Dharma Wheel

RonBucker wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 10:50 amWhat is the most popular school of Buddhism in China and Japan?

Pure Land.

Are these two schools very similar? For example, Chan Buddhists can teach Zen Buddhists, and Zen Buddhists may teach the practice of Chan Buddhists. Or do Chan Buddhists think Zen Buddhists have a slightly different mindset about practice? The sole unique identifying element of all Chan/Zen groups ...

because of being described subsequent to those [cognitions]. The argument takes aim at the Geluk idea that appearances are derived from conventions themselves. Both Jnanagarbha and Gorampa state that conventional truth include not just words or labels but the whole cognitive process of perception. ...

Satyadvayavibhaṅgavṛitti states: “Mundane conventional designations are engagements of the mundane, that is to say, having the characteristics of cognitions and objects of cognition, but do not have the characteristic of verbalizations because of being described subsequent to those [cognitions].” G...

In brief, conventions do not generate appearances, for example, calling the appearance of sand “water” does not change that appearance into water. First there an appearance, then there is a conventional designation. How is that not like the Abhidharma view that takes dharmas as paramartha, and how ...

Malcolm wrote: ↑Sat Apr 10, 2021 11:59 am Wrong answer.

Which appearance isn't a convention? Which convention isn't an appearance?

Malcolm wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 10:20 pmDo appearances arise from conventional designations, or are conventional designations made on the basis of appearances?

Without further specifications they are practically synonyms, so one preceding the other is not an option.

Malcolm wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 9:22 pmSo which comes first, appearance or convention?

First for what?

It sounds to me like Astus is following the Gelug view of stating that things exist conventionally. I'd rather put it as: whatever can be called existent is just a convention, a conceptual fabrication. Not because it is ontologically meaningful, but because taking one's ideas to be real is the root...

That is, monks and Chan Buddhism masters can help people cope with their mental disorders, anxiety and stresses? Buddhism and psychology may be somewhat related, but as Chan is not a training to cure mental disorders it follows that those proficient in Chan may not be fit to be considered therapist...

Arnold3000 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 2:27 pmDoes this mean that the practitioner first brings his mind to enlightenment and then helps other minds to come to enlightenment?
Is it like when a psychologist first studies at the university and then helps patients deal with their stress and anxiety?

Sure. How else could it be?

To say something is real, in English, means to have objective, independent existence. Thus, one cannot say conditions are real. I see. I try to keep that in mind. Still, if I look at the definition from Lexico as 'Actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed.' ; or fr...

"It would be wonderful if they could read their own minds." what does it mean? Chan Buddhism is about seeing into the mind we use all the time, that is the primary goal. Worrying about the minds of others can only come later. Does Chan Buddhism have telepathy? How is the psychology of Chan Buddhism...

Malcolm wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 12:43 pmYou used the word “real”.

Yes, but "real in the sense of" functional, conditioned, causally relevant, and not as "real in the sense of existing in and of themselves".

Malcolm wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 12:33 pmConventional truths are derived from observing functional appearances. Falsehoods are derived from observing nonfunctional appearances. Example, lake vs. mirage.

And by functional do you mean causally effective? If so, what's wrong with saying that phenomena are conditional?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233645610_Psychological_attachment_no-self_and_Chan_Buddhist_mind_therapy That's only an abstract, but the paper is from 2008. Any follow up studies? Chan Buddhism is most popular school in Modern Chinese Buddhism. How do we know that? Also, it's probably no...

Malcolm wrote: ↑Thu Apr 08, 2021 10:47 pm That question is incoherent, it assumes that conditions can bear analysis. They can't. They are just relative appearances upon which designations are made.

If so, how can any valid statements be made? No difference between ordinary true and false?

Malcolm wrote: ↑Thu Apr 08, 2021 10:15 pmNo, because conditions also cannot be found upon analysis, exactly like material and mental appearances, the former are no more real than the latter. They have the same amount of reality, they are unable to bear ultimate analysis.

Do say that conventionally things exist independently?

Malcolm wrote: ↑Thu Apr 08, 2021 8:22 pmNo, not even that.

No, because there are no appearances, or because they are not dependent, or maybe both?

Can we respect constructs as form, then form as Emptiness, then Emptiness as the basis for who we are, without saying we don’t exist just because we are infinite? Emptiness is not a basis of anything, it rather means baselessness, that there is no ultimate substratum behind phenomena. We are certai...