Non affirming negation

Forum for discussion of Tibetan Buddhism. Questions specific to one school are best posted in the appropriate sub-forum.
Pema Rigdzin
Posts: 1037
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 3:19 am
Location: Southern Oregon

Re: Non affirming negation

Postby Pema Rigdzin » Mon Mar 08, 2010 1:42 am


User avatar
heart
Posts: 3950
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 1:55 pm

Re: Non affirming negation

Postby heart » Mon Mar 08, 2010 6:37 am

"We are all here to help each other go through this thing, whatever it is."
~Kurt Vonnegut

"The principal practice is Guruyoga. But we need to understand that any secondary practice combined with Guruyoga becomes a principal practice." ChNNR (Teachings on Thun and Ganapuja)

User avatar
heart
Posts: 3950
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 1:55 pm

Re: Non affirming negation

Postby heart » Mon Mar 08, 2010 6:42 am

"We are all here to help each other go through this thing, whatever it is."
~Kurt Vonnegut

"The principal practice is Guruyoga. But we need to understand that any secondary practice combined with Guruyoga becomes a principal practice." ChNNR (Teachings on Thun and Ganapuja)

muni
Posts: 4249
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:59 am

Re: Non affirming negation

Postby muni » Mon Mar 08, 2010 9:49 am

As there is a kind of seeing form (cup) all meanings seems to arise and disappear by dependent origination.

(There was a cognition-question about unicorns and Chenrezig, maybe for other topic)

Pema Rigdzin
Posts: 1037
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 3:19 am
Location: Southern Oregon

Re: Non affirming negation

Postby Pema Rigdzin » Mon Mar 08, 2010 11:59 pm


Pema Rigdzin
Posts: 1037
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 3:19 am
Location: Southern Oregon

Re: Non affirming negation

Postby Pema Rigdzin » Tue Mar 09, 2010 12:00 am

Anyhow, Magnus is right that this tangent about perceiving buddhas and bodhisattvas in their sambhogakaya forms is irrelevant to the topic of the thread and I think that's been made sufficiently clear. If anyone still feels like they need to discuss it, it would be more appropriate to create a separate thread for that.

Of course, aside from establishing a relationship with a qualified lama and entering the Vajrayana through empowerment and studying that vehicle's texts on the matters of deities and engaging in practice, etc, another thing that such interested individuals would benefit from is studying the relevant Mahayana texts, such as sutras and shastras. This would be much more profitable than simply asking question after question based on statements about this topic and other topics made by people at this forum.

Taking for granted that there's no guarantee that those of us questioned here really know what we're talking about if you've not studied the supposedly authentic sources we're claiming to be pulling from, there's also the matter of the good deal of background information needed on the part of the questioners so that questions are presented about what the teachings are actually saying, not about what you wonder if they say, or about a misperception of what we're claiming they're saying, etc. Since there's no guarantee how long any of our lives will last, it would be better if we all tried to do some learning for ourselves and then got together and asked questions based on what the sutras and shastras themselves have to say about the topics we're interested in so we can have the least sidetracks and make the most progress in our discussions.

User avatar
catmoon
Former staff member
Posts: 3283
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 3:20 am
Location: British Columbia

Re: Non affirming negation

Postby catmoon » Tue Mar 09, 2010 2:55 am

So now that we are all caught up on that, I believe the next order of business is my HHDL quote in the previous page. Nobody ever did comment on that.

I'm curious: is that the general Mahayana position or is there significant variation between sects?
Sergeant Schultz knew everything there was to know.

muni
Posts: 4249
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:59 am

Re: Non affirming negation

Postby muni » Tue Mar 09, 2010 8:33 am


User avatar
heart
Posts: 3950
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 1:55 pm

Re: Non affirming negation

Postby heart » Tue Mar 09, 2010 10:10 am

"We are all here to help each other go through this thing, whatever it is."
~Kurt Vonnegut

"The principal practice is Guruyoga. But we need to understand that any secondary practice combined with Guruyoga becomes a principal practice." ChNNR (Teachings on Thun and Ganapuja)

Pema Rigdzin
Posts: 1037
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 3:19 am
Location: Southern Oregon

Re: Non affirming negation

Postby Pema Rigdzin » Tue Mar 09, 2010 10:39 am


User avatar
catmoon
Former staff member
Posts: 3283
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 3:20 am
Location: British Columbia

Re: Non affirming negation

Postby catmoon » Tue Mar 09, 2010 10:11 pm

Hmmm...

Cup is the whole...

If there was an essential cup in there somewhere, it should be possible to find it amongst the shards. But if you did find it there, well the thing found would BE the cup, which would raise the question, if the cup is here, in this part, well, where did all these other shards come from? It's an interesting reductio isn't it?

If the essence of cup resided in every part of the cup, then when you smash the cup you should get many many complete cups, not shards.

If the essence of cup resided in my mind then one might expect there to be an actual physical cup in my mind, which doesn't make any sense at all.

So what do we really have here? An assemblage of things, causes and conditions, in a particular configuration. And a label. And maybe some mental pictures that serve as archetypes against which one might assess the cupness or non-cupness of things.

I can see this all pretty clearly in the case of the cup, but I find seeing the "I" this way more difficult. Identical reason applies to the body, but it's hard to apply to the mind without knowing exactly what a mind is.


Oh, I missed a possibility. Suppose the essence of cup resides in every part of the cup, and that essence ceases to exist when the cup breaks. Do we then have a dependent-arising, impermanent essential cup? Is there any proof either way?
Sergeant Schultz knew everything there was to know.

User avatar
heart
Posts: 3950
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 1:55 pm

Re: Non affirming negation

Postby heart » Wed Mar 10, 2010 6:31 am

"We are all here to help each other go through this thing, whatever it is."
~Kurt Vonnegut

"The principal practice is Guruyoga. But we need to understand that any secondary practice combined with Guruyoga becomes a principal practice." ChNNR (Teachings on Thun and Ganapuja)

User avatar
catmoon
Former staff member
Posts: 3283
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 3:20 am
Location: British Columbia

Re: Non affirming negation

Postby catmoon » Thu Mar 11, 2010 8:45 pm

Sergeant Schultz knew everything there was to know.

5heaps
Posts: 432
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 6:09 am

Re: Non affirming negation

Postby 5heaps » Tue Apr 06, 2010 6:25 am



Return to “Tibetan Buddhism”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests