Nagarjuna's tetralemma in contrast to Nichiren's interpretation of Tendai 3 Truths

[tkp67]

Ah, so everyone here according to you? No one?

Do you think that you are "definitively static?" Do you think that you are above the "simple tenant" of impermanence?

No I simply don't see people's thoughts as defining their being or even their understanding because these things are not permanently fixed.

This should not elicit a negative reaction. How are you perceiving it? If it is my delivery I would be glad to understand what I can't feel.

[narhwal90]

Stone's arguments are meaningless. It can be proofed from the Lotus regardless of translation and distilled from Shakyamuni's behavior as a human being. Shakyamuni did not posit teachings beyond the grasp of others (in his presence) but rather fashioned them accordingly so they would thrive in those conditions.

Expecting these truths to have an academically perceived point of perfection that exists outside of the perfect and supreme enlightenment of Shakyamuni is not the measurement the teachers themselves used to measure such things. These are western metrics that apply work in the human realm (e.g. science)

The whole point of teaching mutual possession is to implant the nature to know these things is an inseparable facet. It makes all inclusive propagation possible. The reason Nichiren says "they knew it in their hearts but did not teach it" was because propagation of the sutra is meant to be suited to the lowest common denominator. Of course these steps seemed quite reasonable from the perspective of evolution over the course of generations. This is why they are not in conflict.

This displays these perspectives were formulated from the very perspectives being extolled in the three truth model. The foreign appearance of this perspective (from those who claim the 2 truth model is the same) is what reveals the provision of older perspectives. If those teachings led to the same conclusion there would be no difference to discern.

Seriously? Are we to ignore how politics, expediency, infighting or even simple chance have formed the doctrine we inherit? Or are you prepared to state which factions are correct and which are false?

I wouldn't propose that academic understanding == practice, but I don't think that neglecting facts serves the practioner well.

[Caoimhghín]

Ah, so everyone here according to you? No one? Just you?

I am not filling the envelope of who thin[k]s this way or that way. You put names to it.

Ah, so when you said, "One who attributes surety to them above/outside the tenants of the teaching being discussed itself" you weren't talking about anyone in particular here or anywhere? You just were moved by the moment to talk about people who aren't posting here in this thread? Also, what "names" have I put to "it," and what is "it?" Is "it" your quotation?

EDIT: Is "it" the envelope that I'm supposedly filling? I think that might be it.

[tkp67]

Stone's arguments are meaningless. It can be proofed from the Lotus regardless of translation and distilled from Shakyamuni's behavior as a human being. Shakyamuni did not posit teachings beyond the grasp of others (in his presence) but rather fashioned them accordingly so they would thrive in those conditions.

Expecting these truths to have an academically perceived point of perfection that exists outside of the perfect and supreme enlightenment of Shakyamuni is not the measurement the teachers themselves used to measure such things. These are western metrics that apply work in the human realm (e.g. science)

The whole point of teaching mutual possession is to implant the nature to know these things is an inseparable facet. It makes all inclusive propagation possible. The reason Nichiren says "they knew it in their hearts but did not teach it" was because propagation of the sutra is meant to be suited to the lowest common denominator. Of course these steps seemed quite reasonable from the perspective of evolution over the course of generations. This is why they are not in conflict.

This displays these perspectives were formulated from the very perspectives being extolled in the three truth model. The foreign appearance of this perspective (from those who claim the 2 truth model is the same) is what reveals the provision of older perspectives. If those teachings led to the same conclusion there would be no difference to discern.

Seriously? Are we to ignore how politics, expediency, infighting or even simple chance have formed the doctrine we have inherited? Or are you prepared to state which factions are correct and which are false?

I have explained this many times.

They are all provisional to the very state itself and this discord is simply a product of those things.

Discard the provisional means to abandon attachment to one's own specifics in regards to others because specifics are conditional.

Even life and death are provisions for achieving buddhahood so they are not separate things (provision and absolute). This is ultimately about discrimination between provision of self in all phenomenon versus the true aspect while interacting with the saha world.

This is Shakyamuni's enlightenment. It is a mark of his existence. It is why it is infused in the teachings and why they fall apart when it is not recognized.

[tkp67]

Ah, so everyone here according to you? No one? Just you?

I am not filling the envelope of who thin[k]s this way or that way. You put names to it.

Ah, so when you said, "One who attributes surety to them above/outside the tenants of the teaching being discussed itself" you weren't talking about anyone in particular here or anywhere? You just were moved by the moment to talk about people who aren't posting here in this thread? Also, what "names" have I put to "it," and what is "it?" Is "it" your quotation?

You realize that Nichiren himself does the same thing. It is important because there is no identifiable self to attribute these attributes to as if it a defining nature. It simply was words. Internally cause karma? Sure. Externally evoke thought and thus cause and effect? Sure.

Attributable to a person as a permanent attachable feature? Nope.

Have I ever conflated things causing the same issues? Absolutely my own mind has been a great teacher in this regard. Why do you think I am so confident and lacking condemnation?

[narhwal90]

Stone's arguments are meaningless. It can be proofed from the Lotus regardless of translation and distilled from Shakyamuni's behavior as a human being. Shakyamuni did not posit teachings beyond the grasp of others (in his presence) but rather fashioned them accordingly so they would thrive in those conditions.

Expecting these truths to have an academically perceived point of perfection that exists outside of the perfect and supreme enlightenment of Shakyamuni is not the measurement the teachers themselves used to measure such things. These are western metrics that apply work in the human realm (e.g. science)

Seriously? Are we to ignore how politics, expediency, infighting or even simple chance have formed the doctrine we have inherited? Or are you prepared to state which factions are correct and which are false?

I have explained this many times.

They are all provisional to the very state itself and this discord is simply a product of those things.

Discard the provisional means to abandon attachment to one's own specifics in regards to others because specifics are conditional.

Even life and death are provisions for achieving buddhahood so they are not separate things (provision and absolute). This is ultimately about discrimination between provision of self in all phenomenon versus the true aspect while interacting with the saha world.

This is Shakyamuni's enlightenment. It is a mark of his existence. It is why it is infused in the teachings and why they fall apart when it is not recognized.

Then I'm afraid I have never properly understood you. I think its hasty to assert what is or is not Sakyamuni's enlightenment- to do so is to grasp more conditionality. These concepts you so strongly assert are the finger pointing at the moon, not the moon itself.

[Caoimhghín]

The answer is that I don't. Why do you think that I think that you are confident and lacking condemnation? Is it because I asked you if "you think that you are 'definitively static?'" Earlier, you said that "Since none of you are definitively static I don't assume this perspective is pervasive" with reference to the four standards in the Nirvana and Vimalakirti sutras. So who is "you" there? I assume its plural because that is how "none of you" works. None of whoever these people are obey the standards found in the Nirvana sutra apparently.

[tkp67]

I think its hasty to assert what is or is not Sakyamuni's enlightenment- to do so is to grasp more conditionality. These concepts you so strongly assert are the finger pointing at the moon, not the moon itself.

It is not grasping if it is proofed from the LS. it is not improper to contemplate function of a beings behavior. It is the underlying theme of the LS and Nichiren's teachings.

Do you recall Shakyamuni saying he himself was Bodhisattva never disparage?

Can you proof your statement above from the Lotus sutra or Nichiren's writings?

[tkp67]

The answer is that I don't. Why do you think that I think that you are confident and lacking condemnation? Is it because I asked you if "you think that you are 'definitively static?'" Earlier, you said that "Since none of you are definitively static I don't assume this perspective is pervasive" with reference to the four standards in the Nirvana and Vimalakirti sutras. So who is "you" there? I assume its plural because that is how "none of you" works. None of whoever these people are obey the standards found in the Nirvana sutra apparently.

The you is the people subjected by your statement.

The four standards reference is just that.

[Malcolm]

[tkp67]

Can I offer you some fine EA Ghee for your PC

[Caoimhghín]

So who are those people I subjected with a statement?

EDIT: Let's look at this for a moment:

The answer is that I don't. Why do you think that I think that you are confident and lacking condemnation? Is it because I asked you if "you think that you are 'definitively static?'" Earlier, you said that "Since none of you are definitively static I don't assume this perspective is pervasive" with reference to the four standards in the Nirvana and Vimalakirti sutras. So who is "you" there? I assume its plural because that is how "none of you" works. None of whoever these people are obey the standards found in the Nirvana sutra apparently.

The you is the people subjected by your statement.

So it's "since none of the people subjected by your [Coëmgenu's] statement are definitively static I don't assume this perspective is pervasive?" That is what you meant to say? The next question is "what statement?"


Also, out of curiosity, why do your four holy standards come from the Nirvana and Vimalakirti sutras and not from what is often called the definitive sutra? You are supposed to "rely on sutras that are complete and final and not upon those that are not complete and final." Are the Nirvana and Vimalakirti sutras complete and final?

[narhwal90]

I think its hasty to assert what is or is not Sakyamuni's enlightenment- to do so is to grasp more conditionality. These concepts you so strongly assert are the finger pointing at the moon, not the moon itself.

It is not grasping if it is proofed from the LS. it is not improper to contemplate function of a beings behavior. It is the underlying theme of the LS and Nichiren's teachings.

Do you recall Shakyamuni saying he himself was Bodhisattva never disparage?

Can you proof your statement above from the Lotus sutra or Nichiren's writings?

I've never spoken with Sakyamuni to my knowledge, can't tell you what he did or did not say. To conceive is to grasp, or are thoughts not subject to the same subjectivity and conditionality as the other senses? Far as I'm concerned the LS is a statement of practice, I dont' take a position on it being some kind of standard of proof.

[tkp67]

So who are those people I subjected with a statement?

EDIT: Let's look at this for a moment:

The answer is that I don't. Why do you think that I think that you are confident and lacking condemnation? Is it because I asked you if "you think that you are 'definitively static?'" Earlier, you said that "Since none of you are definitively static I don't assume this perspective is pervasive" with reference to the four standards in the Nirvana and Vimalakirti sutras. So who is "you" there? I assume its plural because that is how "none of you" works. None of whoever these people are obey the standards found in the Nirvana sutra apparently.

The you is the people subjected by your statement.

So it's "since none of the people subjected by your [Coëmgenu's] statement are definitively static I don't assume this perspective is pervasive?" That is what you meant to say? The next question is "what statement?"


Also, out of curiosity, why do your four holy standards come from the Nirvana and Vimalakirti sutras and not from what is often called the definitive sutra? You are supposed to "rely on sutras that are complete and final and not upon those that are not complete and final." Are the Nirvana and Vimalakirti sutras complete and final?

What is the relevance to the subject at hand?

Is the Lotus incomplete?

They aren't my holy standards but Nichiren's the teacher whose teachings I practice. Is the integrity of my commitment to keep the context of the teachings as they were developed really something that will prove this true or not?

Is the integrity of Nichiren's teaching easily understood outside the context of the development? How about outside the context of validated practice? How about that of any other teacher/tradition?

It can all be reduced to this:

Can the Lotus be realized through doubt? What does this statement really mean in light of Shakyamuni's enlightenment?

[tkp67]

I think its hasty to assert what is or is not Sakyamuni's enlightenment- to do so is to grasp more conditionality. These concepts you so strongly assert are the finger pointing at the moon, not the moon itself.

It is not grasping if it is proofed from the LS. it is not improper to contemplate function of a beings behavior. It is the underlying theme of the LS and Nichiren's teachings.

Do you recall Shakyamuni saying he himself was Bodhisattva never disparage?

Can you proof your statement above from the Lotus sutra or Nichiren's writings?

I've never spoken with Sakyamuni to my knowledge, can't tell you what he did or did not say. To conceive is to grasp, or are thoughts not subject to the same subjectivity and conditionality as the other senses? Far as I'm concerned the LS is a statement of practice, I dont' take a position on it being some kind of standard of proof.

It comes directly from the Lotus sutra. This is not grasping this is memorizing the text my tradition is based upon.

“Gainer of Great Authority, what do you think? The bodhisattva Never Disparaging who lived at that time—could he be unknown to you? In fact he was none other than I myself! If in my previous existences I had not accepted, upheld, read, and recited this sutra and preached it for others, I would never have been able to attain supreme perfect enlightenment this quickly. Because in the presence of those earlier buddhas I accepted, upheld, read, and recited this sutra and preached it for others, I was able quickly to attain supreme perfect enlightenment.

The Bodhisattva Never Disparaging

https://www.nichirenlibrary.org/en/lsoc/Content/20

[Caoimhghín]

I misunderstood what you were asking. I think I have it now.

The relevance of saying "You are supposed to rely on sutras that are complete and final and not upon those that are not complete and final" is to point out that what you are quoting is from the Nirvana and Vimalakirti sutras. Do you consider these sutras "complete and final?"

[Malcolm]

complete and final and not upon those that are not complete and final."

That's a funny translation of nitārtha (definitive) and neyārtha (provisional) (not yours, I understand).

[narhwal90]

It is not grasping if it is proofed from the LS. it is not improper to contemplate function of a beings behavior. It is the underlying theme of the LS and Nichiren's teachings.

Do you recall Shakyamuni saying he himself was Bodhisattva never disparage?

Can you proof your statement above from the Lotus sutra or Nichiren's writings?

I've never spoken with Sakyamuni to my knowledge, can't tell you what he did or did not say. To conceive is to grasp, or are thoughts not subject to the same subjectivity and conditionality as the other senses? Far as I'm concerned the LS is a statement of practice, I dont' take a position on it being some kind of standard of proof.

It comes directly from the Lotus sutra. This is not grasping this is memorizing the text my tradition is based upon.

“Gainer of Great Authority, what do you think? The bodhisattva Never Disparaging who lived at that time—could he be unknown to you? In fact he was none other than I myself! If in my previous existences I had not accepted, upheld, read, and recited this sutra and preached it for others, I would never have been able to attain supreme perfect enlightenment this quickly. Because in the presence of those earlier buddhas I accepted, upheld, read, and recited this sutra and preached it for others, I was able quickly to attain supreme perfect enlightenment.

The Bodhisattva Never Disparaging

https://www.nichirenlibrary.org/en/lsoc/Content/20

Well, sure, thats what the sutra says. BND's conduct is to be modelled, no argument there.

As to the LS, many sutras make many claims, not sure I am in a position to judge supremacy, or even if doing so is a good idea. Frankly I don't see why I need to adopt Nichiren's view without giving the question my own consideration. I have no argument with you using it as a standard of proof.. but from that perspective it lacks rigor and clarity from my standpoint. OTOH its replete with instruction for the bodhisattva, which is most interesting to me.

[tkp67]

I misunderstood what you were asking. I think I have it now.

The relevance of saying "You are supposed to rely on sutras that are complete and final and not upon those that are not complete and final" is to point out that what you are quoting is from the Nirvana and Vimalakirti sutras. Do you consider these sutras "complete and final?"

The comparative method of evaluating sutras is a backbone of EA Buddhism. Out of that context your statement is not only inappropriate and unreasonably disparaging to this tradition. To what end and benefit does it serve? If I understood the benefit then perhaps I would become enlightened to such.

I would be interested to see where in the three fold sutra where Nichiren failed in to meet the requisite to assert his teachings as such. In this light the man is minimally a Bodhisattva Mahasattva.

If you investigate it as such perhaps you will have something more concrete.

[tkp67]

I've never spoken with Sakyamuni to my knowledge, can't tell you what he did or did not say. To conceive is to grasp, or are thoughts not subject to the same subjectivity and conditionality as the other senses? Far as I'm concerned the LS is a statement of practice, I dont' take a position on it being some kind of standard of proof.

It comes directly from the Lotus sutra. This is not grasping this is memorizing the text my tradition is based upon.

“Gainer of Great Authority, what do you think? The bodhisattva Never Disparaging who lived at that time—could he be unknown to you? In fact he was none other than I myself! If in my previous existences I had not accepted, upheld, read, and recited this sutra and preached it for others, I would never have been able to attain supreme perfect enlightenment this quickly. Because in the presence of those earlier buddhas I accepted, upheld, read, and recited this sutra and preached it for others, I was able quickly to attain supreme perfect enlightenment.

The Bodhisattva Never Disparaging

https://www.nichirenlibrary.org/en/lsoc/Content/20

Well, sure, thats what the sutra says. BND's conduct is to be modelled, no argument there.

As to the LS, many sutras make many claims, not sure I am in a position to judge supremacy, or even if doing so is a good idea. Frankly I don't see why I need to adopt Nichiren's view without giving the question my own consideration. I have no argument with you using it as a standard of proof.. but from that perspective it lacks rigor and clarity from my standpoint. OTOH its replete with instruction for the bodhisattva, which is most interesting to me.

It isn't meant to have rigor or clarity in all places as the specifics are defined within your own life at the given moment of propagation.