Response to PadmaVonSamba

[Minobu]

Cause correct me if I’m wrong but the middle way is saying it’s both existence and non existence.

No. That is the third of the four extremes.

That which arises dependently is free of all four extremes: existence, nonexistence, both, and neither.

That’s the middle way, according to the Buddha and Nagarjuna.

this has been bugging me and i think i figured out why.

What i said was pure Madhyamika ...the way Lord Nagarjuna taught it and the way Gelug teaches.

You know there is a big rift in this between Nyingma and Gelug.

so you input your Nygma Dzogchen view and call it Lord Nagarjuna's ..thats not nice..

Teaching the newer revised Nygma version and saying it is Buddha's and Lord Nagarjuna Buddha's teaching...

unacceptable

at least be honest when you say stuff.

i recall when i first explained sunyata and a bunch of Dzogchen people here jumped on me and started in on their version of Emptiness..
totally some dzogchen thing as finally i think he was called smjc said you guys were mixing up stuff.

remember..
then set your crowd straight..

it's all here somewhere a couple years back...

you talk about some meditation practice mixed with Tantra and you cannot compare that to this practice.

You are like lost in some intellectual trip ..

we are working out our's and the collective Karma of all sentients in Mappo..all the realms we are working on..

not some trip that produces only intellectual banter.
so stay honest..don't; say what you think Sunyata is according to Lord Nagarjuna Buddha and insert some other thought on the matter and actually say it is Lord Nagarjuna';s teaching..

[Minobu]

Hi tkp, thanks for making the time to respond.

I will try to repeat back to you what I think you're saying, this is to see if I understand the latest post.

n't
In the context of NIchiren's propagation of the Lotus Sutra? No, not exactly. Not to say that within the context of the TB teachings they are not in perfect accord. I accept that from that perspective it is well elucidated for which I am most grateful. The predicates of condition, causes and capacity are not necessarily the same in all "countries" and Nichiren taught based on these delineations.

That is the very point of the sutra. Even though provision points to the LS it is not the LS itself.

The Nichiren tradition that developed in Japan does not fully adopt the teachings of Nagarjuna because things are different in Japan. That Nichiren taught that things both exist and don't exist (what Malcolm called the "third extreme" earlier). Nichiren taught this, which diverges greatly from common Mahayana doctrine, including other Japanese traditions, because the causes, conditions, and capacities of Nichiren practitioners are different than other Buddhist practitioners.

The very proof is one's own life.

Examining the truth they lead to AND basing the efficiencies of the teachings that lead to this very truth are not one in the same. Every tradition, every commentary and the like are provisions. None of which alone define entry or achievement as defined by the cause and effect of Shakyamuni's existence.

Every tradition (I assume here you mean practices of a tradition?), written commentary, etc. are provisional and no practice tradition, commentary, etc. have the cause and effect of Shakyamuni. (Meaning they don't lead to awakening?)

Moreso Nichiren developed a teaching that transcends the conditioning of path by proxy of daimoku and a mandala of the lotus for mediation. Coupled against the backdrop of one's own existence this is how Nichiren teaches Lotus practice.

Nichiren developed a teaching that, unlike all other traditions and commentaries, isn't provisional. So, I'm guessing this means it alone leads to the same awakening as that of Shakyamuni?

It is hard to understand from even the respected perspective of provision because provision in and of itself is conditioning, and conditioning is and of itself pervasive and systemic.

I have a hard time understanding this because I am conditioned and all my thoughts on this are conditioned. Does this mean that if I understand this does it mean I'm no longer provisional?

However it is critical to realize that all sentient beings is foundational in LS practice. That is if one does not seek enlightenment with this as an unwavering condition in the process one is conditioning one's self against the sentient beings one's path does not inherently recognize.

I don't understand this at all. Sorry. If I seek awakening without an unwavering belief in what?

None of the cause and effect of Shakyamuni's existence is left out, not one mind out of consideration including the needs of those minds. Shakyamuni's enlightenment was marked by the knowledge of such things as was Nichiren's to accommodate them through fulfillment of the LS in accordance to Shakyamuni's predictions.

So, Shakyamuni and Nichiren both understand the minds and needs of all other sentient beings and have fully accommodated them in their teaching of the non-provisional path, the ultimate path. However, even with the perfect teaching of Nichiren all those sentient beings who don't understand the Lotus Sutra or follow provisional paths do so because their minds are unable to escape the provisional conditioning they're trapped in and therefore are unable to realize the perfect teaching of Nichiren which was created because he understood the needs of all minds?

Because these teachings are aimed towards the buddha's ultimate goal of making all people equal to him it was predicted this dynamic would occur.

What dynamic?

On Practicing the Buddha’s Teachings

https://www.nichirenlibrary.org/en/wnd-1/Content/42

If you practice the perfect, non-conditional path of Nichiren/Shakyamuni you will face enemies? If you don't face enemies are you not practicing the perfect non-conditional path of Nichiren?

you can only understand anything Nichiren but by practicing...

watch your life show you what you are and what needs to be addressed..

it's not an intellectual trip ..it's hard work..

tkp why are you confusing someone who does not yet know the power of this practice..
or even what this practice is about ..

[narhwal90]

Will lock this thread for a while, happy to unlock if on-topic discussion is likely to develop again.

[Minobu]

Cause correct me if I’m wrong but the middle way is saying it’s both existence and non existence.

No. That is the third of the four extremes.

That which arises dependently is free of all four extremes: existence, nonexistence, both, and neither.

That’s the middle way, according to the Buddha and Nagarjuna.

this has been bugging me and i think i figured out why.

What i said was pure Madhyamika ...the way Lord Nagarjuna taught it and the way Gelug teaches.

You know there is a big rift in this between Nyingma and Gelug.

so you input your Nygma Dzogchen view and call it Lord Nagarjuna's ..thats not nice..

Teaching the newer revised Nygma version and saying it is Buddha's and Lord Nagarjuna Buddha's teaching...

unacceptable

at least be honest when you say stuff.

i recall when i first explained sunyata and a bunch of Dzogchen people here jumped on me and started in on their version of Emptiness..
totally some dzogchen thing as finally i think he was called smjc said you guys were mixing up stuff.

remember..
then set your crowd straight..

it's all here somewhere a couple years back...

you talk about some meditation practice mixed with Tantra and you cannot compare that to this practice.

You are like lost in some intellectual trip ..

we are working out our's and the collective Karma of all sentients in Mappo..all the realms we are working on..

not some trip that produces only intellectual banter.
so stay honest..don't; say what you think Sunyata is according to Lord Nagarjuna Buddha and insert some other thought on the matter and actually say it is Lord Nagarjuna';s teaching..


i truly worry that misinformation is being spread into this Nichiren section.

If you want to say something..please stay honest and don't put one sect's view into another sects view... as you did here with claims that your view on emptiness are Lord Nargajuna's view as taught by Gelug perfectly...

because it is different ... it is different.

you speak from a Nygma thing and say it is Lord Nargarjuna and you know thats not true...you have debated this on here for years...


now if i am wrong and there is no difference and you totally accept madhyamika as a perfect teaching and you have not inserted Nygma view then sorry for getting it all wrong...

[Malcolm]

What i said was pure Madhyamika ...the way Lord Nagarjuna taught it and the way Gelug teaches.

No. Actually it isn't.

The rest of your screed is purely sectarian, uneducated bullshit. So I am not going to respond to it. I have better things to do.

[Queequeg]

I realize this is a spinoff of another conversation and have no particular dog in the fight...

1. It seems to me, some people claiming to explain Nichiren's view on Nagarjuna really have no idea what they're talking about, taking scattered remarks in his writing out of context without understanding those are scattered, off hand comments coming from someone addressing another where both share basic common background knowledge. The isolated remarks get twisted into some very un-Buddhist views, frankly.

2. The Nichiren view of Madhyamika is through the lens of Tendai, which identifies the Middle as a third truth - not to overturn Nagarjuna, but to emphasize the profoundly subtle identity of the conditioned and the ultimate, also described as "inconceivable". Nichirenists, when they recite the Second Chapter of the Lotus Sutra as part of their standard liturgy, recite the ten factors three times for the three perspectives on all dharmas - Empty, Relative, and Buddhanature/MiddleWay.

3. Those who think that Nagarjuna is rejected should consider his appearance on Nichiren's mandalas.

There's a saying, if you don't know where you came from, you don't know where you are. Nichirenists taking that rhetoric about discarding the provisional have worked themselves into a corner that valorizes ignorance in the name of faith. They've defiled sraddha into some sort of blind faith that is somehow purified by sincerity. Don't do it, fellas. Its going to take you a long time to get yourself out of that mess. I've walked that path. Just my 2 cents.

[Minobu]

I have no idea what Nichiren says on Sunyata. But I do know what is taught and Malcolm is teaching another view There is a reason when people make statements that are questioned and refuse to answer

His response with add ons negates the original teaching Not to mention. confuses the issue.

As for what Nichiren taught I would love to read his teaching. Not a Tendai version one thinks he might’ve said.

But his words. If QQ quoted his words I missed it and will read again.
But Malcolm is not teaching actual Lord Nargarjuna version.

[Minobu]

I know Nichiren understood Lord Nagarjuna. And placed in him in the lotus Buddhism by Showing us in Gohonzon

But I have never seen him talk of such things.

I see agenda here

[Minobu]

3. Those who think that Nagarjuna is rejected should consider his appearance on Nichiren's mandalas.

There's a saying, if you don't know where you came from, you don't know where you are. Nichirenists taking that rhetoric about discarding the provisional have worked themselves into a corner that valorizes ignorance in the name of faith. They've defiled sraddha into some sort of blind faith that is somehow purified by sincerity. Don't do it, fellas. Its going to take you a long time to get yourself out of that mess. I've walked that path. Just my 2 cents.

This is just your view. Sounds like someone who no longer practices.
Nichiren left Tendai. He also studied in different schools. He created a whole new Buddhist Practice for everyone in Mappo.

People do just fine more than fine. So have your little belittling trip and enjoy telling everyone what we are

[Minobu]

anyway the thing is Q i wasn't talking anything about Nichiren and His views...

I'm talking about putting words into lord Nargajuna's work and saying it His words..

just because some dzogchen guy decides this is it ...well thats ok if you want to go about a different thing...knock yourselves out...
but don't say it is Lord Nagarjuna's words to give a seal of approval to something that is not.

and Malcolm will not come clean on this ..
just rants and swears calling it bullshit...

[Sādhaka]

Minobu,

Are you saying that Nagarjuna never said that the Four Extremes consists of: Existence, nonexistence, both, and neither?

[Caoimhghín]

AFAIK, he is claiming that Ven Nāgārjuna taught that all dharmas are slightly real and slightly unreal, the "both" option from the negated tetralemma.

The claim I believe comes from the "Response to PadmavonSamba" thread. It was: "according to sunyata it's a view of existence and nonexistence both at same time in order to come to the view."

[FiveSkandhas]

I also have "no dog in this fight." I respect both Malcolm and Minobu and consider them both sincere dharma friends.

However, let me just throw this out there:

The term shunyata has been translated in East Asia generally as 空, which originally had strong, pre-existing Daoist overtones in China. From studying early Chinese Buddhism, I believe this at first created misunderstandings. By the time of mature sectarian Chinese Mahayana, these misunderstandings had been mostly resolved, but I believe they had long-lasting "echoes" in nuance throughout the entire region, including in Japan. (I say this as a follower of a Japanese tradition myself.)

To be clear, let me underscore that I would never claim that mature East-Asian Buddhism failed to grasp shunyata. After the initial centuries of Buddhism in China, the concept of Buddhist "emptiness" became more refined and differentiated from Daoistic concepts like "無爲" and "虚" as doctrinal understanding deepened. The East Asian Madhyamaka tradition (i.e., 三論宗) lacks nothing in terms of orthodoxy IMHO, and the concept is also quite firmly grasped in the other mainline traditional 宗.

Nevertheless, I cannot help but feel East Asian 空 may have abiding connotations that subtly and in certain contexts create a different "atmosphere of understanding" than Tibetan སྟོང་པ་ཉིད་.

It is my personal opinion that because Tibetan is not logographic like Chinese, earlier meanings (like a Daoistic usage of 空) do not have the same type of "stickiness" or "persistence" in translation. Of course, there may be other types nuances that subtly "have tended to" differentiate Indian shunyata from Tibetan སྟོང་པ་ཉིད་ throughout history. Not being a Tibetan linguistic scholar, I really couldn't say much about that.

(For the record, I also think the choice of the English word "emptiness" for this concept has also been problematic, but as in East Asia I trust the issues will eventually be ironed out...for most thoughtful Western scholars and practioners, they already have been).

All this may be controversial, but I think it is worth pondering.

[Norwegian]

But Malcolm is not teaching actual Lord Nargarjuna version.

You really need to receive teachings on these topics, and then study them over and over again, many times.

The tetralemma of Nagarjuna is not his invention, as such, it is a distillation of the Buddha's teachings, as found in the texts like Prajnaparamita, etc. What is the tetralemma? It is a presentation of the four ontological views or positions that are possible to have. They are as follows:

1. Existence.
2. Non-existence.
3. Both existence and non-existence (the view you propose is the Middle Way, which is completely wrong.)
4. Neither existence nor non-existence.

All of these four views are negated as being false. Nagarjuna dispenses with any and all ontological mode possible to conceive of with this tetralemma. Which means, the right view of a Bodhisattva is not found within this tetralemma.

From Nagarjuna's Shunyatasaptati:

"Through understanding the truth, ignorance, which arises from the four perverted views, does not exist. When this is no more, the karma-formations do not arise."

Again referencing the four (perverted) views of the tetralemma which are all to be understood as wrong views.

Furthermore, via Nagarjuna's primary student, Aryadeva:

"Not existence and not non-existence,
Not these two conjoined nor the opposite of this:
Freed from four extremes, the truly wise
Are those who keep within the middle way."

Being freed from the four extremes means to be free of the four views outlined by Nagarjuna in the tetralemma.

Echoed again elsewhere:

"Neither is it being, non-being,
Or neither being nor non-being,
Nor indeed an embodiment of them both,
But it is genuinely liberated from the four extremes."
-- Sugatamatavibhangakarika ["Analysis of the Sugata's Texts"]

So, when you say that Nagarjuna never taught this, you're just completely wrong. Do yourself a favor and study these things for once.

[Norwegian]

AFAIK, he is claiming that Ven Nāgārjuna taught that all dharmas are slightly real and slightly unreal, the "both" option from the negated tetralemma.

The claim I believe comes from the "Response to PadmavonSamba" thread. It was: "according to sunyata it's a view of existence and nonexistence both at same time in order to come to the view."

This of course is negated and refuted as wrong view.

"What exists not, that non-existent the foolish imagine;
Non-existence as well as existence they fashion.
As dharmic facts existence and non-existence are both not real.
A Bodhisattva goes forth when he wisely knows this."
-- Prajnaparamita Ratnagunasamcayagatha

[KeithA]

Minobu,

Are you saying that Nagarjuna never said that the Four Extremes consists of: Existence, nonexistence, both, and neither?

I am a dumb Zennie, and even I know this teaching (the tetralemma). Not sure what the fuss is all about. This is Buddhism 101.

[narhwal90]

Unlocked thread due to continuing productive discussion. Please stay on-topic.

[Minobu]

AFAIK, he is claiming that Ven Nāgārjuna taught that all dharmas are slightly real and slightly unreal, the "both" option from the negated tetralemma.

The claim I believe comes from the "Response to PadmavonSamba" thread. It was: "according to sunyata it's a view of existence and nonexistence both at same time in order to come to the view."

This of course is negated and refuted as wrong view.

"What exists not, that non-existent the foolish imagine;
Non-existence as well as existence they fashion.
As dharmic facts existence and non-existence are both not real.
A Bodhisattva goes forth when he wisely knows this."
-- Prajnaparamita Ratnagunasamcayagatha

here is where i went off on mr M...it's not sectarian bullshit by the way...it's taking what it is written and then adding what you think is going to make it better...

when i first came here and discuss this i got ganged up by Dzogchen people screaming about something entirely different....not a clue as to what i am talking about...

then there is this whole sectarian feud with Tibetans over this very subject....ok so....from there i was instrucred by my Root Guru Zasep Tulku rinpoche that to mess with this stuff is really like the worse cause it leads people away and they are left confused...

so when i see this...

Cause correct me if I’m wrong but the middle way is saying it’s both existence and non existence.

No. That is the third of the four extremes.

That which arises dependently is free of all four extremes: existence, nonexistence, both, and neither.

That’s the middle way, according to the Buddha and Nagarjuna.

i think his four extremes have been tweeked ...
it don't look Kosher...

thats me

[Minobu]

But Malcolm is not teaching actual Lord Nargarjuna version.

You really need to receive teachings on these topics, and then study them over and over again, many times.

The tetralemma of Nagarjuna is not his invention, as such, it is a distillation of the Buddha's teachings, as found in the texts like Prajnaparamita, etc.

Prajnaparamita
i believe Lord Nagarjuna is attributed to this Work

[PadmaVonSamba]

I think it’s funny that this thread is called,
“Response To PadmaVonSamba”.

I’m touched. Really I am.