On Rebirth - Is it the same guy?

Forum for discussion of Tibetan Buddhism. Questions specific to one school are best posted in the appropriate sub-forum.
Schrödinger’s Yidam
Posts: 7885
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am

Re: On Rebirth - Is it the same guy?

Post by Schrödinger’s Yidam »

....although not even the subtle atom of an existent has transmigrated from this world to the next.
When I post here my computer generates a bunch of ones and zeros. Those ones and zeros then are transmitted over the internet and when someone clicks on the particular DW thread I've posted to, they can see my post.

However, to paraphrase Nagarjuna, ....not even the subtle atom of an existent has transmigrated from this [computer] to the next.

There are no existent ones or zeros flying out of my machine and onto the internet. Nothing material, nothing eternal, nothing that can be isolated. But the ones and zeros of my post is not restricted to my own computer either.
Malcolm wrote:Basically, the yogacarins assert a carrier medium, the alaya. This is rejected by Madhyamaka.
'nuff said.
1.The problem isn’t ‘ignorance’. The problem is the mind you have right now. (H.H. Karmapa XVII @NYC 2/4/18)
2. I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against lama abuse.
3. Student: Lama, I thought I might die but then I realized that the 3 Jewels would protect me.
Lama: Even If you had died the 3 Jewels would still have protected you. (DW post by Fortyeightvows)
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: On Rebirth - Is it the same guy?

Post by Malcolm »

Schrödinger’s Yidam wrote: Sun Sep 26, 2021 9:13 pm
But the ones and zeros of my post is not restricted to my own computer either.
The term used in the text is "dngos po," which means thing, existent, entity, etc.
Malcolm wrote:Basically, the yogacarins assert a carrier medium, the alaya. This is rejected by Madhyamaka.
'nuff said.
The Madhyamakas reject is an unnecessary appendage, since all consciousnesses are just the aggregate of consciousness which is give different names when performing different functions. The reason it is rejected by Madhyamakas is that the yogacarins define the ālaya as a consciousness that engages in no processes of perception. Nāgārjuna II, in the Bodhicittavivarana equates the yogacāra theory with a magnet that just blinding attracts iron fillings. Jayānanda, in his commentary on Candra's Intro to the Middle Way has a novel take on ālayavijñāna that I have mentioned before. He states that the actual ālaya, the storehouse, if you will, is emptiness, and the vijñāna is what perceives it, hence the term ālayavijñāna properly understood, would mean "the consciousness that apprehends emptiness." This is very close to the meaning of mahāmudra and dzogchen when they talk of the dhātu and jñāna/vidya being inseparable.
Schrödinger’s Yidam
Posts: 7885
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am

Re: On Rebirth - Is it the same guy?

Post by Schrödinger’s Yidam »

Malcolm wrote: The Madhyamakas reject is an unnecessary appendage, since all consciousnesses are just the aggregate of consciousness which is give different names when performing different functions. The reason it is rejected by Madhyamakas is that the yogacarins define the ālaya as a consciousness that engages in no processes of perception. Nāgārjuna II, in the Bodhicittavivarana equates the yogacāra theory with a magnet that just blinding attracts iron fillings. Jayānanda, in his commentary on Candra's Intro to the Middle Way has a novel take on ālayavijñāna that I have mentioned before. He states that the actual ālaya, the storehouse, if you will, is emptiness, and the vijñāna is what perceives it, hence the term ālayavijñāna properly understood, would mean "the consciousness that apprehends emptiness." This is very close to the meaning of mahāmudra and dzogchen when they talk of the dhātu and jñāna/vidya being inseparable.
To me Nagarjuna’s Madhyamaka is provisional.
Malcolm wrote:Basically, the yogacarins assert a carrier medium, the alaya. This is rejected by Madhyamaka.
'nuff said.
1.The problem isn’t ‘ignorance’. The problem is the mind you have right now. (H.H. Karmapa XVII @NYC 2/4/18)
2. I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against lama abuse.
3. Student: Lama, I thought I might die but then I realized that the 3 Jewels would protect me.
Lama: Even If you had died the 3 Jewels would still have protected you. (DW post by Fortyeightvows)
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: On Rebirth - Is it the same guy?

Post by Malcolm »

Schrödinger’s Yidam wrote: Sun Sep 26, 2021 10:22 pm
To me Nagarjuna’s Madhyamaka is provisional.
That’s because you don’t understand it. But you can’t find any fault with it. So you just pout.
Schrödinger’s Yidam
Posts: 7885
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am

Re: On Rebirth - Is it the same guy?

Post by Schrödinger’s Yidam »

Malcolm wrote: Mon Sep 27, 2021 12:13 am
Schrödinger’s Yidam wrote: Sun Sep 26, 2021 10:22 pm
To me Nagarjuna’s Madhyamaka is provisional.
That’s because you don’t Yunderstand it. But you can’t find any fault with it. So you just pout.I’ll
Tetralemma, non—affirming negation, yeah I get it. It just doesn’t resonate with me.
1.The problem isn’t ‘ignorance’. The problem is the mind you have right now. (H.H. Karmapa XVII @NYC 2/4/18)
2. I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against lama abuse.
3. Student: Lama, I thought I might die but then I realized that the 3 Jewels would protect me.
Lama: Even If you had died the 3 Jewels would still have protected you. (DW post by Fortyeightvows)
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: On Rebirth - Is it the same guy?

Post by Malcolm »

Schrödinger’s Yidam wrote: Mon Sep 27, 2021 1:11 am
Malcolm wrote: Mon Sep 27, 2021 12:13 am
Schrödinger’s Yidam wrote: Sun Sep 26, 2021 10:22 pm
To me Nagarjuna’s Madhyamaka is provisional.
That’s because you don’t Yunderstand it. But you can’t find any fault with it. So you just pout.I’ll
Tetralemma, non—affirming negation, yeah I get it. It just doesn’t resonate with me.
No, you don’t get it at all. If you did, you wouldn’t say such silly things like the above. As I said, you’re just pouting because you can’t actually find fault with Madhyamaka, but it is frightening to,you, because it hits you where you live.
Schrödinger’s Yidam
Posts: 7885
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am

Re: On Rebirth - Is it the same guy?

Post by Schrödinger’s Yidam »

No, you don’t get it at all. If you did, you wouldn’t say such silly things like the above. As I said, you’re just pouting because you can’t actually find fault with Madhyamaka, but it is frightening to,you, because it hits you where you live.
Dudjom R. has an interesting line somewhere in his Big Red Book. I don’t remember exactly where it is, but he says something like, “If you have faith you don’t need the emptiness teachings.” (By memory, not reliable as an exact quote.)

My takeaway is that in order to facilitate faith in the 3 Jewels, Madhyamaka’s function is to destroy our misplaced “faith” in appearances as being ultimately real. Having let go of the mistake, mind is then free to have correct faith.

It has a secondary function of fully engaging, and giving closure to, mind’s inappropriate and ineffectual impulse to want Truth to be understood intellectually. Truth can’t be understood intellectually, and Madhyamaka demonstrates that to mind on the level of intellect. It’s checkmate for that aspect of mind.

However once faith is achieved, Madhyamaka is no longer needed.

YMMV.
1.The problem isn’t ‘ignorance’. The problem is the mind you have right now. (H.H. Karmapa XVII @NYC 2/4/18)
2. I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against lama abuse.
3. Student: Lama, I thought I might die but then I realized that the 3 Jewels would protect me.
Lama: Even If you had died the 3 Jewels would still have protected you. (DW post by Fortyeightvows)
User avatar
heart
Posts: 6287
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 1:55 pm

Re: On Rebirth - Is it the same guy?

Post by heart »

Schrödinger’s Yidam wrote: Mon Sep 27, 2021 4:28 am
No, you don’t get it at all. If you did, you wouldn’t say such silly things like the above. As I said, you’re just pouting because you can’t actually find fault with Madhyamaka, but it is frightening to,you, because it hits you where you live.
Dudjom R. has an interesting line somewhere in his Big Red Book. I don’t remember exactly where it is, but he says something like, “If you have faith you don’t need the emptiness teachings.” (By memory, not reliable as an exact quote.)

My takeaway is that in order to facilitate faith in the 3 Jewels, Madhyamaka’s function is to destroy our misplaced “faith” in appearances as being ultimately real. Having let go of the mistake, mind is then free to have correct faith.

It has a secondary function of fully engaging, and giving closure to, mind’s inappropriate and ineffectual impulse to want Truth to be understood intellectually. Truth can’t be understood intellectually, and Madhyamaka demonstrates that to mind on the level of intellect. It’s checkmate for that aspect of mind.

However once faith is achieved, Madhyamaka is no longer needed.

YMMV.
Wisdom is always needed. If you can't arrive at emptiness through Madhyamaka you have to find an other way.

/magnus
"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
yagmort
Posts: 674
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2017 2:18 pm

Re: On Rebirth - Is it the same guy?

Post by yagmort »

Malcolm wrote: Sun Sep 26, 2021 9:50 pm ..."the consciousness that apprehends emptiness." This is very close to the meaning of mahāmudra and dzogchen...
so that "consciousness that apprehends emptiness" - what is the nature of it? is it serially connected aggregates too?
stay open, spread love
Schrödinger’s Yidam
Posts: 7885
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am

Re: On Rebirth - Is it the same guy?

Post by Schrödinger’s Yidam »

Wisdom is always needed. If you can't arrive at emptiness through Madhyamaka you have to find an other way.
Madhyamaka is an intellectual construct. What’s needed is the experience of mind’s true nature, which is not an intellectual construct. And there’s a handful of ways to do that. Not all of them utilize discernment.
1.The problem isn’t ‘ignorance’. The problem is the mind you have right now. (H.H. Karmapa XVII @NYC 2/4/18)
2. I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against lama abuse.
3. Student: Lama, I thought I might die but then I realized that the 3 Jewels would protect me.
Lama: Even If you had died the 3 Jewels would still have protected you. (DW post by Fortyeightvows)
muni
Posts: 5559
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:59 am

Re: On Rebirth - Is it the same guy?

Post by muni »

Schrödinger’s Yidam wrote: Mon Sep 27, 2021 6:38 am
Wisdom is always needed. If you can't arrive at emptiness through Madhyamaka you have to find an other way.
Madhyamaka is an intellectual construct. What’s needed is the experience of mind’s true nature, which is not an intellectual construct. And there’s a handful of ways to do that. Not all of them utilize discernment.
Of course the intellectual should not be discarded, really not, only we should not be stuck in it.

Nature is not an intellectual construct. Buddha invented not a (new) Nature, but shared a variety of methods to recognize Nature how it is.
User avatar
tobes
Posts: 2194
Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2010 5:02 am

Re: On Rebirth - Is it the same guy?

Post by tobes »

Schrödinger’s Yidam wrote: Mon Sep 27, 2021 6:38 am
Wisdom is always needed. If you can't arrive at emptiness through Madhyamaka you have to find an other way.
Madhyamaka is an intellectual construct. What’s needed is the experience of mind’s true nature, which is not an intellectual construct. And there’s a handful of ways to do that. Not all of them utilize discernment.
I appreciate we're you're coming from on this, but - and this is just purely my own limitations - I find it so easy to subtly (or not so subtly) wander away from right view when I put Madhyamaka down for too long.

Also: it is the antidote to intellectual construct, not the manifestation of it. In this instance, you are the one making intellectually imputing upon Madhyamaka.
Schrödinger’s Yidam
Posts: 7885
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am

Re: On Rebirth - Is it the same guy?

Post by Schrödinger’s Yidam »

tobes wrote: Mon Sep 27, 2021 7:42 am
Schrödinger’s Yidam wrote: Mon Sep 27, 2021 6:38 am
Wisdom is always needed. If you can't arrive at emptiness through Madhyamaka you have to find an other way.
Madhyamaka is an intellectual construct. What’s needed is the experience of mind’s true nature, which is not an intellectual construct. And there’s a handful of ways to do that. Not all of them utilize discernment.
I appreciate we're you're coming from on this, but - and this is just purely my own limitations - I find it so easy to subtly (or not so subtly) wander away from right view when I put Madhyamaka down for too long.

Also: it is the antidote to intellectual construct, not the manifestation of it. In this instance, you are the one making intellectually imputing upon Madhyamaka.
As I said above:
Me wrote:It has a secondary function of fully engaging, and giving closure to, mind’s inappropriate and ineffectual impulse to want Truth to be understood intellectually. Truth can’t be understood intellectually, and Madhyamaka demonstrates that to mind on the level of intellect. It’s checkmate for that aspect of mind.
1.The problem isn’t ‘ignorance’. The problem is the mind you have right now. (H.H. Karmapa XVII @NYC 2/4/18)
2. I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against lama abuse.
3. Student: Lama, I thought I might die but then I realized that the 3 Jewels would protect me.
Lama: Even If you had died the 3 Jewels would still have protected you. (DW post by Fortyeightvows)
User avatar
tobes
Posts: 2194
Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2010 5:02 am

Re: On Rebirth - Is it the same guy?

Post by tobes »

Schrödinger’s Yidam wrote: Mon Sep 27, 2021 8:23 am
tobes wrote: Mon Sep 27, 2021 7:42 am
Schrödinger’s Yidam wrote: Mon Sep 27, 2021 6:38 am
Madhyamaka is an intellectual construct. What’s needed is the experience of mind’s true nature, which is not an intellectual construct. And there’s a handful of ways to do that. Not all of them utilize discernment.
I appreciate we're you're coming from on this, but - and this is just purely my own limitations - I find it so easy to subtly (or not so subtly) wander away from right view when I put Madhyamaka down for too long.

Also: it is the antidote to intellectual construct, not the manifestation of it. In this instance, you are the one making intellectually imputing upon Madhyamaka.
As I said above:
Me wrote:It has a secondary function of fully engaging, and giving closure to, mind’s inappropriate and ineffectual impulse to want Truth to be understood intellectually. Truth can’t be understood intellectually, and Madhyamaka demonstrates that to mind on the level of intellect. It’s checkmate for that aspect of mind.
That's nicely put, but it misses something really crucial - it's not just about the cessation of conceptual views. It's more about: prajna intersecting with dependent origination - the quintessence of Buddhadharma in any tradition.
Padmist
Posts: 187
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2021 3:12 am

Re: On Rebirth - Is it the same guy?

Post by Padmist »

Malcolm: Nothings transfers from this life to the next, but aggregates are serially connected.

Malcolm: No entity passes from this life to the next, but the aggregates of the life are serially connected to the aggregates of the next, so there is a continuum.

Malcolm: Nothing transfers from this life to the next. Not even traces, karma or anything else.

Besides, aggregates, what can we say continues then? Mindstream? Consciousness?

That karma doesn't continue or traces is new to me. I must have misunderstood what Traleg Kyabgon Rinpoche said in his book "Karma" that karmic traces or properties get transferred to the next life.

What can I read that would bring clarity / purity of understanding on this topic?
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 9438
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: On Rebirth - Is it the same guy?

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

Padmist wrote: Mon Sep 27, 2021 9:47 am Malcolm: Nothings transfers from this life to the next, but aggregates are serially connected.

Malcolm: No entity passes from this life to the next, but the aggregates of the life are serially connected to the aggregates of the next, so there is a continuum.

Malcolm: Nothing transfers from this life to the next. Not even traces, karma or anything else.

Besides, aggregates, what can we say continues then? Mindstream? Consciousness?

That karma doesn't continue or traces is new to me. I must have misunderstood what Traleg Kyabgon Rinpoche said in his book "Karma" that karmic traces or properties get transferred to the next life.

What can I read that would bring clarity / purity of understanding on this topic?
I think the point is, there’s not some kind of unbroken entity that moves from one moment to the next, or one lifetime to the next.
But rather, what happens here and now triggers the arising of what will happen there and then.
It becomes the cause of something specific to occur later.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: On Rebirth - Is it the same guy?

Post by Malcolm »

Schrödinger’s Yidam wrote: Mon Sep 27, 2021 6:38 am
Wisdom is always needed. If you can't arrive at emptiness through Madhyamaka you have to find an other way.
Madhyamaka is an intellectual construct. What’s needed is the experience of mind’s true nature, which is not an intellectual construct. And there’s a handful of ways to do that. Not all of them utilize discernment.
No, it is a deconstruction of Buddhist intellectualism, which is why yogacarins and gzhan stong pas dislike it so much. That’s why without proper understanding of Madhyamaka, people reify their experience of the nature of mind into something which is either existent (yogacara/gzhan stong) or nonexistent (gelug). It is for this reason Atisha declared that one must rely on Candrakirti for liberation. An experience of the nature of the mind is not enough for liberation.
User avatar
heart
Posts: 6287
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 1:55 pm

Re: On Rebirth - Is it the same guy?

Post by heart »

yagmort wrote: Mon Sep 27, 2021 6:10 am
Malcolm wrote: Sun Sep 26, 2021 9:50 pm ..."the consciousness that apprehends emptiness." This is very close to the meaning of mahāmudra and dzogchen...
so that "consciousness that apprehends emptiness" - what is the nature of it? is it serially connected aggregates too?
The fifth skandha is consciousness, so that is what apprehends emptiness.

/magnus
"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)
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: On Rebirth - Is it the same guy?

Post by Malcolm »

PadmaVonSamba wrote: Mon Sep 27, 2021 11:20 am
I think the point is, there’s not some kind of unbroken entity that moves from one moment to the next, or one lifetime to the next.
Correct, there is no entity.
But rather, what happens here and now triggers the arising of what will happen there and then.
It becomes the cause of something specific to occur later.
Yes.
Nicholas2727
Posts: 247
Joined: Sat Nov 23, 2019 5:44 am

Re: On Rebirth - Is it the same guy?

Post by Nicholas2727 »

Malcolm wrote: Mon Sep 27, 2021 1:05 pm
Schrödinger’s Yidam wrote: Mon Sep 27, 2021 6:38 am
Wisdom is always needed. If you can't arrive at emptiness through Madhyamaka you have to find an other way.
Madhyamaka is an intellectual construct. What’s needed is the experience of mind’s true nature, which is not an intellectual construct. And there’s a handful of ways to do that. Not all of them utilize discernment.
No, it is a deconstruction of Buddhist intellectualism, which is why yogacarins and gzhan stong pas dislike it so much. That’s why without proper understanding of Madhyamaka, people reify their experience of the nature of mind into something which is either existent (yogacara/gzhan stong) or nonexistent (gelug). It is for this reason Atisha declared that one must rely on Candrakirti for liberation. An experience of the nature of the mind is not enough for liberation.
Can you explain more the difference between the non-Gelug Madhyamaka view and the Gelug Madhyamaka view here? Do non-Gelug Madhyamaka followers say it is not existent, not non-existence, not neither nor both? While Gelugpas come out and say it is non-existent?
Post Reply

Return to “Tibetan Buddhism”