Response to PadmaVonSamba

User avatar
Queequeg
Former staff member
Posts: 11691
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: malcolm please have a look here

Post by Queequeg »

FiveSkandhas wrote: Fri Jan 08, 2021 8:52 pm 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.
:good:

The argument is made that the Tiantai 3truths is a response to some non-buddhist views that shook out of 空.

Emptiness is not some teaching that can only be understood by learning some specific language (sanskrit for instance). Once the basic idea is impressed, the logic grasped, whatever, at least as a linguistically oriented matter, its pretty obvious. Actually KNOWING emptiness might be a different story... But Nagarjuna presents a series of very simple logic arguments. It doesn't take buddhic wisdom to get it.

They got it in East Asia. Its expressed differently, but that's a linguistic matter.
Those who, even with distracted minds,
Entered a stupa compound
And chanted but once, “Namo Buddhaya!”
Have certainly attained the path of the buddhas.

-Lotus Sutra, Upaya Chapter

純一実相。実相外。更無別法。法性寂然名止。寂而常渉照名観。
There is only reality; there is nothing separate from reality. The naturally tranquil nature of dharmas is shamatha. The abiding luminosity of tranquility is vipashyana.

-From Guanding's Introduction to Zhiyi's Great Shamatha and Vipashyana
Malcolm
Posts: 33806
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: malcolm please have a look here

Post by Malcolm »

Queequeg wrote: Sat Jan 09, 2021 3:41 am
They got it in East Asia. Its expressed differently, but that's a linguistic matter.
Some did, some didn’t, just like in India and Tibet.
"Nonduality is merely a name;
that name does not exist."
—Kotalipa
User avatar
FiveSkandhas
Posts: 406
Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2019 6:40 pm

Re: Response to PadmaVonSamba

Post by FiveSkandhas »

There is a certain type of what one might call "Buddhistic literature" in China and Japan -- poems and tales written by layperson literati who were ostensibly "influenced by Buddhist concepts" or include Buddhistic themes in their secular writing. I think in this genre, one is more likely to find very loose understandings and usages of 空 that overlap with non-Buddhist understandings. Sort of like the loose way secular folks today toss around and abuse terms like "karma" or "that's very Zen, man."

The very first Chinese Buddhists (of what Wing-Tsit Chan calls "the seven early schools", extant before Master Kumarajiva's arrival in 401 AD) also conflated 空 with all sorts of heterodox readings, mostly Daoistic in nature.

Among later clerics and monastic professionals in these nations, as might be expected, one tends to see a tighter, more orthodox understanding of shunyata, generally speaking. In the centuries after the establishment of mature sectarian Mahayana.
"One should cultivate contemplation in one’s foibles. The foibles are like fish, and contemplation is like fishing hooks. If there are no fish, then the fishing hooks have no use. The bigger the fish is, the better the result we will get. As long as the fishing hooks keep at it, all foibles will eventually be contained and controlled at will." -Zhiyi
User avatar
tkp67
Posts: 2421
Joined: Sun May 12, 2019 5:42 am

Re: Response to PadmaVonSamba

Post by tkp67 »

jake wrote: Fri Jan 08, 2021 12:17 pm 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.
tkp67 wrote: Thu Jan 07, 2021 4:40 pm 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.
Nichiren taught this? I have yet to read his teach it as such. One can take any teaching out of context and misinterpret it. However in this misinterpretation the teaching still proves to be potent. This does not seem well understood yet it is a mark of Shakyamuni's enlightenment.

What Nichiren did do is speak to people of different developmental capacities through his writings and addressed them accordingly. Some of his teachings he himself considers provisional because they were adapted to the minds around him. This has an academic basis that I can validate.
jake wrote:
tkp67 wrote: Thu Jan 07, 2021 4:40 pm 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?)
I did not include practices specifically but leave that to the side for now. I will gladly unpack it if required.

Provision is just that. Words lead but aren't in themselves awakening. Shakyamuni's supreme and complete enlightenment It is a state that transcends verbal descriptors. However the lack of bounds, characteristics displayed along with cause and effect can all be understood through THIS sutra.

It is what the words represent, where they point to, and the enlightenment they define that matters. It matters in accordance to cause, conditions, capacity and the time. More importantly however what matters is the state of the populous in this regard. The Lotus puts all of this in perfect context when one contemplates it from the perspective of their own life. The evidences used are not disputable as such if they were this traditions would be easily dismissed.

Instead it is just painfully misunderstood and represented.
jake wrote:
tkp67 wrote: Thu Jan 07, 2021 4:40 pm 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?
Nichiren created a teaching based on the LS which reconciles all vehicles to the one vehicle. The Daimoku speaks to the teacher which is one's own mind. How it is perceived is a reflection of that person's understanding of these teachings. A reflection of their causes, their capacities and their conditions.

The degenerate age is such that sensual corruption, desire and intellect nullify external agency and thus harmony among various provinces. The people, their minds and the teachings are not separate in such a way that they can me.

That was the whole purpose of fulfilling the requests of Shakyamuni made in the Lotus Sutra.

Now at some point Nichiren's apocalyptic warnings and the correction of all traditions in Japan might come to mind. This might cause some to project that this is still very necessary.

However I argue that even this is provisional. Yes I just said that and I am very keen on the potential ramifications and am quite prepared for the discussion meant to be born of it.
Jake wrote:
tkp67 wrote: Thu Jan 07, 2021 4:40 pm 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?
First the provisional is a condition of existence. Planting a seed to manifest a complete understanding of this does not remove provision but it removes attachment to it. Even the buddha's teachings become provisional to awakening itself.

The difference with the lotus is that it does not teach provision to lead to itself. Rather it explains the depth of provision and how it is discarded by all thus come ones. It also explains that they may appear to others as either the one or multiple vehicles dependent on the causes, capacities and conditions of the person encountering them.

All of these discussions lead to those two sentences I post from expedient means. It is the perfect proof for this.

So no Jake understanding this does not mean you have accomplished it however it has implications as far as entering the room of the thus come one Shakyamuni.

It is why lacking doubt is so paramount here. One can't replace provision within one's one life with more provision to achieve Shakyamuni's enlightenment according to this sutra. However if one can not doubt that provision is meant to be discarded to reveal the absolute perhaps it will reveal the absolute from the perspective of one's own life, breaking attachment to provision itself.

Shakyamuni's own enlightenment was based on this very dynamic. He didn't verbosely know the nature of his own enlightenment when he sought to accomplish it. However do you think he could have withstood the challenge of accomplishing as much if he doubted any sentient being's potential to be freed from suffering? Was it some concrete belief in something he already understood or was it an absolute desire and lack of doubt to kept him on the path til completion?

The reason Nichiren is so critical of all Buddhist practitioners is that like a child clings to one's own father and mother for love and support one clings to provision for the same. Not out of dark manipulative desires but out of admiration and affection. The children of Shakyamuni within Japan did not recognize that they all shared the same underlying nature as if they where children of the same family.

Nichiren taught them as much and even then the other teachings did not perish. This is might be the hardest part for many to fathom. Was it success? was it failure? or was it meant to unfold exactly as it has?
tkp67 wrote: Thu Jan 07, 2021 4:40 pm 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?


One of the four conditions for practicing Mayahana is equanimity for all sentient beings. In the LS it is assumed that this has been established for Bodhisattva Mahasattva. They come to the table with it already developed. It seemed this was a mark of Shakyamuni's existence as well.

In today's age this concept is been so diminished and abstracted the value is seen as unreasonably attainable.

This is why presenting a practice that does not represent the totality of Shakyamuni's enlightenment in the later age is seen as categorically evil.

It was not denied in the cause and effect of Shakyamuni's existence from then to now. It only exists in how humans propagate the teachings.
Jake wrote:
tkp67 wrote: Thu Jan 07, 2021 4:40 pm 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?
The whole reason for the Lotus Sutra was that there would be people who would act as the "eye of the world". That is there is meant to be a segment of those who understand the application of the teachings according to these dynamics to act as a "mirror" so Shakyamuni's ultimate teaching could be sown. Without a contrast of provision there is no absolute. People would be born awakened and this discussion would never have cause.

Enlightenment happens internally but eventually is expressed over a demographic. The assembly is meant to dissolve all separation and allow for one to see that the only thing keeping one from achieving this enlightenment it is realizing it. Of course this isn't as easy or even simple as it sounds.
tkp67 wrote: Thu Jan 07, 2021 4:40 pm 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?
That people would cling to traditions as if they had their own source and exclusive benefits. Humans have a propensity to attach proprietorship to these things as a product of their own design because this is an underlying facet of how desire conditions growth on the path.

I never once doubted anyone here is in the auspices of the buddha through their own intent. I do doubt that many understand the influence of their own preferences and how they express bias against other traditions.

The Nichiren one is the best because it truly extends to the most in need, those with the least capacity and the most suffering.

Nichiren was clear that anyone who doubts a teacher who would accommodate people as Shakyamuni buddha did will suffer hell because he is right.

Why? It is absolute counter intuitive to what Shakyamuni dedicated his entire existence to. He is very clear in the LS to call anyone who denies the LS as arrogant and not a follower. Basically Devadatta or the devil of the sixth heaven.
Jake wrote:
tkp67 wrote: Thu Jan 07, 2021 4:40 pm

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?
[/quote]

The enemies are defined by the reaction this teaching gets because of the contrast it creates.

It exposes the provisional as such. Bad reactions to this reveal attachment to provision. That is the good physician at work.

I always felt this teaching was meant to be internalized until grasped then I understood it as such.

The first person I shakabuku'd was myself. For a good ten years. Reading all those overly burdensome internet discourses on the evils of Nichiren Buddhism. I guess I had rightly figured the first enemy I needed to conquer was myself.

However It is easier to question everyone and doubt the world in the face of one's own provision. Pretty much one of the factors that makes samsara so prevalent.

One of things that really lets one understand the minds of others is spending a lifetime suffering for the sake of others. Something most people simply wont do which is why the buddha taught the way he did.

None of that means denying suffering or avoiding it in the process can be avoided if one seeks the supreme and complete enlightenment of Shakyamuni.

What Nichiren is saying that a votary will enjoy peace in this existence while saying they will undoubtedly encounter enemies and obstacles is this.

By applying these teachings in light of later one loses the condition that makes them appear as such. They simply are enemies to themselves and for this there is no anger to be had. Rather bountiful compassion because of the equanimity it is founded on.

Hope this helps.

:anjali:
User avatar
Minobu
Posts: 3571
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2016 6:57 pm

Re: Response to PadmaVonSamba

Post by Minobu »

if you read in this thread what i said about Malcolm and his introduction of other than Lord Nargarjuna's teaching on said subject is true.

it's a subtle thing to add
existence, nonexistence, both, and neither.
this is not the words of Lord Nagarjuna Buddha.
you will not find these words together in the original teachings for they obscure the process of coming to see the view Lord Nagarjuna Buddha left us.

this is Malcolm's way of inserting his view from studying this from another source and trying to meld it to make the other source viable.

i cannot fight city hall.
so adieu . once it becomes a place to rewrite Buddhist doctrine and use Masters of the past and say they said this..

it's not


Malcolm wrote: Thu Jan 07, 2021 3:19 pm
Minobu wrote: Thu Jan 07, 2021 12:19 pm 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 will leave The Nichiren folk with one last comment.

your best teacher is right in front of you if you let it happen.
The Gohonzon.
This is an Entity .. Don't know if it is Lord Sakyamuni Buddha or Nichiren Shonin ...
but nice slow namu style chanting and total focus on the Odaimoku will allow this Gohonzon to awaken you and heal you.

good luck with what others want to teach you.

Image
Sādhaka
Posts: 889
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2016 4:39 pm

Re: Response to PadmaVonSamba

Post by Sādhaka »

Minobu wrote: Sat Jan 09, 2021 4:53 pmthis is Malcolm's way of inserting his view from studying this from another source and trying to meld it to make the other source viable.

Norwegian provided direct quotes.

Now maybe you have no connection to Dzogchen, in which case there may not be much that can be done there; but don’t let Malcolm’s and Norwegian’s Gang of Four approach to politics drive you away from the very profound Dzogpa Chenpo.

In any case, they’re correct regarding the particular topic at hand: Dzogchen does not contradict Nagarjuna; and again, maybe try going back and reading more carefully the said quotes that Norwegian posted....
Genjo Conan
Posts: 153
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2020 6:27 pm

Re: Response to PadmaVonSamba

Post by Genjo Conan »

I'm not a Dzogchenpa, and nothing Malcolm posted in this thread contradicts my understanding of Nagarjuna.

Minobu, if you believe that Nagarjuna supports your view, it would be helpful to provide some quotations or citations to back that up.
Malcolm
Posts: 33806
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Response to PadmaVonSamba

Post by Malcolm »

Genjo Conan wrote: Sat Jan 09, 2021 6:37 pm
Minobu, if you believe that Nagarjuna supports your view, it would be helpful to provide some quotations or citations to back that up.
You'll be waiting until the least next Mahākalpa for that.
"Nonduality is merely a name;
that name does not exist."
—Kotalipa
User avatar
Caoimhghín
Posts: 3088
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
Location: Whitby, Ontario

Re: Response to PadmaVonSamba

Post by Caoimhghín »

Minobu wrote: Sat Jan 09, 2021 4:53 pm
existence, nonexistence, both, and neither.
this is not the words of Lord Nagarjuna Buddha.
you will not find these words together in the original teachings for they obscure the process of coming to see the view Lord Nagarjuna Buddha left us.
What idiot blasphemy. Go do some repentance, Minobu. This might be the most ridiculous thing you have ever said on the Internet. It is so stupid it is dangerous for you. You've just lit your head on fire and you've bought an ax and are determined to split it into seven pieces, just like a branch of the arjaka tree.
Then, the monks sang this gāthā:

These bodies are like foam.
Them being frail, who can rejoice in them?
The Buddha attained the vajra-body.
Still, it becomes inconstant and rots.
The many Buddhas are vajra-entities.
All are also subject to inconstancy.
Quickly ended, like melting snow --
how could things be different?

The Buddha passed into parinirvāṇa afterward.
(T1.27b10 Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra DĀ 2)
User avatar
Minobu
Posts: 3571
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2016 6:57 pm

Re: Response to PadmaVonSamba

Post by Minobu »

Caoimhghín wrote: Sat Jan 09, 2021 9:22 pm
Minobu wrote: Sat Jan 09, 2021 4:53 pm
existence, nonexistence, both, and neither.
this is not the words of Lord Nagarjuna Buddha.
you will not find these words together in the original teachings for they obscure the process of coming to see the view Lord Nagarjuna Buddha left us.
What idiot blasphemy. Go do some repentance, Minobu. This might be the most ridiculous thing you have ever said on the Internet. It is so stupid it is dangerous for you. You've just lit your head on fire and you've bought an ax and are determined to split it into seven pieces, just like a branch of the arjaka tree.
Look im done here,,like the whole forum thing ,the whole norwegian thing is totally understood by the two dzogchen people, as a Dzogchen thing...

the stuff Norwegian wrote is not source material .It;s his deal......this Dzogchen material helps them to understand the whole mental construct they are on about...their leaders talk about the emptiness of the the whole goal .the meditation effect .....what ever...dozogchen stuff...do this and you shall expirence meditation emptiness...

this is not pure Lord Nagarjuna it's tweeked ..

good day sir. your like the only guy i would come here for now...but even you don't get it....

toodles



you know the whole mahayana thing with this sutras denies this one and this one deniesw that one...they all came into being well after the Parinirvana of Lord Sakyamuni Buddha... my Lotus sutra was written mostly in a language that wasn't even used at the Time of Gotama Buddha...

it's all sci fi and way out there...

people are satisfied and talk about it as Upaya for like i dunno...

But The Lotus sutra is the grand Daddy of them all..

so like you got all this high end Mahayana stuff and the Royal Families love it it's the new thing.......build temples...society ...high society revolves around these tales ...and priests and what not making money and enjoying power for thousands of years...temple construction and the aristocracy playing like good Buddhists with a handful of fairy tales and what not...

zilch happening in the line of people attaining Buddhahood except supposedly in death...

how convenient...

So the whole thing is a mish mash of sutra and people writing them..making them up...adding to what ever....blah...
'
'all held in high esteem...Religion 101..

Along comes Nichiren ...uses the fairy tales and puts together something...

A practice Where an actual Buddha is in every Butsudan...sitting there...

amazing...but true...He took fake news and threw it in your faces...and Made it Buddha...

Anyway the norwegian thing is not gospel word for word by Lord Nargarjuna ...it's a Dzogchen thingy...

this is what you need to beware of...It's Mappo...these people should be chanting instead they do this ...

but so goes the whole way of Buddhism i just described...look at what might appear to be dissension in the ranks of Bodhisattvas Of the Earth ...is just appearance...


User avatar
Minobu
Posts: 3571
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2016 6:57 pm

Re: Response to PadmaVonSamba

Post by Minobu »

Sādhaka wrote: Sat Jan 09, 2021 5:57 pm
Minobu wrote: Sat Jan 09, 2021 4:53 pmthis is Malcolm's way of inserting his view from studying this from another source and trying to meld it to make the other source viable.

Norwegian provided direct quotes.

Now maybe you have no connection to Dzogchen, in which case there may not be much that can be done there; but don’t let Malcolm’s and Norwegian’s Gang of Four approach to politics drive you away from the very profound Dzogpa Chenpo.

In any case, they’re correct regarding the particular topic at hand: Dzogchen does not contradict Nagarjuna; and again, maybe try going back and reading more carefully the said quotes that Norwegian posted....
their not direct quotes from original Lord Nargarjuna...there is an add on...prolly from high end dude...

cheers and good luck with that eh .
User avatar
Caoimhghín
Posts: 3088
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
Location: Whitby, Ontario

Re: Response to PadmaVonSamba

Post by Caoimhghín »

Minobu wrote: Sun Jan 10, 2021 2:21 am this is not pure Lord Nagarjuna it's tweeked ..
That things simultaneously exist and don't exist, that they are slightly real and slightly unreal, is silly. Think about it for a second with an undoctrinated mind and you will see this.
[Root text]
If we say that both existence and nonexistence
combine to form nirvāṇa,
then existence and nonexistence both are liberation.
This matter is impossible.

[Ven Vimalākṣa] Existence and nonexistence are two things characterized by opposition. How can they occupy the same spot?

[Root text]
If we say that both existence and nonexistence
combine to form nirvāṇa,
then nirvāṇa is not independent,
because these two with mutual dependency arise.

Existence and nonexistence together joining --
why call this nirvāṇa?
Nirvāṇa is called the unconditioned.
Existence and nonexistence are conditioned.

Existence and nonexistence, two things together --
how is this nirvāṇa?
These two cannot be in the same spot,
like light and dark are never together.
(MMK XXV)
Then, the monks sang this gāthā:

These bodies are like foam.
Them being frail, who can rejoice in them?
The Buddha attained the vajra-body.
Still, it becomes inconstant and rots.
The many Buddhas are vajra-entities.
All are also subject to inconstancy.
Quickly ended, like melting snow --
how could things be different?

The Buddha passed into parinirvāṇa afterward.
(T1.27b10 Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra DĀ 2)
User avatar
Minobu
Posts: 3571
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2016 6:57 pm

Re: Response to PadmaVonSamba

Post by Minobu »

Caoimhghín wrote: Sun Jan 10, 2021 2:26 am
Minobu wrote: Sun Jan 10, 2021 2:21 am this is not pure Lord Nagarjuna it's tweeked ..
That things simultaneously exist and don't exist, that they are slightly real and slightly unreal, is silly. Think about it for a second with an undoctrinated mind and you will see this.
[Root text]
If we say that both existence and nonexistence
combine to form nirvāṇa,
then existence and nonexistence both are liberation.
This matter is impossible.

[Ven Vimalākṣa] Existence and nonexistence are two things characterized by opposition. How can they occupy the same spot?

[Root text]
If we say that both existence and nonexistence
combine to form nirvāṇa,
then nirvāṇa is not independent,
because these two with mutual dependency arise.

Existence and nonexistence together joining --
why call this nirvāṇa?
Nirvāṇa is called the unconditioned.
Existence and nonexistence are conditioned.

Existence and nonexistence, two things together --
how is this nirvāṇa?
These two cannot be in the same spot,
like light and dark are never together.
(MMK XXV)
hello i know this stuff...

go read malcolm's words there are add ons

no where can you read this in what i was taught
That which arises dependently is free of all four extremes: existence, nonexistence, both, and neither.
never expressed that way till the dzogchen people...


i'm done

leave me alone with your it seems ok...it's not..
User avatar
Caoimhghín
Posts: 3088
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
Location: Whitby, Ontario

Re: Response to PadmaVonSamba

Post by Caoimhghín »

Malcolm is correct here. You are wrong here. Ven Nāgārjuna directly and explicitly outlines "free of four extremes." I'll post more when I get to a computer.
Then, the monks sang this gāthā:

These bodies are like foam.
Them being frail, who can rejoice in them?
The Buddha attained the vajra-body.
Still, it becomes inconstant and rots.
The many Buddhas are vajra-entities.
All are also subject to inconstancy.
Quickly ended, like melting snow --
how could things be different?

The Buddha passed into parinirvāṇa afterward.
(T1.27b10 Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra DĀ 2)
User avatar
Minobu
Posts: 3571
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2016 6:57 pm

Re: Response to PadmaVonSamba

Post by Minobu »

look for what it's worth to actually get a clear usable understanding of Sunyata ...the words and wording to attain this are like a garden path...changing it cause you think it is better...thats what Malcolm did ..

well maybe malcolm is just teaching the dzogchen thing so much it got blurred into him thinking it is original....and the Norwegian guy used his Dzogchen material to come up with that apparent scholarly piece on the matter.....

G'day eh !
User avatar
Minobu
Posts: 3571
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2016 6:57 pm

Re: Response to PadmaVonSamba

Post by Minobu »

Caoimhghín wrote: Sun Jan 10, 2021 2:42 am Malcolm is correct here. You are wrong here. Ven Nāgārjuna directly and explicitly outlines "free of four extremes." I'll post more when I get to a computer.
ok you i trust...

show me please the exact wording...and ill show you what i mean...
narhwal90
Global Moderator
Posts: 1413
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 3:10 am

Re: Response to PadmaVonSamba

Post by narhwal90 »

Removed provocative post. I suggest awaiting Caoimhghín's response.
User avatar
Minobu
Posts: 3571
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2016 6:57 pm

Re: Response to PadmaVonSamba

Post by Minobu »

narhwal90 wrote: Sun Jan 10, 2021 3:54 am Removed provocative post. I suggest awaiting Caoimhghín's response.
i see
ok could you please edit out the provocative part which i don't know and leave all the Nichiren stuff i was talking to the Nichiren forum here..

so please edit out what you deem provocative at your pleasure and leave the important Nichiren stuff..

or you don;'t really believe that stuff anymore..

there was a lot of good stuff in those posts
Last edited by Minobu on Sun Jan 10, 2021 4:14 am, edited 2 times in total.
Norwegian
Posts: 2030
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 7:36 pm

Re: Response to PadmaVonSamba

Post by Norwegian »

Minobu,

Nothing that I posted was from Dzogchen, nothing at all whatsoever.

I cited Nagarjuna (from his Śūnyatāsaptati), his student Aryadeva (from his Catuḥśataka), and another Indian shastra, as well as the Prajnaparamita Ratnagunasamcayagatha (which exists in English translation by Conze). This has nothing to do with a.) Tibet, or b.) Dzogchen.

Here's Chandrakirti (Indian, not from Tibet, not a Dzogchen master) from his Madhyamakavatara, a commentary on Nagarjuna's Mulamadhyamakakarika:

And if producers are the cause of products are the cause of products other than themselves,
Is what they generate existent, nonexistent, both, or neither?
If existent, why is a producer needed, and if nonexistent, what does the producer do?
If both, again, what use is it? If neither, yet again, what purpose does it serve?


Nagarjuna from the MMK:

(in Sanskrit):
atmano 'stitvanastitve na katham cic ca sidhyatah
tam vinastitvanastitve kleshanam sidhyatah katham


(in English):
Neither the existence nor the the nonexistence of the self is in any way established.
Without that establishment, how will there be the establishment of the existence or nonexistence of the defilements?


From the Kaccayanagotta Sutta: To Kaccayana Gotta (on Right View), by Buddha Shakyamuni:
Dwelling at Savatthi... Then Ven. Kaccayana Gotta approached the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down, sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One: "Lord, 'Right view, right view,' it is said. To what extent is there right view?"

"By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

And then Nagarjuna comments on the above sutta, in his MMK, along with commentary by Buddhapalita (Indian, not Tibetan, also not Dzogchen):
"Explanation: Do not grasp misguided [views]!

Whoever [follows] a view of self-existence, dependent existence, existents or non-existents, they do not see the truth in the Buddha's doctrine.

Someone like that, who [has a] view of self existence, dependent existence, existents and non-existents, they do not see the truth in the profound [dependent origination] as the supreme teaching of the Buddha. We, in the correct way, see the non existence of the self-existence of things which appear because the sun of dependent origination arose. Therefore since we see the truth, liberation is can be accepted only for us. If it is asked what is the reason for this, thus:

Because the Bhagavan, showing existents and non-existents, also negates both 'is' and 'is not' in the Katayayana Oral Instruction.

Why? Because the Bhagavan, knowledgeable in the truth of the ultimate, always demonstrating [what is] existent and non-existent, correctly determines both 'is' and 'is not' in the 'Katayaayana Oral Instruction' Sutra. Therefore, whoever follows a view for existence or non-existence in existents, because the truth is not seen by them, also liberation cannot be accepted for them. As we do not grasp to 'it is' [or] 'it is not' as conventionally determined, [liberation] is not unacceptable [for us].

If seeing existents and non-existents is seeing the truth, because the truth would never not be seen, [seeing existents and non-existents] is not [seeing] the truth. Therefore, the non-existence of the self-existence of things is the truth, by seeing only that, will there be liberation."
Then we got Chandrakirti again, where he cites the Samadhiraja Sutra (since you may think that this is a Tibetan Dzogchen text, here's the Sanskrit original of this sutra: https://archive.org/details/gilgitmanus ... 1/mode/2up):

"It exists" and "it does not exist" are both extremes; "pure" and "impure" are both extremes.
The wise man, avoiding both extremes, likewise does not take a stand in the middle.


Back to Nagarjuna and his MMK again:

(in Sanskrit):
param nirodhad bhagavan bhavatity eva najyate
na bhavaty ubhayam ceti nobhayam ceti najyate


(in English)
It is not to be asserted that the Buddha exists beyond cessation, nor "does not exist" nor "both exists and does not exist" nor "neither exists nor does not exists" - none of these is to be asserted.

(in Sanskrit):
tisthamano 'pi bhagavan bhavatity eva najyate
na bhavaty ubhayam ceti nobhayam ceti najyate


(in English):
Indeed it is not to be asserted that "The Buddha exists while remaining [in this world]," nor "does not exist" nor "both exists and does not exist," nor "neither exists nor does not exist" - none of these is to be asserted.

The tetralemma gathers all four ontological views possible to conceive of, and are refuted as wrong views, one by one. Your assertion that "both existence and nonexistence" is the Middle Way, that it is taught by Nagarjuna, that this is right view, is a grave error on your part.

All of this is plain to see for everybody. Regardless of what type of Buddhism they practice. This is basic Mahayana. Receive teachings on these things. Study these things. Learn these things.
"The Guru is the Buddha, the Guru is the Dharma,
The Guru is the Sangha too,
The Guru is Śrī Heruka.
The All-Creating King is the Guru."

-- The Secret Assembly Tantra
User avatar
Minobu
Posts: 3571
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2016 6:57 pm

Re: Response to PadmaVonSamba

Post by Minobu »

Norwegian wrote: Sun Jan 10, 2021 4:03 am Minobu,

Nothing that I posted was from Dzogchen, nothing at all whatsoever.

I cited Nagarjuna (from his Śūnyatāsaptati), his student Aryadeva (from his Catuḥśataka), and another Indian shastra, as well as the Prajnaparamita Ratnagunasamcayagatha (which exists in English translation by Conze). This has nothing to do with a.) Tibet, or b.) Dzogchen.

Here's Chandrakirti (Indian, not from Tibet, not a Dzogchen master) from his Madhyamakavatara, a commentary on Nagarjuna's Mulamadhyamakakarika:

And if producers are the cause of products are the cause of products other than themselves,
Is what they generate existent, nonexistent, both, or neither?
If existent, why is a producer needed, and if nonexistent, what does the producer do?
If both, again, what use is it? If neither, yet again, what purpose does it serve?


Nagarjuna from the MMK:

(in Sanskrit):
atmano 'stitvanastitve na katham cic ca sidhyatah
tam vinastitvanastitve kleshanam sidhyatah katham


(in English):
Neither the existence nor the the nonexistence of the self is in any way established.
Without that establishment, how will there be the establishment of the existence or nonexistence of the defilements?


From the Kaccayanagotta Sutta: To Kaccayana Gotta (on Right View), by Buddha Shakyamuni:
Dwelling at Savatthi... Then Ven. Kaccayana Gotta approached the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down, sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One: "Lord, 'Right view, right view,' it is said. To what extent is there right view?"

"By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

And then Nagarjuna comments on the above sutta, in his MMK, along with commentary by Buddhapalita (Indian, not Tibetan, also not Dzogchen):
"Explanation: Do not grasp misguided [views]!

Whoever [follows] a view of self-existence, dependent existence, existents or non-existents, they do not see the truth in the Buddha's doctrine.

Someone like that, who [has a] view of self existence, dependent existence, existents and non-existents, they do not see the truth in the profound [dependent origination] as the supreme teaching of the Buddha. We, in the correct way, see the non existence of the self-existence of things which appear because the sun of dependent origination arose. Therefore since we see the truth, liberation is can be accepted only for us. If it is asked what is the reason for this, thus:

Because the Bhagavan, showing existents and non-existents, also negates both 'is' and 'is not' in the Katayayana Oral Instruction.

Why? Because the Bhagavan, knowledgeable in the truth of the ultimate, always demonstrating [what is] existent and non-existent, correctly determines both 'is' and 'is not' in the 'Katayaayana Oral Instruction' Sutra. Therefore, whoever follows a view for existence or non-existence in existents, because the truth is not seen by them, also liberation cannot be accepted for them. As we do not grasp to 'it is' [or] 'it is not' as conventionally determined, [liberation] is not unacceptable [for us].

If seeing existents and non-existents is seeing the truth, because the truth would never not be seen, [seeing existents and non-existents] is not [seeing] the truth. Therefore, the non-existence of the self-existence of things is the truth, by seeing only that, will there be liberation."
Then we got Chandrakirti again, where he cites the Samadhiraja Sutra (since you may think that this is a Tibetan Dzogchen text, here's the Sanskrit original of this sutra: https://archive.org/details/gilgitmanus ... 1/mode/2up):

"It exists" and "it does not exist" are both extremes; "pure" and "impure" are both extremes.
The wise man, avoiding both extremes, likewise does not take a stand in the middle.


Back to Nagarjuna and his MMK again:

(in Sanskrit):
param nirodhad bhagavan bhavatity eva najyate
na bhavaty ubhayam ceti nobhayam ceti najyate


(in English)
It is not to be asserted that the Buddha exists beyond cessation, nor "does not exist" nor "both exists and does not exist" nor "neither exists nor does not exists" - none of these is to be asserted.

(in Sanskrit):
tisthamano 'pi bhagavan bhavatity eva najyate
na bhavaty ubhayam ceti nobhayam ceti najyate


(in English):
Indeed it is not to be asserted that "The Buddha exists while remaining [in this world]," nor "does not exist" nor "both exists and does not exist," nor "neither exists nor does not exist" - none of these is to be asserted.

All of this is plain to see for everybody. Regardless of what type of Buddhism they practice. This is basic Mahayana. Receive teachings on these things. Study these things. Learn these things.
show me the four extremes that malcolm claims below are Lord Nargajuna words that were quoted ...cause it ain't in what you just posted nor in any original text from His Hand
Malcolm wrote: Thu Jan 07, 2021 3:19 pm
Minobu wrote: Thu Jan 07, 2021 12:19 pm 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 don't need your explanation to back up whats not there... just the original text,,
what malcolm said is from commentary from tibetans well after Lord Nargarjuna's Teachings reached them..

TWEEK CITY



EDIT a source of what you say is Hi9s words would be welcome
Post Reply

Return to “Nichiren”