Conceptuality in Buddhism

A forum for scholastic discussion/debate.

Re: Madyamika Sautrantika vs Prasangika

Postby RichardLinde » Wed Nov 30, 2011 3:56 am

Tom wrote:Anyways, The eight chapter of Maitreya's Ornament of Clear Realization defines the wisdom truth body as "a final exalted wisdom consciousness perceiving all modes and varieties of objects of knowledge." It mentions 146 exalted wisdom consciousnesses of the wisdom truth body, three of which are the unimpeded direct knowledge of all objects of knowledge of the past, the unimpeded direct knowledge of all objects of knowledge of the present, and the unimpeded direct knowledge of all objects of knowledge of the future.


Yes, I can agree with this, but nowhere here does it say anything about predicting the future.

For example, I have a knowledge that there will be a future, and I am 100% certain that there will be a future. If I am a Buddha I can have an unimpeded direct knowledge of the object of knowledge that there will be a future.

If the Buddha could know every detail about the future, with certainty, then he wouldn't have been unsure about what would happen after the Dharma is extinguished.
RichardLinde
 
Posts: 51
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 6:35 pm

Re: Madyamika Sautrantika vs Prasangika

Postby Tom » Wed Nov 30, 2011 4:18 am

RichardLinde wrote:
Tom wrote:Anyways, The eight chapter of Maitreya's Ornament of Clear Realization defines the wisdom truth body as "a final exalted wisdom consciousness perceiving all modes and varieties of objects of knowledge." It mentions 146 exalted wisdom consciousnesses of the wisdom truth body, three of which are the unimpeded direct knowledge of all objects of knowledge of the past, the unimpeded direct knowledge of all objects of knowledge of the present, and the unimpeded direct knowledge of all objects of knowledge of the future.


Yes, I can agree with this, but nowhere here does it say anything about predicting the future.

For example, I have a knowledge that there will be a future, and I am 100% certain that there will be a future. If I am a Buddha I can have an unimpeded direct knowledge of the object of knowledge that there will be a future.

If the Buddha could know every detail about the future, with certainty, then he wouldn't have been unsure about what would happen after the Dharma is extinguished.


Note the quote said "all objects of knowledge of the future" - not "the object of knowledge that there will be a future"

Your explanation is incorrect because "object of knowledge" is technical term (in tibetan ཤེས་བྱ་ and in sanskrit it is ज्ञेय) that can be considered synonymous with "existent thing." So here "all objects of knowledge" refers to all objects that will exist in the future.
User avatar
Tom
 
Posts: 368
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2011 7:12 pm

Re: Madyamika Sautrantika vs Prasangika

Postby RichardLinde » Wed Nov 30, 2011 4:24 am

Tom wrote:Note the quote said "all objects of knowledge of the future" - not "the object of knowledge that there will be a future"


The knowledge that there will be a future is a knowledge of the future.
RichardLinde
 
Posts: 51
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 6:35 pm

Re: Madyamika Sautrantika vs Prasangika

Postby Tom » Wed Nov 30, 2011 4:35 am

RichardLinde wrote:
Tom wrote:Note the quote said "all objects of knowledge of the future" - not "the object of knowledge that there will be a future"


The knowledge that there will be a future is a knowledge of the future.


Actually, the knowledge right now that there will be a future is an object of knowledge that exists in the present!

Anyways good luck with this.
User avatar
Tom
 
Posts: 368
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2011 7:12 pm

Re: Madyamika Sautrantika vs Prasangika

Postby Mariusz » Wed Nov 30, 2011 8:20 am

RichardLinde wrote:So if you overheard one Buddha saying to another Buddha "I have a concept for a new design of building", would you tap the Buddha on the shoulder and say to him, "Excuse me, Mr. Buddha, Sir, but there is not this Buddha and that Buddha."

:rolling: thanx because funny.
Again, this i because one has to care of ilussion-like merit of the seeming (the seeming which is not totally faulty), not because the "fault" will be somewhere "out there".

Nagarjuna:
without relying on conventions the ultimate is not possible,
As Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso Rinpoche said:
without erring is not possible to continue on unerror Path
Mariusz
 
Posts: 708
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 12:08 pm

Re: Madyamika Sautrantika vs Prasangika

Postby Sherab Dorje » Wed Nov 30, 2011 8:31 am

RichardLinde wrote:I did cite the Buddha saying that he doesn't know with certainty what will happen after the Dharma is extinguished. He doesn't give the reasons why he doesn't have this certainty, but we can work the reasons out for ourselves easily enough.
You have cited no such thing
:namaste:
"When one is not in accord with the true view
Meditation and conduct become delusion,
One will not attain the real result
One will be like a blind man who has no eyes."
Naropa - Summary of the View from The Eight Doha Treasures
User avatar
Sherab Dorje
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 9943
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Madyamika Sautrantika vs Prasangika

Postby Sherab Dorje » Wed Nov 30, 2011 8:45 am

RichardLinde wrote:All things which appear are a display, including you and I. If things didn't display then nothing would appear.
Yes, except that our display is a consequence of our ignorance whereas the display of the Buddhas is based on their omniscience and grasp of skillful means.
The Nirmanakaya is not a lesser body of the Buddha. There's nothing "mere" about it.
Never said it was "lesser". If I said "just a display" or "display" by itself, would that be okay with you? Anyway the use of the term "mere" was in reference to the display.
:namaste:
Last edited by Sherab Dorje on Thu Dec 01, 2011 9:25 am, edited 1 time in total.
"When one is not in accord with the true view
Meditation and conduct become delusion,
One will not attain the real result
One will be like a blind man who has no eyes."
Naropa - Summary of the View from The Eight Doha Treasures
User avatar
Sherab Dorje
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 9943
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Madyamika Sautrantika vs Prasangika

Postby RichardLinde » Wed Nov 30, 2011 2:19 pm

gregkavarnos wrote:
RichardLinde wrote:I did cite the Buddha saying that he doesn't know with certainty what will happen after the Dharma is extinguished. He doesn't give the reasons why he doesn't have this certainty, but we can work the reasons out for ourselves easily enough.
You have cited no such thing


See here.

So too, will the Dharma flare and die. After this time it is difficult to speak with certainty of what will follow.


So clearly the Buddha doesn't have the kind of omniscience that would give him certain knowledge of future events - quite apart from the fact that such things can be easily proven to be impossible.
RichardLinde
 
Posts: 51
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 6:35 pm

Re: Madyamika Sautrantika vs Prasangika

Postby Tom » Wed Nov 30, 2011 6:56 pm

RichardLinde wrote:
gregkavarnos wrote:
RichardLinde wrote:I did cite the Buddha saying that he doesn't know with certainty what will happen after the Dharma is extinguished. He doesn't give the reasons why he doesn't have this certainty, but we can work the reasons out for ourselves easily enough.
You have cited no such thing


See here.

So too, will the Dharma flare and die. After this time it is difficult to speak with certainty of what will follow.


So clearly the Buddha doesn't have the kind of omniscience that would give him certain knowledge of future events - quite apart from the fact that such things can be easily proven to be impossible.


It is not so clear. Due to pedagogical reasons you will find apparently contradictory statements in the teachings of the Buddha. So, this statement you quote is not very convincing evidence for refuting the omniscience of the Buddha as found in Mahayana Buddhism.

It is common knowledge that the Buddha taught in dependence upon the capacity of the student. One might even argue that the correct interpretation of the quote you mention is not that it is hinting at a gap in the Buddha's knowledge but that the topic is "difficult to speak" on, due to the capacity of the listeners.

Actually the Buddha's ability to provide differing teachings to different audiences is due to his omniscience.
User avatar
Tom
 
Posts: 368
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2011 7:12 pm

Re: Madyamika Sautrantika vs Prasangika

Postby Mariusz » Wed Nov 30, 2011 7:22 pm

RichardLinde wrote:So clearly the Buddha doesn't have the kind of omniscience

For sure we are not able to understand what the omniscience of a Buddha is. All we have its our sentient being's cognition.

Buddhahood is attained when all clingings are no more ( 7th level “Far gone” of Bodhisattwa where one's wisdom outshines Sravakas and Pratyekabuddhas) and all cognitive obcurations are no more (11th level of Buddhahood). We are sentient beings because we experience suffering (dukkha) from clingings to reference points and we are not able to be beyond the cognition of the seeming which is even more subtle to attain than clingings (cognition of these very reference points, very subtle dualism).

Clingings to reference points are the cause for our suffering (dukkha) because for example:
-we locate the single separated self-identity although there is not such at all
(because there would be exist only one's own single self without any danger of destroying by itself because of non-existence of components of this self or by others because of separation from outside)
-we locate permanent self-identity although there is not such at all
(because one wouldn't be worried what was going to happen to him the next moment, also identity is not in one's body and mind because they are totally changed many times during one's lifetime)
-we locate independent self-identity although there is not such at all
(because one shouldn't be worried what happened to him than to others)
Cognitive obcurations to Omniscience (cognition of these very reference points) are even beyond conceptuality, so out of our reach.

If there is an example in whatever Sutra when buddha have some pain or difficulties it is for sure a "display" only of our seeming. When there is any pain or suffer there is a sentient being.
Mariusz
 
Posts: 708
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 12:08 pm

Re: Madyamika Sautrantika vs Prasangika

Postby conebeckham » Wed Nov 30, 2011 11:43 pm

Yo-
This is in the Academic Discussion forum.
Kevin/RichardLinde is attempting to argue that Buddhas have concepts, and that they don't have omniscience as most of us understand that word. He hasn't cited any sources, but appears to be relying on either a)his experience or b)Western Academic Linguistic approach.

I don't think either one is helpful, and I don't think either approach will shore up his positions on the issues of conceptlessness and omniscience. See my quote from Nagarjuna, a while back--he hasn't responded to that, nor does he offer anything to refute Namdrol's quotes from MMK and other places.

That fact that you like Dzokchen, (and/or I like Sahaja Mahamudra, or HYT Completion Stage practice, or whatnot), is off-topic.
May any merit generated by on-line discussion
Be dedicated to the Ultimate Benefit of All Sentient Beings.
User avatar
conebeckham
 
Posts: 2742
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:49 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA, USA

Re: Madyamika Sautrantika vs Prasangika

Postby conebeckham » Wed Nov 30, 2011 11:45 pm

conebeckham wrote:The Sage has declared that earth, water, fire, and wind, long, short, fine and coarse, good, and so on are extinguished in consciousness ... Here long and short, fine and coarse, good and bad, here name and form all stop.

-Nagarjuna


Just repeating myself....sometimes that's the best thing to do.
May any merit generated by on-line discussion
Be dedicated to the Ultimate Benefit of All Sentient Beings.
User avatar
conebeckham
 
Posts: 2742
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:49 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA, USA

Re: Madyamika Sautrantika vs Prasangika

Postby RichardLinde » Thu Dec 01, 2011 3:12 am

conebeckham wrote:RichardLinde is attempting to argue that Buddhas have concepts


"Concepts" are whatever appear to be concepts. If things appear to be concepts then we call them "concepts". That's how it works.

Since the Buddha talks about what he thinks will happen in the future (see my previous reference) then he appears to be having concepts, since the future hasn't happened yet. And because he appears to be having concepts then we say he is having concepts. It's that simple.

So I'm not "attempting to argue that Buddhas have concepts", because, following this reasoning, the Buddha is definitely having concepts, by definition.


. . . and that they don't have omniscience as most of us understand that word. He hasn't cited any sources


That is totally untrue. See my previous reference to where the Buddha says that he is unsure about what will happen after the Dharma is extinguished.

, relying on either a)his experience or b)Western Academic Linguistic approach.


That is also untrue. It can easily be prove with reason that it is impossible to know the details of future events with certainty, but I don't believe that you are interested in these reasons.

See my quote from Nagarjuna, a while back


The Sage has declared that earth, water, fire, and wind, long, short, fine and coarse, good, and so on are extinguished in consciousness ... Here long and short, fine and coarse, good and bad, here name and form all stop. -Nagarjuna


Your quote is irrelevant because Nagarjuna is speaking about something entirely different to what we are talking about.

When Nagarjuna says that "name and form all stop" he is talking about deluded name and form. That is, he is talking about fantasies.

The reason that Buddhas use names and speak of forms is that names and forms do not stop for them. The difference is that their names and forms are not deluded.

he hasn't responded to that


I have responded to that very same fallacious argument several times already.


Namdrol's quotes


I can't find any quotes from Namdrol that are relevant to this discussion. If there's anything you would like me to respond to that isn't covered by the above, then I am more than happy to do so. Just let me know what, in particular, you want me to respond to.



That fact that you like Dzokchen, (and/or I like Sahaja Mahamudra, or HYT Completion Stage practice, or whatnot), is off-topic.


I have no idea what you are talking about. I haven't said anything about any of those subjects.
Last edited by RichardLinde on Thu Dec 01, 2011 4:26 am, edited 1 time in total.
RichardLinde
 
Posts: 51
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 6:35 pm

Re: Madyamika Sautrantika vs Prasangika

Postby RichardLinde » Thu Dec 01, 2011 3:26 am

Mariusz wrote:We are not able to understand what the omniscience of a Buddha is. All we have its our sentient being's cognition.


If all you have is a faulty cognition, and nothing else, then this discussion isn't going to get very far!
RichardLinde
 
Posts: 51
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 6:35 pm

Re: Madyamika Sautrantika vs Prasangika

Postby RichardLinde » Thu Dec 01, 2011 4:32 am

Tom wrote:
RichardLinde wrote:It is common knowledge that the Buddha taught in dependence upon the capacity of the student.


It's common knowledge that whenever the Buddha says something that is entirely reasonable, that people don't want to believe, they dismiss it by saying that it was a special teaching designed only for a particular student.
RichardLinde
 
Posts: 51
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 6:35 pm

Re: Madyamika Sautrantika vs Prasangika

Postby Will » Thu Dec 01, 2011 4:33 am

RichardLinde:

So too, will the Dharma flare and die. After this time it is difficult to speak with certainty of what will follow.


So clearly the Buddha doesn't have the kind of omniscience that would give him certain knowledge of future events - quite apart from the fact that such things can be easily proven to be impossible.



What is also clear is that your eagerness to support your argument leads you to be sloppy in understanding your citation. Other translations say:
What will happen afterward is hard to describe.
or
difficult to describe in detail.


So the Buddha does not say "I do not know" but "It will be hard for you to understand." Which is ever so true, then and now.
One should refrain from biased judgments and doubting in fathoming the Buddha and the Dharma of the Buddhas. Even though a dharma may be extremely difficult to believe, one should nonetheless maintain faith in it. Nagarjuna
User avatar
Will
 
Posts: 1922
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 4:21 am

Re: Madyamika Sautrantika vs Prasangika

Postby Tom » Thu Dec 01, 2011 4:45 am

RichardLinde wrote:
"Concepts" are whatever appear to be concepts. If things appear to be concepts then we call them "concepts". That's how it works.

Since the Buddha talks about what he thinks will happen in the future (see my previous reference) then he appears to be having concepts, since the future hasn't happened yet. And because he appears to be having concepts then we say he is having concepts. It's that simple.

So I'm not "attempting to argue that Buddhas have concepts", because, following this reasoning, the Buddha is definitely having concepts, by definition.



Your use of "having concepts" and "appearing to have concepts" is a little unclear to me. I think every one agrees the Buddha engages in language and as such appears to use concepts. However there is an important epistemological and also a phenomenological distinction to be made here. The appearance of the Buddha using concepts does not necessitate that the Buddha knows things by way of conception.

Santideva explains how such appearances arise, "Just as a wish fulfilling gem, or a wish granting tree satisfies desires, so the image of the Jina is seen, because of his vow and his disciples." (9:35) If we also agree on this then we can all go home :-)!
User avatar
Tom
 
Posts: 368
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2011 7:12 pm

Re: Madyamika Sautrantika vs Prasangika

Postby Tom » Thu Dec 01, 2011 4:50 am

Will wrote:RichardLinde:

So too, will the Dharma flare and die. After this time it is difficult to speak with certainty of what will follow.


So clearly the Buddha doesn't have the kind of omniscience that would give him certain knowledge of future events - quite apart from the fact that such things can be easily proven to be impossible.



What is also clear is that your eagerness to support your argument leads you to be sloppy in understanding your citation. Other translations say:
What will happen afterward is hard to describe.
or
difficult to describe in detail.


So the Buddha does not say "I do not know" but "It will be hard for you to understand." Which is ever so true, then and now.


Cool ... any one have the Sanskrit version or does it only exist now in Chinese?
User avatar
Tom
 
Posts: 368
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2011 7:12 pm

Re: Madyamika Sautrantika vs Prasangika

Postby RichardLinde » Thu Dec 01, 2011 6:04 am

Tom wrote:The appearance of the Buddha using concepts does not necessitate that the Buddha knows things by way of conception.


I would never say that anyone knows things by way of conception, since it is unnecessary to do so.

Either people appear to have concepts or they don't, and if they do then we say they have concepts. It's that simple.

Santideva explains . . .


Santideva could also explain that Buddhas don't have any choice about whether they appear or not, for the reason that if the causes are in place for Buddhas to appear then they will appear, regardless of what anyone wants. Buddhas must bow to the power of cause and effect, since they are not omnipotent.
RichardLinde
 
Posts: 51
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 6:35 pm

Re: Madyamika Sautrantika vs Prasangika

Postby RichardLinde » Thu Dec 01, 2011 6:10 am

Will wrote:So the Buddha does not say "I do not know" but "It will be hard for you to understand."


Nobody translates the text as "It will be hard for you to understand" - at least, nobody that you quoted.

More importantly, since this is an academic forum, I would like to see an actual logical proof that it is possible to predict the details of future events with certainty, rather than mere appeals to the authority of translators.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
RichardLinde
 
Posts: 51
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 6:35 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Academic Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: TurnitinBot [Bot] and 2 guests

>