? Is the direct perception of ordinary persons to be trusted? Knowing that you possess the three afflictions, how certain are you that your direct perceptions are to be trusted, since you never experience them directly. All direct perceptions are non-conceptual, uninterpreted; all so called "experience" is conceptual, interpreted. In order for a direct perception to be experienced there must be a reflexive awareness capable of recognizing that direct perception and framing it as an experience, for example, pleasant, unpleasant, neutral and so on. Why? Because direct perceptions are not self-reflexive. They are not aware that they are cognitions. We can know this because we have direct perceptions of many things in our visual field, for example, which we do not notice. We either process them out or cannot recognize them. Thus they are not part of our "experience". Experience is conceptual. And for ordinary persons, afflicted. So I would hesitate before declaring that the Buddha claims experience is decisive. Decisive for whom is the question. Experience is certainly not decisive for ordinary persons. If it were, than there would be no need for a path.

N

[ground]

Still this is only one of three pramanas.

Then you accept that testimony is a pramana, as you stated below:

As far as I am concerned: Not per se accepted but only if confirmed by experience.

Huh?
I follow the buddha who says that experience is decisive.

And whose experience? An ordinary deluded persons experience? Is the direct perception of ordinary persons to be trusted?

Kalama sutra says: Own experience has to validate what "the wise" say. No validity per se.

Kind regards

[Malcolm]

Kalama sutra says: Own experience has to validate what "the wise" say. No validity per se.

Have you validated what the Buddha was taught?