Non affirming negation

Moderator: Tibetan Buddhism moderators

Re: Non affirming negation

Postby Pema Rigdzin » Sun Feb 28, 2010 9:08 am

Dexing wrote:How many different explanations of that have we heard?? At the end, everyone still says form is always objective reality, only...

I'm not sure if you meant to say objective reality. I'm assuming you meant conventional or relative reality. In any case, Mahayana doctrine states that buddhas perceive both conventional and ultimate reality simultaneously. They know the true nature of all phenomena and all knowable things at once. When we explain conventional and ultimate reality, we have to split them up and explain them separately because it is beyond the capacity of the conceptual mind to know their inseparability, as it is. This can be "known" by non-dual, non-conceptual primordial wisdom only. So, in fact, this "ultimate truth" we speak of by separating conventional and ultimate to explain the two is really only an "approximate ultimate," which some masters do call it, and the non-conceptual inseparability of conventional and ultimate is the "actual ultimate truth."

Dexing wrote:But here is what the Shurangama Sutra has to say on the Form Skandha;

Shurangama Sutra: Chapter 2 wrote:Ananda, suppose a person with clear vision were to gaze at clear bright space. His gaze would perceive only clear emptiness devoid of anything else. Then if that person for no particular reason fixed his gaze, the staring would cause fatigue. Thus in empty space he would see illusory flowers and other illusory and disordered unreal appearances. You should be aware that the form skandha is like that.


This is the proper understanding of "form is emptiness, emptiness is form".

Pema Rigdzin wrote:One one will certainly not find any truly existing, immutable particles, much less clay or cups.


I would pay more attention to this statement, in light of the above.

:namaste:

This isn't saying anything different than what I said. The forms clearly appear, but they do not truly exist by their own power. Therefore they are emptiness. The fact that forms do appear means emptiness is form. In the same way, sounds are clearly heard, but cannot be found to be existing from their own side. Therefore they are emptiness. It can't be denied that they are heard though, so emptiness is sound.

The last comment of mine that you quoted doesn't contradict the Shurangama sutra at all. I simply said that no truly existing particles, truly existing clay, or truly existing cups will be found through analysis aimed at the ultimate.
Pema Rigdzin
 
Posts: 1030
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 3:19 am
Location: Southern Oregon

Re: Non affirming negation

Postby Dexing » Sun Feb 28, 2010 1:20 pm

Yes, I did mean to say objective reality, as in existing externally, independent of consciousness. The Sutras are very clear about that, but still people like to interpret it as still existing externally nonetheless.

I separated your last sentence from the rest, because they seem a little different. That's why catmoon thinks you're both talking about the same thing. Because for the majority of your post you were just negating the concept of a cup, but not matter/ form skandha itself.

:namaste:
nopalabhyate...
User avatar
Dexing
 
Posts: 417
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 4:41 am

Re: Non affirming negation

Postby Pema Rigdzin » Sun Feb 28, 2010 8:38 pm

Dexing wrote:Yes, I did mean to say objective reality, as in existing externally, independent of consciousness. The Sutras are very clear about that, but still people like to interpret it as still existing externally nonetheless.

I separated your last sentence from the rest, because they seem a little different. That's why catmoon thinks you're both talking about the same thing. Because for the majority of your post you were just negating the concept of a cup, but not matter/ form skandha itself.

:namaste:


Oh, I see. Yes, the form skandha is likewise negated on the ultimate level. I just wanted to negate the cup first and see if I could help Catmoon understand that first, and then move on to negating form matter itself. I think I got distracted by the goings on in my personal life and lost sight of needing to do that second part.

So, yes, to sum things up, we've shown how there's no ultimate cupness, and next we have to show that matter, or form, itself is not ultimately real, only conventionally appearing. I'm at work at present and don't have the time to properly attend to that, but I'll try to get to it as soon as I can.
Pema Rigdzin
 
Posts: 1030
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 3:19 am
Location: Southern Oregon

Re: Non affirming negation

Postby Pema Rigdzin » Sun Feb 28, 2010 11:06 pm

catmoon wrote:One thing seems clear to me though. And it isn't going to be popular. If you apply the standard tests of valid cognition to Chenrezig, that cognition will fail every single test, as has been pointed out already.
Now this doesn't mean we have to throw out tantra, or that the Chenrezig idea isn't useful, wonderful or beautiful. But putting faith in Chenrezig violates all the precepts of valid cognition and creates a de facto God (in the Christian sense) right in the middle of Buddhism, which is an avowedly atheistic system of thought. Ok, that's putting it too strongly. But it is a danger.

It seems to me that a more valid object of faith for a Buddhist would be faith in the validity of the Buddha's teachings and methods. Even then, that faith, and we all know we have been warned about this, should not be blind. It should be faith based on careful examination and understanding.

What kind of faith is this? This is the faith that says, Buddha taught X. I don't know if X is true or not. However, Buddha also taught A,B, and C, which I have examined, thought about, meditated on and found to be demonstrably true. Now, I am NOT going to believe X on this basis, but because of cases A,B and C, I will put in the time and effort required to verify X as well. Why am I willing to put in so much effort? Because I have faith in my teacher, firmly grounded in previously verified teachings, so I think the effort is likely to bear fruit.


As I stated earlier on, valid/invalid cognition is something that pertains to conventional reality, the way an ordinary Joe perceives it. It is to distinguish conventionally real things from conventionally unreal things, i.e. cups vs rabbit horns. One doesn't need to argue the emptiness of rabbit horns because they don't exist in any way, while cups exist conventionally. Ordinary beings cannot perceive the sambhogakaya realm, only arya bodhisattvas and buddhas can, so it is outside the scope of the valid or invalid cognition argument, which again is analysis of ordinary perception. Establishing whether sambhogakaya deities or the dharmakaya of one's own mind correspond to reality and aren't just imaginary falls into the experiment you mention in the last paragraph of your above quote. Like the actual taste of sugar, those things must be directly experienced for oneself. There is much reason to have faith in the truth of the sambhogakaya and dharmakaya, but knowing their reality has to be something direct. Knowing emptiness of phenomena has to be direct to be liberating, but knowing it is fact can be known through reason, without a doubt.

Faith in Chenrezig and other buddhas certainly does not create a "God" in Buddhism. No system of Buddhist thought says that there's a "Creator" of this or any universe or being within them, or any being that controls the laws of Physics or metes out punishment or reward. Buddhist tantra certainly rejects these ideas and nothing is ascribed to Chenrezig that's not ascribed to our individual true nature, which is why practicing on him properly will lead one to discover one's own true nature. He is just said to have cleared away all emotional and knowledge obscurations and revealed the splendor of what we each are when not obscured. Simply put, he is freed into knowing and we are mired in unknowing.
Pema Rigdzin
 
Posts: 1030
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 3:19 am
Location: Southern Oregon

Re: Non affirming negation

Postby Sonam Wangchug » Mon Mar 01, 2010 7:19 am

A cup could be smashed into your face when you are sleeping, waking you up, and also gashing you up. The same would not occur with a unicorn.

Also it was stated if you just say nothing exists that is Nihilism therefore something must exist.

The way it works it that things are dependently arisen appearance, therefore things are not 'real' but you cannot deny the fact that there is an appearance either. Like a reflection in a mirror, brought about due to causes and conditions.
Sonam Wangchug
 
Posts: 47
Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 8:26 pm

Re: Non affirming negation

Postby catmoon » Mon Mar 01, 2010 1:39 pm

Ordinary beings cannot perceive the sambhogakaya realm, only arya bodhisattvas and buddhas can, so it is outside the scope of the valid or invalid cognition argument, which again is analysis of ordinary perception.



This opens a very large door. If we create a category of cognitions whose validity is beyond examination, then we have to accept any cognition that some people see and others can't as semi-valid. Leprechauns, ufos, Santa Claus and so on can no longer be regarded as invalid cognitions, and neither can our unicorn. We can just claim there are those that can't see them, but they are real. One might claim anything to be real and then say only a select few can see the reality.

But then, I don't know where the whole "valid cognition" concept originates or even if this valid/invalid duality is supposed to be a part of Buddhism. The earliest mention of the idea that I know of dates to 800 AD or so.

No system of Buddhist thought says that there's a "Creator" of this or any universe or being within them, or any being that controls the laws of Physics or metes out punishment or reward.


Well we don't have to worry about Chenrezig taking on the role of Creator. But if we pray for help and he gives it, there is a large possibility of breaking the laws of physics. If he decides to help, that is reward and if he decides not to, that is punishment in a sense, is it not?
Sergeant Schultz knew everything there was to know.
User avatar
catmoon
Former staff member
 
Posts: 3006
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 3:20 am
Location: British Columbia

Re: Non affirming negation

Postby Josef » Mon Mar 01, 2010 6:21 pm

Yeshe wrote:
Karma Dondrup Tashi wrote:
Yeshe wrote:This is why objects and phenomena cannot be negated unless conventionally present to the mind in the first place, either through instinct or perception of form. Their absence (emptiness) can only be shown once the mind thinks that there is a presence, in this case of 'cup'.

What make4s a cup a valid cognition that can be non-affirmatively negated and a unicorn an invalid cognition that cannot be non-affirmatively negated?


If you dream 'unicorn' it is as real to you as cup. When awake, the fact that your mind thinks 'unicorn' gives it sufficient existence to be negated.

Both unicorn and cup may be negated - 'absent' except in the mind.

Unicorns are invalid cognitions because they are not a perceivable phenomena through healthy senses.
If one is seeing a unicorn it is because the individual is either suffering from a hallucination or unhealthy sense organs, therefore unicorns are invalid cognitions. Cups serve functional realities and are therefore valid relative cognitions.
Josef
 
Posts: 1565
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 6:44 pm

Re: Non affirming negation

Postby Clueless Git » Mon Mar 01, 2010 6:54 pm

Fascinating topic to follow gentlemen :bow:

I am minded of that monk (Moo Duk Kwan, was it?) who publicly set himself on fire and sat silent and still whilst he burned.

Just kinda musing that he must have mastered the art of making things that would be unbearably real to any of us not real to himself at all.
Clueless Git
 
Posts: 97
Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2009 9:30 am

Re: Non affirming negation

Postby catmoon » Mon Mar 01, 2010 7:56 pm

I think it's a fine thread, even if we do wander.

I think we have handled at least a few things: we have an agreed working definition of "non-affirming negation" that neatly avoids semantic problems. We have agreement on the way a cup is empty, and we have agreed not to quibble over different methods of describing it.

With these tools we now tackle the cognitive validity of Chenrezig, a high mental mountain to scale indeed.

I think we are progressing nicely and I'm quite happy about that.
Sergeant Schultz knew everything there was to know.
User avatar
catmoon
Former staff member
 
Posts: 3006
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 3:20 am
Location: British Columbia

Re: Non affirming negation

Postby Pema Rigdzin » Thu Mar 04, 2010 2:12 pm

catmoon wrote:
Ordinary beings cannot perceive the sambhogakaya realm, only arya bodhisattvas and buddhas can, so it is outside the scope of the valid or invalid cognition argument, which again is analysis of ordinary perception.



This opens a very large door. If we create a category of cognitions whose validity is beyond examination, then we have to accept any cognition that some people see and others can't as semi-valid. Leprechauns, ufos, Santa Claus and so on can no longer be regarded as invalid cognitions, and neither can our unicorn. We can just claim there are those that can't see them, but they are real. One might claim anything to be real and then say only a select few can see the reality.


No, it really doesn't, because as I said, the Sambhogakaya realm and such are outside the scope of analysis aimed at establish valid/invalid cognitions. The confusion is my fault though because earlier on in this thread I decided, for the fun of it, to go outside the normal scope of this argument's purpose and respond to someone who asked whether Chenrezig was an invalid cognition since we can't perceive him. I should have kept my "mouth" shut except to remind that person that arguments of valid/validly inferred/invalid cognitions belong only to the realm of ordinary perception of conventional reality, i.e. what any Tom, Dick, or Harry with healthy, functioning sense faculties can perceive. To reiterate the purpose of this line of reasoning, the aim of this type of analysis is distinguishing between things that are conventionally real and things that are even conventionally unreal, like a rabbit's horns. This is so one can eliminate wrong views toward things that are not real on any level and then dismantle the wrong view of attributing reality to tangible things that really do seem to exist, but in fact only exist conventionally. This latter exercise is intended to eliminate wrong views of existence and so forth, permanence, attachment to such objects, and so on. Is that clear now?

catmoon wrote:
No system of Buddhist thought says that there's a "Creator" of this or any universe or being within them, or any being that controls the laws of Physics or metes out punishment or reward.


Well we don't have to worry about Chenrezig taking on the role of Creator. But if we pray for help and he gives it, there is a large possibility of breaking the laws of physics. If he decides to help, that is reward and if he decides not to, that is punishment in a sense, is it not?


Buddhas are said to be constantly and without volitional, conceptual thought manifesting helpful activities for all beings like the sun and its rays. Whether or not beings become cognizant of the benefit to them and see it in their lives is dependent upon their karma, the extent of their mental obscurations, and their level of receptivity, just like whether or not beings notice and experience the sun's rays depends on whether they go outside, whether the clouds clear, and whether they have clear visual and tactile faculties, and so on For its own part, the sun never stops shining. Also, I'd say that the laws of physics are part of discursive mind's display, and they function according to causes and conditions, therefore they function reliably as long as those causes and conditions are intact. The ultimate cause/condition for this perception of ours must be ignorance, so for as long as we're sufficiently mired in ignorance, I don't think we'll experience any break in the laws of physics. From the vantage point, if you could call it that, of enlightened beings, conventional appearances and phenomena do not fool them or seem true to them like they do to us deluded sentient beings. It's like a magical display to them, and will be for us once we attain the same realization.
Pema Rigdzin
 
Posts: 1030
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 3:19 am
Location: Southern Oregon

Re: Non affirming negation

Postby catmoon » Thu Mar 04, 2010 2:48 pm

Pema Rigdzin wrote:
Ordinary beings cannot perceive the sambhogakaya realm, only arya bodhisattvas and buddhas can, so it is outside the scope of the valid or invalid cognition argument, which again is analysis of ordinary perception.




No, it really doesn't, because as I said, the Sambhogakaya realm and such are outside the scope of analysis aimed at establish valid/invalid cognitions....Is that clear now?



Well.... no. I guess I just don't see why this should be. Chenrezig is a mental perception, and I don't understand why this perception should not be subject to the usual examinations. If he's not a mental perception then no one has ever heard of him, right?

What am I supposed to do - accept the existence of divine beings just because someone says they are there? Assign the property of infallibility to the lamas? I've already been down that road once in a Christian context and the results were not pretty.

Buddhas are said to be constantly and without volitional, conceptual thought manifesting helpful activities for all beings like the sun and its rays. Whether or not beings become cognizant of the benefit to them and see it in their lives is dependent upon their karma, the extent of their mental obscurations, and their level of receptivity, just like whether or not beings notice and experience the sun's rays depends on whether they go outside, whether the clouds clear, and whether they have clear visual and tactile faculties, and so on For its own part, the sun never stops shining. Also, I'd say that the laws of physics are part of discursive mind's display, and they function according to causes and conditions, therefore they function reliably as long as those causes and conditions are intact. The ultimate cause/condition for this perception of ours must be ignorance, so for as long as we're sufficiently mired in ignorance, I don't think we'll experience any break in the laws of physics. From the vantage point, if you could call it that, of enlightened beings, conventional appearances and phenomena do not fool them or seem true to them like they do to us deluded sentient beings. It's like a magical display to them, and will be for us once we attain the same realization.


It may be so, it may be so.. I need to ponder this one a while I guess. For instance, I have seen Chenrezig referred to both as a Buddha and as a bodhisattva and this puzzles me.
Sergeant Schultz knew everything there was to know.
User avatar
catmoon
Former staff member
 
Posts: 3006
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 3:20 am
Location: British Columbia

Re: Non affirming negation

Postby Pema Rigdzin » Fri Mar 05, 2010 1:26 am

catmoon wrote:
Pema Rigdzin wrote:
Ordinary beings cannot perceive the sambhogakaya realm, only arya bodhisattvas and buddhas can, so it is outside the scope of the valid or invalid cognition argument, which again is analysis of ordinary perception.




No, it really doesn't, because as I said, the Sambhogakaya realm and such are outside the scope of analysis aimed at establish valid/invalid cognitions....Is that clear now?



Well.... no. I guess I just don't see why this should be. Chenrezig is a mental perception, and I don't understand why this perception should not be subject to the usual examinations. If he's not a mental perception then no one has ever heard of him, right?

What am I supposed to do - accept the existence of divine beings just because someone says they are there? Assign the property of infallibility to the lamas? I've already been down that road once in a Christian context and the results were not pretty.

Catmoon, I'm trying to make this clear but apparently I'm having trouble. If you want to look into whether or not buddhas and bodhisattvas are real, you must go about it through a method suited to that. The matter of valid or invalid cognition is not suitable for examining metaphysical matters or matters of faith. Those things are irrelevant to the analysis aimed at establishing valid or invalidly cognized phenomena because it is a sutra-level tool to analyze what can be perceived with healthy, ordinary senses.

If you want to look into the reality of buddhas and bodhisattvas, you need to start by finding and studying the sutras and shastras that explain emptiness and then follow up by contemplating them and then meditating on your conclusions. Likewise with the sutras and shastras that explain what the obscurations are that account for experience as a sentient being and how they can be removed. You need to study what is said about the true nature of mind and what the results of eliminating its obscurations are. You need to contemplate these things well and then look into the nature of your own mind and find if, after some time of repeating this studying, contemplation, and meditation, your experience supports the teaching that we humans are in fact very limited at present, not by nature, but merely by temporary veils of ignorance that can be removed. You have to see if your experience, after the course of prolonged and diligent effort, supports the feasibility that the qualities of buddhahood as they're described in sutras and shastras really could be within your own mind. If you come to that conclusion, and it will likely take quite some time before you could, then you will have begun to have experience-based faith in buddhahood as not only possible, but altogether probable. You could even become entirely certain that buddhahood as described in Mahayana doctrine makes eminent sense.

Then, if you really want to expand your experiential journey, you might go through the process of finding an authentic lama you've determined you can trust and by whom you're inspired and you can receive unexcelled yoga tantra empowerment, which is a firsthand meditative and experiential introduction to both a particular buddhist tantric deity and your own latent enlightened body, speech, and mind which that deity mirrors. You could have some very convincing experiences during such an initiation, though it could very well be too subtle to be that impressive. In any case, you can enter into practice upon that tantric buddha and discover more and more of what you really are, mirrored by that deity's form, voice, and enlightened mind. You can not only come to have complete faith in your own true nature but faith in that deity's "reality." You can also gradually discover more and more of that deity's qualities within yourself, such as more profound compassion, less self-importance, more insight into your own emptiness awareness, and the emptiness of phenomena. As you can see though, this is a long process. Remember that neither lamas, nor the Buddha, Dharma, or Sangha are pressuring you believe any of this or enter the tantric path. If you're not interested in making the above-described journey, there's no reason you have to decide anything but that you simply don't know if buddhas like Chenrezig are real or not and leave it at that.


catmoon wrote:
Pema Rigdzin wrote:Buddhas are said to be constantly and without volitional, conceptual thought manifesting helpful activities for all beings like the sun and its rays. Whether or not beings become cognizant of the benefit to them and see it in their lives is dependent upon their karma, the extent of their mental obscurations, and their level of receptivity, just like whether or not beings notice and experience the sun's rays depends on whether they go outside, whether the clouds clear, and whether they have clear visual and tactile faculties, and so on For its own part, the sun never stops shining. Also, I'd say that the laws of physics are part of discursive mind's display, and they function according to causes and conditions, therefore they function reliably as long as those causes and conditions are intact. The ultimate cause/condition for this perception of ours must be ignorance, so for as long as we're sufficiently mired in ignorance, I don't think we'll experience any break in the laws of physics. From the vantage point, if you could call it that, of enlightened beings, conventional appearances and phenomena do not fool them or seem true to them like they do to us deluded sentient beings. It's like a magical display to them, and will be for us once we attain the same realization.


It may be so, it may be so.. I need to ponder this one a while I guess. For instance, I have seen Chenrezig referred to both as a Buddha and as a bodhisattva and this puzzles me.

Explanations I've seen say that he is a buddha but manifests in the aspect of a bodhisattva to teach the bodhisattva ideal.

*edited typo to change idea to ideal.
Pema Rigdzin
 
Posts: 1030
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 3:19 am
Location: Southern Oregon

Re: Non affirming negation

Postby Heruka » Fri Mar 05, 2010 3:08 am

catmoon wrote: Chenrezig is a mental perception, and I don't understand why this perception should not be subject to the usual examinations. If he's not a mental perception then no one has ever heard of him, right?

What am I supposed to do - accept the existence of divine beings just because someone says they are there? Assign the property of infallibility to the lamas? I've already been down that road once in a Christian context and the results were not pretty.



dear catmoon.

when we meet a person for the first time we say hello, shake a hand, and dont carry too much expectations about getting to know their ultimate condition from the start. We might make some basic judgments based on our likes and dislikes, and that persons appearance and so on.
Well at first, the same with yidams and buddhas and bodhisattvas etc. It is only when we start to make our friendship deepen that we start to understand that friendship in all its dynamics, we begin to learn something maybe about ourselves too in our interaction. But at first it is quite normal and usual to be guarded and careful.
So nothing abnormal about quizzing everything. Healthy attitude to have.

good luck!
Heruka
 
Posts: 1069
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 2:34 am

Re: Non affirming negation

Postby catmoon » Sat Mar 06, 2010 3:07 am

Heruka wrote:
catmoon wrote: Chenrezig is a mental perception, and I don't understand why this perception should not be subject to the usual examinations. If he's not a mental perception then no one has ever heard of him, right?

What am I supposed to do - accept the existence of divine beings just because someone says they are there? Assign the property of infallibility to the lamas? I've already been down that road once in a Christian context and the results were not pretty.



dear catmoon.

when we meet a person for the first time we say hello, shake a hand, and dont carry too much expectations about getting to know their ultimate condition from the start. We might make some basic judgments based on our likes and dislikes, and that persons appearance and so on.
Well at first, the same with yidams and buddhas and bodhisattvas etc. It is only when we start to make our friendship deepen that we start to understand that friendship in all its dynamics, we begin to learn something maybe about ourselves too in our interaction. But at first it is quite normal and usual to be guarded and careful.
So nothing abnormal about quizzing everything. Healthy attitude to have.

good luck!


Thanks much. Pema clearly means well, but I think he's trying to stuff a goat into a cat. I have no direct experience of deities beyond what I have cooked up in my imagination, so I have to manage with the tools I have.
Sergeant Schultz knew everything there was to know.
User avatar
catmoon
Former staff member
 
Posts: 3006
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 3:20 am
Location: British Columbia

Re: Non affirming negation

Postby Heruka » Sat Mar 06, 2010 3:30 am

catmoon wrote:I have no direct experience of deities beyond what I have cooked up in my imagination, so I have to manage with the tools I have.


sometimes just sitting in that cooked up imagination, a general sense, or impression of a buddha, a deity, a bodhisattva is just as important, there is no fault in that. In fact we can learn something from that. Im enjoying the discussion btw.

ill bow out.
Heruka
 
Posts: 1069
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 2:34 am

Re: Non affirming negation

Postby catmoon » Sat Mar 06, 2010 3:36 am

Ok we aren't getting anywhere with the Chenrezig question, maybe we should move on. Today my reading included the following from the Dalai Lama:

HHDL, How To See Yourself As You Really Are, Ch. 7 wrote:Reflecting on how an object is a dependent arising - arising dependent on causes and conditions, dependent upon its parts, and dependent on thought - greatly helps to overcome the sense that it exists in and of itself. However, if you do not figure out exactly what phenomena are empty of - what is being negated - then at the end of this analysis you will feel that the object does not exist at all.

This experience will cause phenomena to seem ephemeral, like insubstantial drawings, next to nothing. This mistake comes from not distinguishing between the absence of inherent existence and nonexistence. Failure to distinguish these makes it impossible to appreciate the dependent-arising of phenomena, whereas it is crucial to understand that emptiness means dependent-arising, and dependent-arising means emptiness.



I found this worth reading over closely several times. The mind has a strong tendency to disregard what it disagrees with, or what it cannot understand, and I tripped over this tendency repeatedly. When he talked about things seeming "ephemeral, like insubstantial drawings, next to nothing" it was a good description of my experience, so it was a bit disconcerting when he flatly calls it a mistake. On reflection, I think he has it right though.

edited for spelling
Sergeant Schultz knew everything there was to know.
User avatar
catmoon
Former staff member
 
Posts: 3006
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 3:20 am
Location: British Columbia

Re: Non affirming negation

Postby Pema Rigdzin » Sun Mar 07, 2010 5:22 am

catmoon wrote:
Heruka wrote:
catmoon wrote: Chenrezig is a mental perception, and I don't understand why this perception should not be subject to the usual examinations. If he's not a mental perception then no one has ever heard of him, right?

What am I supposed to do - accept the existence of divine beings just because someone says they are there? Assign the property of infallibility to the lamas? I've already been down that road once in a Christian context and the results were not pretty.



dear catmoon.

when we meet a person for the first time we say hello, shake a hand, and dont carry too much expectations about getting to know their ultimate condition from the start. We might make some basic judgments based on our likes and dislikes, and that persons appearance and so on.
Well at first, the same with yidams and buddhas and bodhisattvas etc. It is only when we start to make our friendship deepen that we start to understand that friendship in all its dynamics, we begin to learn something maybe about ourselves too in our interaction. But at first it is quite normal and usual to be guarded and careful.
So nothing abnormal about quizzing everything. Healthy attitude to have.

good luck!


Thanks much. Pema clearly means well, but I think he's trying to stuff a goat into a cat. I have no direct experience of deities beyond what I have cooked up in my imagination, so I have to manage with the tools I have.


Catmoon,

And what are those tools, in your estimation? And is connecting with deities something you desire to do and find important to your practice? By the way, I've never heard the saying "trying to stuff a goat into a cat" before. What does it mean?
Pema Rigdzin
 
Posts: 1030
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 3:19 am
Location: Southern Oregon

Re: Non affirming negation

Postby catmoon » Sun Mar 07, 2010 12:29 pm


And what are those tools, in your estimation? And is connecting with deities something you desire to do and find important to your practice? By the way, I've never heard the saying "trying to stuff a goat into a cat" before. What does it mean?


Oh, it just means trying to put something large into a small container. The tools at hand are skepticism, logic, a certain small faith in the triple gem and minimalism. Stuff like that.

ATM I regard deities as useful reifications of abstractions, or as symbols of aspects of Buddha. But I really don't think they are there. That seems to conflict with plenty of people's beliefs though. :(
Sergeant Schultz knew everything there was to know.
User avatar
catmoon
Former staff member
 
Posts: 3006
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 3:20 am
Location: British Columbia

Re: Non affirming negation

Postby heart » Sun Mar 07, 2010 9:22 pm

catmoon wrote:
Well.... no. I guess I just don't see why this should be. Chenrezig is a mental perception, and I don't understand why this perception should not be subject to the usual examinations. If he's not a mental perception then no one has ever heard of him, right?


This discussion is getting out of hand. Most probably no one here have had any perception of Chenrezig. So either you are discussing your own visualizations or this whole discussion i very premature.

/magnus
"To reject practice by saying, 'it is conceptual!' is the path of fools. A tendency of the inexperienced and something to be avoided."
- Longchenpa
User avatar
heart
 
Posts: 3121
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 1:55 pm

Re: Non affirming negation

Postby catmoon » Mon Mar 08, 2010 12:44 am

heart wrote:
catmoon wrote:
Well.... no. I guess I just don't see why this should be. Chenrezig is a mental perception, and I don't understand why this perception should not be subject to the usual examinations. If he's not a mental perception then no one has ever heard of him, right?


This discussion is getting out of hand. Most probably no one here have had any perception of Chenrezig. So either you are discussing your own visualizations or this whole discussion i very premature.

/magnus


I don't know about anyone else, but it was very much my intent to discuss my own visualizations and perceptions and imaginations. That was what I was discussing in the above quote. I did not intend to suggest I have seen Chenrezig or any other deity.

We do perceive our own imaginations, so that's that's he perception I meant.
Sergeant Schultz knew everything there was to know.
User avatar
catmoon
Former staff member
 
Posts: 3006
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 3:20 am
Location: British Columbia

PreviousNext

Return to Tibetan Buddhism

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], heart, Norwegian and 27 guests

>