Response to PadmaVonSamba

Norwegian
Posts: 2030
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 7:36 pm

Re: Response to PadmaVonSamba

Post by Norwegian »

At this point I am beginning to think that you're deliberately trolling.

The third of the four extremes (of the tetralemma), is "both existence and nonexistence", the view you claimed is right view, the view you claim is taught by Nagarjuna. Which of course is complete nonsense. And you are completely wrong about that which you say about Malcolm too.

I have given plenty of citations. Please read them. It's not difficult to understand.
"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
narhwal90
Global Moderator
Posts: 1413
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 3:10 am

Re: Response to PadmaVonSamba

Post by narhwal90 »

Here Minobu, look for yourself;

http://promienie.net/images/dharma/book ... karika.pdf

Chapter 18
==========================
8. Everything is real and is not real,
Both real and not real,
Neither real nor not real.
This is Lord Buddha's teaching.

To state everything is real and not real, not including the other propositions is an error- there are 4 Extremes to avoid. Nichiren accepted Nagarjuna, as he did Zhiyi.
User avatar
Johnny Dangerous
Global Moderator
Posts: 12310
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
Location: Olympia WA
Contact:

Re: Response to PadmaVonSamba

Post by Johnny Dangerous »

I was under the impression that that tetralemma predates Buddhism and is not exclusive to it, I could be wong. I thought it was utilized in Hinduism and Jainism, simply in very different fashion.

You can find Pali Suttas even that have a similar sentiment, with less philosophical wrangling:

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
"...if you think about how many hours, months and years of your life you've spent looking at things, being fascinated by things that have now passed away, then how wonderful to spend even five minutes looking into the nature of your own mind."

-James Low
narhwal90
Global Moderator
Posts: 1413
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 3:10 am

Re: Response to PadmaVonSamba

Post by narhwal90 »

Wikipedia (and as per Grigoris I think also), mention the Greeks used it also.
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 4:21 am Here Minobu, look for yourself;

http://promienie.net/images/dharma/book ... karika.pdf

Chapter 18
==========================
8. Everything is real and is not real,
Both real and not real,
Neither real nor not real.
This is Lord Buddha's teaching.

To state everything is real and not real, not including the other propositions is an error- there are 4 Extremes to avoid. Nichiren accepted Nagarjuna, as he did Zhiyi.
thanks for the book

so yeah i rest my case, from the link we get this
Everything is real and is not real,
Both real and not real,
Neither real nor not real.
This is Lord Buddha's teaching.
thats the real deal...

what malcolm wrote is from the dozgchenpos//r spelling error ..no disrespect intended
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 4:17 am At this point I am beginning to think that you're deliberately trolling.

The third of the four extremes (of the tetralemma), is "both existence and nonexistence", the view you claimed is right view, the view you claim is taught by Nagarjuna. Which of course is complete nonsense. And you are completely wrong about that which you say about Malcolm too.

I have given plenty of citations. Please read them. It's not difficult to understand.
well we can't find it in lord Nagarjuna's writings so yeah im trolling ..get real...it's tibetan commentary...
narhwal90
Global Moderator
Posts: 1413
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 3:10 am

Re: Response to PadmaVonSamba

Post by narhwal90 »

Here's another translation of the same passage;

Everything is such, not such, both such and not such, and neither such and not such: this is the Buddha's admonition.

is one of them wrong?
User avatar
Johnny Dangerous
Global Moderator
Posts: 12310
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
Location: Olympia WA
Contact:

Re: Response to PadmaVonSamba

Post by Johnny Dangerous »

Minobu wrote: Sun Jan 10, 2021 4:32 am
Norwegian wrote: Sun Jan 10, 2021 4:17 am At this point I am beginning to think that you're deliberately trolling.

The third of the four extremes (of the tetralemma), is "both existence and nonexistence", the view you claimed is right view, the view you claim is taught by Nagarjuna. Which of course is complete nonsense. And you are completely wrong about that which you say about Malcolm too.

I have given plenty of citations. Please read them. It's not difficult to understand.
well we can't find it in lord Nagarjuna's writings so yeah im trolling ..get real...it's tibetan commentary...
None of the four extremes is right view, no extreme of thought is right view...that's Mahayana 101. The point of Madhymaka is something like a koan, to extinguish conceptual possibilities...not to choose one.
Minobu wrote: Sat Jan 09, 2021 12:42 am

Prajnaparamita
i believe Lord Nagarjuna is attributed to this Work
No, it's an entire class of Sutras:

E.G. Diamond Sutra, Heart Sutra, Prajnaparamita in x number of lines, etc.:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prajnaparamita
"...if you think about how many hours, months and years of your life you've spent looking at things, being fascinated by things that have now passed away, then how wonderful to spend even five minutes looking into the nature of your own mind."

-James Low
User avatar
Caoimhghín
Posts: 3088
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
Location: Whitby, Ontario

Re: Response to PadmaVonSamba

Post by Caoimhghín »

narhwal90 wrote: Sun Jan 10, 2021 4:21 am Here Minobu, look for yourself;

http://promienie.net/images/dharma/book ... karika.pdf

Chapter 18
==========================
8. Everything is real and is not real,
Both real and not real,
Neither real nor not real.
This is Lord Buddha's teaching.

To state everything is real and not real, not including the other propositions is an error- there are 4 Extremes to avoid. Nichiren accepted Nagarjuna, as he did Zhiyi.
This might be confusing, because it is the reverse tetralemma. Here in MMK XVIII it is not negated, which is an interesting discussion. Almost at my 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
Caoimhghín
Posts: 3088
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
Location: Whitby, Ontario

Re: Response to PadmaVonSamba

Post by Caoimhghín »

There's two things that have been claimed. 1)
Minobu wrote: Sat Jan 09, 2021 4:53 pm 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.
Claim 1 is that, of the tetralemma itself, you "will not find these words together in the original teachings" etc. On to claim 2)
Minobu wrote: Sat Jan 09, 2021 12:39 am
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
Claim 2 is that dependently originated dharmas are not independent of the four extremes, which I am going to call "the four theses," according to Ven Nagarjuna's teaching of the Dharma.
Minobu wrote: Sun Jan 10, 2021 4:32 am
Norwegian wrote: Sun Jan 10, 2021 4:17 am At this point I am beginning to think that you're deliberately trolling.

The third of the four extremes (of the tetralemma), is "both existence and nonexistence", the view you claimed is right view, the view you claim is taught by Nagarjuna. Which of course is complete nonsense. And you are completely wrong about that which you say about Malcolm too.

I have given plenty of citations. Please read them. It's not difficult to understand.
well we can't find it in lord Nagarjuna's writings so yeah im trolling ..get real...it's tibetan commentary...
There's a lot you have given us here. In this latest exchange you were skeptical that you ought to be corrected when you said that "both existence and nonexistence" was the proper view of emptiness. Then, when I quoted from MMK XXV to you, you say "hello i know this stuff." Well, Minobu, do you? It seems like you don't. It seems like you think "get real...it's tibetan commentary" or something like that.

This whole exchange started because you said:
Minobu wrote:according to sunyata it's a view of existence and nonexistence both at same time in order to come to the view.
Now the thread has migrated into addressing two objections you have to the Middle Way. Readers can follow along with translations of the Sanskrit parallel using the citations or check the translation against Christopher Bocking's. MMK is a dialogue between Ven Nagarjuna and an opponent, and the Madhyamakaśāstra expands the role of the interlocutor slightly, fleshing out his positions and having him pose rhetorical questions to Ven Nagarjuna's root text occasionally. This is done without changing or compromising Ven Nagarjuna's root text of the MMK. Due to the OP's evident distaste for commentary, I will not include Ven Vimalākṣa's comments where the root text is clear.

CLAIM 1
T1564.34c14 Madhyamakaśāstra
XXV -- Regarding Nirvāṇa


24:4
Nirvāṇa is not called 'existent.'
The existent is characterized as aging and dying.
In the end, there is not an existent phenomenon
not characterized as aging and dying.

24:5
If nirvāṇa exists,
then nirvāṇa will be conditioned.
Truly, there is not one phenomenon
that is unconditioned.

24:6
If nirvāṇa exists,
why is it called 'independent?'
There is nothing not following from dependence
that is called an existent phenomenon.

[Interlocutor in commentary:] If existence is not nirvāṇa, then (it follows that) nonexistence must be nirvāṇa.

24:7
Existence is not nirvāṇa,
much less is it nonexistence.
If nirvāṇa does not exist,
how could it exist as nonexistence?


24:8
If nonexistence is nirvāṇa,
why is it called 'independent?'
Never before has independence
been called nonexistence.

24:9
Dependent upon the many causes and conditions,
within the wheel we turn, being born and dying.
Independence of the many causes and conditions
is what is called 'nirvāṇa.'

24:10
Thus within the Buddha's scripture, it says,
"Forsaking existence and forsaking nonexistence."
Therefore, we know nirvāṇa
is neither existence nor nonexistence.

24:11
If we say that both existence and nonexistence
combine to form nirvāṇa,
then existence and nonexistence both are liberation.
This matter is impossible.

24:12
If we say that both existence and nonexistence
combine to form nirvāṇa,
then nirvāṇa is not independent,
because these two with mutual dependency arise.

24:13
Existence and nonexistence together joining --
why call this nirvāṇa?
Nirvāṇa is called the unconditioned.
Existence and nonexistence are conditioned.

24:14
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.


[Interlocutor in commentary:] If existence and nonexistence together joined are not nirvāṇa, then nirvāṇa should be neither existence nor nonexistence.

24:15
If it is neither existence nor nonexistence
that nirvāṇa is to be called,
this 'neither existence nor nonexistence,'
how will we distinguish it?

24:16
You distinguish 'neither existence nor nonexistence'
and, just like that, call it nirvāṇa,
yet if existence and nonexistence are established,
then neither existence nor nonexistence are established.


24:17
The Tathagata, after parinirvāṇa,
is neither said to exist nor not to exist,
nor is he said to both exist and not exist,
nor neither exist nor not exist.


24:18
The Tathagata, presently,
is neither said to exist nor not to exist,
nor is he said to both exist and not exist,
nor neither exist nor not exist.


24:19
Between nirvāṇa and the world,
there is not the slightest differentiation.
Between the world and nirvāṇa,
there is also not the slightest differentiation.

24:20
From the true apex of nirvāṇa
to the apex of the world,
like this, there are two apices
with not a sliver of difference between them.

24:21
"Existence or nonexistence after parinirvāṇa," et cetera,
"the boundaries of existence," "constancy," et cetera --
all (of these) views depend on nirvāṇa
being in the future or in the past.

[Ven Vimalākṣa] (1) "The Tathagata after parinirvāṇa exists," or (2) "The Tathagata does not exist," or (3) "The Tathagata both exists and does not exist," or (4) "The Tathagata neither exists nor not exists," or (5) "The world is finite," or (6) "The world is infinite," or (7) "The world is both finite and infinite," or (8) "The world is neither finite nor infinite," or (9) "The world is constant," or (10) "The world is inconstant," or (11) "The world is both constant and inconstant," or (12) "The world is neither constant nor inconstant" -- these in three kinds are twelve views. When after the Tathagata's parinirvāṇa he is (1) existent or (2) nonexistent, et cetera (3-4), those four views arise dependent on (the notion of) nirvāṇa. When the world is (5) finite or (6) infinite, et cetera (7-8), those four views arise dependent on (the notion of) the future. When the world is (9) constant or (10) inconstant, et cetera (11-12), those four views are dependent on (the notion of) the past. Whether the Tathagata after parinirvāṇa exists or does not exist, et cetera, is inconceivable, and nirvāṇa is also the same. Like the origin and destiny of the world, if it is finite, infinite, constant, inconstant, et cetera, it is inconceivable, and nirvāṇa is also the same. Consequently, we say that the world and nirvāṇa are not different.

24:22
If all phenomena are empty,
what is finite, infinite,
both finite and infinite,
or neither finite nor infinite?

24:23
Why is there the one and the many?
Why is there the constant, and inconstant,
and both constant and inconstant,
and neither constant nor inconstant?

24:24
All phenomena being inconceivable
is the cessation of the frivolous ponderings.
To no person and in no place
has the Buddha ever spoken.

[Ven Vimalākṣa] All phenomena at all times of every variety conform to dependent origination. All in all, they are empty, and thus they have not their own natures (自性, svabhāva). Which body exists to be the same as the soul? Which body exists to be different than the soul? Thus proceeding are the sixty-two demonic views. Each and every one within emptiness is untenable. When all existence completely ceases, frivolous ponderings are entirely gone. When frivolous ponderings are entirely gone, it is because we have penetrated the true aspect of the many phenomena and attained the tranquil path. Hearkening back to the chapter on causality, if we inquire into the many phenomena, they are neither existent nor nonexistent, nor are they both existent and nonexistent, and nor are they neither existent nor nonexistent. This is called 'the true aspect of all phenomena.' It is also called 'the true nature of the phenomena,' 'reality,' and 'nirvāṇa.' Therefore, the Tathagata at no time, in no place, to no persons, ever spoke of nirvāṇa as with particularized characteristics. When all existence has entirely come to an end, frivolous ponderings have ceased.
This is the negated tetralemma, the four negated theses which are supposedly "not the words of Lord Nagarjuna Buddha."

1) (Not) Existence
2) (Not) Nonexistence.
3) (Not) Both existence and nonexistence.
4) (Not) Neither existence nor nonexistence.

Six things are bolded in MMK XXV above. The first thing bolded is element 1 of the tetralemma. The second thing bolded is element 2 of the tetralemma. The third thing bolded is element 3 of the tetralemma. The fourth thing bolded is element 4 of the tetralemma. The fifth and six things bolded are statements of the four negated theses.

CLAIM 2

See MMK 24:19 above: "Between nirvāṇa and the world,/there is not the slightest differentiation./Between the world and nirvāṇa,/there is also not the slightest differentiation."

MMK 24 was all about explaining how nirvāṇa is inconceivable. That is now applied to the world, for both are empty. Ven Vimalākṣa's commentary to MMK 18:12 is rather explicit. He has an extended dialogue with the interlocutor:
[Interlocutor] If there is not taught selfhood, selflessness, emptiness, or non-emptiness, then what is taught in the Buddha's Dharma?

[Ven Vimalākṣa] The Buddha teaches the true aspect of all phenomena. Within the true aspect of all phenomena, there is no path for spoken language and mental activities have stopped. The mind, taking its characteristics from its conditions, arises because of karma as reward and punishment from the former world and cannot truly see the many phenomena. This is why the ending of mental activity is taught.

[Interlocutor] If the mind of the ordinary person cannot perceive reality, and the minds of the saints can perceive reality, why say, 'the ending of all mental activity?'

[Ven Vimalākṣa] The true aspect of all phenomena is nirvāṇa. Nirvāṇa is cessation. There is said "cessation" in order to designate nirvāṇa, and that is why it is called cessation. If the mind is real, what is the function of emptiness, et cetera, as doors to deliverance? Of all concentrations (諸禪定 sarvasamādhayaḥ), why is it the cessation of perception and sensation (滅盡定 nirodhasamāpatti) that is the highest -- second only in the end to nirvāṇa without remainder? Therefore, it should be known that all mental activity in entirety is false, and the false shall cease. The true aspect of all phenomena surpasses all of the phenomena of the mental factors (心數法 caitasikadharmāḥ). Unarisen, unceasing, as such it is characterized as quiet tranquility. It is like nirvāṇa.

[Interlocutor] According to the scriptures, any phenomena which, from inception, is characterized by quiet tranquility, would be nirvāṇa. Why here say "like nirvāṇa?"

[Ven Vimalākṣa] Those who schematize the phenomena do so into two families. These (families) are the world and nirvāṇa, and they say that nirvāṇa is quiet tranquility but do not say that the world is quiet tranquility. According to the Kārikā, all phenomena have empty natures and are characterized by quiet tranquility. Those who schematize the phenomena do not understand, so nirvāṇa is used as an analogy. Like it is said of nirvāṇa's characteristics that they are empty, are not characteristics, and are not frivolous ponderings, all of the worldly phenomena are likewise (characterized).

[Interlocutor] If the Buddhas teach neither selfhood nor selflessness and (instead teach) the ending of all mental activities and spoken language, how do they lead others to know the true aspect of all phenomena?

[Ven Vimalākṣa] The many Buddhas have immeasurable implementations of appropriate methodologies, and the many phenomena have no fixed natures. To liberate beings, they say [...]
(T1564.24a15)

The rest is quoted back on page 3. It can be read there.

The bolded responds to claim 2. If the OP wants, we can dig up a quote from the MMK saying anything to the effect of "all dharmas are empty." But do we really need to?

In conclusion: Ven Nagarjuna taught the Dharma using the four negated theses and all dharmas, in the Madhyamaka view as outlined in the MMK, are empty. The four theses, all of them, do not apply to that which is empty.
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 »

Ok so it’s not Tibetan commentary and just a translation.
Thanks
I
When I said I know this stuff Mr C I meant I read it and i felt it wasn’t addressing my thinking that the these words were commentary.

I see now that I was wrong

Thanks for helping to everyone that did.
Malcolm
Posts: 33806
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Response to PadmaVonSamba

Post by Malcolm »

Minobu wrote: Sun Jan 10, 2021 12:07 pm
I see now that I was wrong

Yes, and you need to apologize for making an unfounded objection based in your sectarian biases and lack of education in the sutras of the Buddha and writings of Nagarjuna.
"Nonduality is merely a name;
that name does not exist."
—Kotalipa
User avatar
Minobu
Posts: 3571
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2016 6:57 pm

Re: Response to PadmaVonSamba

Post by Minobu »

Malcolm wrote: Sun Jan 10, 2021 1:14 pm
Minobu wrote: Sun Jan 10, 2021 12:07 pm
I see now that I was wrong

Yes, and you need to apologize for making an unfounded objection based in your sectarian biases and lack of education in the sutras of the Buddha and writings of Nagarjuna.
I always admit when i'm wrong....this past few weeks have been a lesson in extremes for me..

in order for me to apologize it has to come from my heart ...i don't do flakey...i do the ignorance dance but even that as you see isn't done in half measures.

We have been here before you and me many a time since ESangha days...thats a long time...sigh and still i get it wrong...

So i would like to be able to apologize but first maybe if i get all that has been going on in me head the past few weeks...with your help i could come to an apology ..a sincere one...

so the shortest version of whats rolling around me noggin.

Mahayana> all of which comes after the passing of Gotama Buddha..is it really Buddha's teachings?
Mahayana texts are said to be in conflict with one another at times to the point people have called the Buddha a lier..why ? for me it is because it is all man made in the name of Buddha..

I've been a shopper when it comes to religion...i've been to a lot of different schools of Buddhism and different teachers both in real life and here and ...

Once in a packed room I asked Rinpoche during question period...my question..

If the Buddha said do not look to any god or demon and even Me for help then why are there people in this room including me praying for help. Some temples offer fake money you buy so to burn it as an offering to get more money success..
He just looked at me and sort of shrugged and said nothing...But i had deep feeling he understood where i was coming from...he did not scold me...if anything i think it brought us closer...conjecture of course..

So then we have Nichiren and His take on the whole thing...

So like I'm like swamped with thoughts of ...it's all a con ...the whole death bed promise of pure landers to me is same paradigm instituted by Rome with the roman catholic church..which was created in the centre of Rome...a new and improved Elysium for the masses especially the brave soldiers fighting to protect you from people who want to take it away...

then i don't see anyone attaining Buddhahood...at the time of Nichiren the whole Buddhist scene was for the privileged . Q says no but i see it as a time when there was no actual Buddhism just posers raking in the money and using it to control the masses..

so i could go on but everyone that ever reads me knows the other stuff...

So i go blind to what you posted and looked at it as just another agenda...for that i do sincerely apologize for it was borderline psychotic at the very least delusional on my part...So a sincere apology to you and the Norwegian ...

i have no idea how this happened....i know this stuff....it's scary....

So i can't apologize for what goes on in me head...especially Buddhas for the state of affairs is a mess...so maybe it's not Buddha's work ..it's all man made up make believe...and the ancients thought this was like gospel...So Nichiren actually left a thing that allows for one to actually to .....well....the short version eh..

as for me being sectarian...do i sound sectarian....i don't belong to any sect...i now look at them all with contempt...except Nichiren Daishonin, someone who yesterday or the day before i came to terms with as being a Buddha...

just being honest...if this gets you angry...like before...what can i say....it's as honest as i can be...

and if you don't think i'm sincere ..and trolling like Norwegian thought ...well thats just wrong...

as i said the past few weeks have been one of extremes...maybe i needed this going blind and delusional to arrive here....questioning my very loved Buddhist Sutras.....why am i doing this ?

My Gakki training is what affords me to watch my mind and know when i'm being extreme and delusional...then to work on it...look in the mirror and accept you are dark and ugly inside ...now correct it...
Malcolm
Posts: 33806
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Response to PadmaVonSamba

Post by Malcolm »

Minobu wrote: Sun Jan 10, 2021 3:17 pm
Malcolm wrote: Sun Jan 10, 2021 1:14 pm
Minobu wrote: Sun Jan 10, 2021 12:07 pm
I see now that I was wrong

Yes, and you need to apologize for making an unfounded objection based in your sectarian biases and lack of education in the sutras of the Buddha and writings of Nagarjuna.
I always admit when i'm wrong....this past few weeks have been a lesson in extremes for me..
I see, so you are refusing to apologize. Figures, since you also,just admitted to being sectarian. Fruit never falls far from the Shugden tree.
"Nonduality is merely a name;
that name does not exist."
—Kotalipa
User avatar
Minobu
Posts: 3571
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2016 6:57 pm

Re: Response to PadmaVonSamba

Post by Minobu »

Johnny Dangerous wrote: Sun Jan 10, 2021 4:34 am
Minobu wrote: Sun Jan 10, 2021 4:32 am
Norwegian wrote: Sun Jan 10, 2021 4:17 am At this point I am beginning to think that you're deliberately trolling.

The third of the four extremes (of the tetralemma), is "both existence and nonexistence", the view you claimed is right view, the view you claim is taught by Nagarjuna. Which of course is complete nonsense. And you are completely wrong about that which you say about Malcolm too.

I have given plenty of citations. Please read them. It's not difficult to understand.
well we can't find it in lord Nagarjuna's writings so yeah im trolling ..get real...it's tibetan commentary...
None of the four extremes is right view, no extreme of thought is right view...that's Mahayana 101. The point of Madhymaka is something like a koan, to extinguish conceptual possibilities...not to choose one.
Minobu wrote: Sat Jan 09, 2021 12:42 am

Prajnaparamita
i believe Lord Nagarjuna is attributed to this Work
No, it's an entire class of Sutras:

E.G. Diamond Sutra, Heart Sutra, Prajnaparamita in x number of lines, etc.:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prajnaparamita
thanks ..from the link . this is why I thought it was attributed to Lord Nargarjuna
Tāntric versions of the Prajñāpāramitā literature were produced from the year 500 CE on and include sutras such as the Adhyardhaśatikā Prajñāpāramitā (150 lines). Additionally, Prajñāpāramitā terma teachings are held by some Tibetan Buddhists to have been conferred upon Nāgārjuna by the Nāgarāja "King of the Nāgas", who had been guarding them at the bottom of the sea.
User avatar
Minobu
Posts: 3571
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2016 6:57 pm

Re: Response to PadmaVonSamba

Post by Minobu »

Malcolm wrote: Sun Jan 10, 2021 3:37 pm
Minobu wrote: Sun Jan 10, 2021 3:17 pm
Malcolm wrote: Sun Jan 10, 2021 1:14 pm

Yes, and you need to apologize for making an unfounded objection based in your sectarian biases and lack of education in the sutras of the Buddha and writings of Nagarjuna.
I always admit when i'm wrong....this past few weeks have been a lesson in extremes for me..
I see, so you are refusing to apologize. Figures, since you also,just admitted to being sectarian. Fruit never falls far from the Shugden tree.
now who is being sectarian...

what are you saying now...what does that even mean what i underlined
and i did apologize ..obviously you did not read the whole post...

maybe you need also to look in the mirror..
User avatar
FiveSkandhas
Posts: 406
Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2019 6:40 pm

Re: Response to PadmaVonSamba

Post by FiveSkandhas »

Perhaps it would be easier and more to the point to àpologize to the three Jewels and to Lord Nagarjuna than to members of the message board. Just thinking out loud.
"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
Minobu
Posts: 3571
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2016 6:57 pm

Re: Response to PadmaVonSamba

Post by Minobu »

FiveSkandhas wrote: Sun Jan 10, 2021 3:51 pm Perhaps it would be easier and more to the point to àpologize to the three Jewels and to Lord Nagarjuna than to members of the message board. Just thinking out loud.
I have a relationship with the three jewels for like ever...they understand me ...
i was wrong and now malcolm wants a pound of flesh.
unreal.

malcolm's last post will be removed for it makes him look small..
i could be wrong though...it might not get deleted.
Malcolm
Posts: 33806
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Response to PadmaVonSamba

Post by Malcolm »

Minobu wrote: Sun Jan 10, 2021 3:45 pm
Malcolm wrote: Sun Jan 10, 2021 3:37 pm
Minobu wrote: Sun Jan 10, 2021 3:17 pm

I always admit when i'm wrong....this past few weeks have been a lesson in extremes for me..
I see, so you are refusing to apologize. Figures, since you also,just admitted to being sectarian. Fruit never falls far from the Shugden tree.
now who is being sectarian...

what are you saying now...what does that even mean what i underlined
and i did apologize ..obviously you did not read the whole post...

maybe you need also to look in the mirror..
I read your whole post. A lot of waffling around, declarations of contempt for all other Buddhist schools, but no apology.
"Nonduality is merely a name;
that name does not exist."
—Kotalipa
Sādhaka
Posts: 889
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2016 4:39 pm

Re: Response to PadmaVonSamba

Post by Sādhaka »

I thought that Minobu was lauding Trump for helping (whether witting or unwittingly) the Dalai Lama’s cause....

Sectarian maybe, but not an ghost worshiper (?)
Post Reply

Return to “Nichiren”