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

Post Reply
User avatar
tkp67
Posts: 2905
Joined: Sun May 12, 2019 5:42 am

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

Post by tkp67 »

In order to argue this concept appropriately it would be best to understand that the unification of the three truths (mutual possession) is the baseline for consideration.

Answer: It is a commonly accepted assertion among the scholars of our times that the Thus Come One invariably preached his teachings in p.553accordance with the capacities of his listeners. But in fact this is not how the Buddha truly taught. If it were true that the greatest doctrines were always preached for the persons with the most superior capacities and understanding, then why, when the Buddha first achieved enlightenment, did he not preach the Lotus Sutra? Why, during the first five hundred years of the Former Day of the Law, were the teachings of the Mahayana sutras not spread abroad? And if it were true that the finest doctrines are revealed to those who have a particular connection with the Buddha, then why did Shakyamuni Buddha preach the Meditation on the Buddha Sutra for his father, King Shuddhodana, and the Māyā Sutra for his mother, Lady Māyā [rather than the Lotus Sutra]? And if the reverse were true, namely, that secret doctrines should never be revealed to evil people having no connection with the Buddha or to slanderers of Buddhism, then why did the monk Realization of Virtue teach the Nirvana Sutra to all the countless monks who were guilty of breaking the precepts? Or why did Bodhisattva Never Disparaging address the four kinds of believers, who were slanderers of the Law, and propagate to them the teachings of the Lotus Sutra?

Thus we can see that it is a great mistake to assert that the teachings are invariably expounded according to the listeners’ capacities.

Question: Do you mean to say that Nāgārjuna, Vasubandhu, and the others did not teach the true meaning of the Lotus Sutra?

Answer: That is correct. They did not teach it.
Such was the Buddha’s prediction. Accordingly, we find that there were seventy scholars in India who followed in the wake of Nāgārjuna, all of them major scholars. And all of these seventy scholars took Treatise on the Middle Way as the basis of their teachings. Treatise on the Middle Way is a work in four volumes and twenty-seven chapters, and the core of its teachings is expressed in a four-phrase verse73 that describes the nature of phenomena arising from dependent origination. This four-phrase verse sums up the four teachings and three truths contained in the Flower Garland, Wisdom, and other sutras. It does not express the three truths as revealed and unified in the Lotus Sutra.

Question: Is there anyone else who thinks the way you do in this matter?

p.554Answer: T’ien-t’ai says, “Do not presume to compare Treatise on the Middle Way [to the teachings of the Lotus Sutra].”74 And elsewhere he says, “Vasubandhu and Nāgārjuna clearly perceived the truth in their hearts, but they did not teach it. Instead, they employed the provisional Mahayana teachings, which were suited to the times.”75 Miao-lo remarks, “For demolishing false opinions and establishing the truth, nothing can compare to the Lotus Sutra.”76 And Ts’ung-i states, “Nāgārjuna and Vasubandhu cannot compare with T’ien-t’ai.”77
https://www.nichirenlibrary.org/en/wnd-1/Content/66

The Selection of the Time

Below is a reference for the unification of the three truths (or as I like to consider it mutual possession of three truths)

On the unification of the three truths

https://www.nichirenlibrary.org/en/dic/Content/U/17

unification of the three truths [円融の三諦] ( en’yū-no-santai): A principle set forth by T’ien-t’ai (538–597) based on the Lotus Sutra. It explains the three truths of non-substantiality, temporary existence, and the Middle Way as an integrated whole, each of the three containing all three within itself. T’ien-t’ai identified this as the view of the three truths revealed in the perfect teaching, or the Lotus Sutra, in contrast to the separation of the three truths, the view espoused in the specific teaching.
Separation of the three truths is the view of the three truths as separate and independent of one another. The truth of non-substantiality means that phenomena have no existence of their own; their true nature is non-substantial. The truth of temporary existence means that, although non-substantial in nature, all phenomena possess a temporary reality that is in constant flux. The truth of the Middle Way means that all phenomena are characterized by both non-substantiality and temporary existence, yet are in essence neither.
The unification of the three truths means that the truths of non-substantiality, temporary existence, and the Middle Way are inherent in all phenomena. T’ien-t’ai taught a form of meditation called the threefold contemplation in a single mind, aimed at grasping the unification of the three truths, eradicating the three categories of illusion, and acquiring the three kinds of wisdom (the wisdom of the two vehicles, the bodhisattva wisdom, and the Buddha wisdom), all at the same time.
and hopefully this is not seen as excessive but I thought it was a good synopsis. From a perspective of function I think the unification of the three truths is difficult to equate to previous teachings or deny the benefits and purpose it fulfills. All in accord with the sutra itself.
All Mahayana schools adopt some version of the Two Truths theory, with one exception: the Tiantai school, which alone among all Buddhist schools moves from the Two Truths epistemology to a Three Truths model of truth. The Three Truths are actually three different ways of looking at any object or state. Each implies the other two, and each is one way to describe the whole of that object, including its other two aspects. This cup is a cup: that is provisional truth, conventional truth, local coherence. This cup is not a cup: that is ultimate truth, its emptiness, its global incoherence. To be a cup is not to be a cup: that is its Centrality, its Non‐duality, its Absoluteness. This cup is all things, all possible ways of being, all universes, as this cup.
User avatar
Queequeg
Former staff member
Posts: 14462
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: Nagarjuna's tetralemma as interpreted by Nichiren's interpretation of Tendai 3 Truths

Post by Queequeg »

So... Zhiyi's inclusive Three Truths basically is a remedy for a misunderstanding of Nagarjuna in China due to peculiarities of Kumarajiva's translation and peculiarities of the Chinese written language. See Swanson's T'ien-T'ai Philosophy and Ng's T'ien-T'ai and Early Madhyamika. This misunderstanding and its remedy has contributed to this idea in East Asia that Nagarjuna didn't teach True Mahayana but rather a Provisional Mahayana. Its unfortunate.

IMO, that doesn't mean there is no substance or significance to Zhiyi's explanation and what has flowed from that. The Three Truths has arguably cast a different light on Madhyamaka that I think is interesting if not illuminating. The Three Truths analysis does have a good deal to say about views of a misunderstood Madhyamaka that draw stark distinctions between Relative and Absolute, as well as the Middle, as well as some other interesting implications that are consistent with Indian Madhyamaka as best as I can understand it while emphasizing some aspects that lay somewhat latent.

It would be great to have a discussion about the Three Truths that got beyond the sectarian posturing. Buddhists in the modern world with its global availability of teachings from diverse, previously isolated geographical regions have an incredible opportunity for learning. Sectarian thinking inherited with these traditions is a drag we have to contend with.
There is no suffering to be severed. Ignorance and klesas are indivisible from bodhi. There is no cause of suffering to be abandoned. Since extremes and the false are the Middle and genuine, there is no path to be practiced. Samsara is nirvana. No severance achieved. No suffering nor its cause. No path, no end. There is no transcendent realm; there is only the one true aspect. There is nothing separate from the true aspect.
-Guanding, Perfect and Sudden Contemplation,
narhwal90
Global Moderator
Posts: 3509
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 3:10 am
Location: Baltimore, MD

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

Post by narhwal90 »

I found the 3 Truths an easier way into observing the tendency to grasp at concepts- in this case existence vs non-existence. At present the tetralemma looks like a more formally clear statement, but more difficult to understand the intent.
User avatar
Caoimhghín
Posts: 3419
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
Location: Whitby, Ontario

Re: Nagarjuna's tetralemma as interpreted by Nichiren's interpretation of Tendai 3 Truths

Post by Caoimhghín »

Queequeg wrote: Sun Jan 10, 2021 6:37 pm So... Zhiyi's inclusive Three Truths basically is a remedy for a misunderstanding of Nagarjuna in China due to peculiarities of Kumarajiva's translation and peculiarities of the Chinese written language.
Eventually, as patriarchs build upon Ven Zhiyi's work, they will ignore the words of Ven Zhiyi that Ven Nagarjuna is his greatest teacher and turn against Madhyamaka, saying that it is an incomplete version of their own school's perfect round and saying that Ven Nagarjuna is a nihilist.

Such is the degeneration of many forms of Tendai Buddhism away from the Buddha's Dharma (but not all is lost!) and into deep sectarianism. Tiāntāi becomes a "school" via the twisting of Ven Zhiyi's words concerning Madhyamaka by successive patriarchs. I will assemble some quotes and proofs.

Ven Zhiyi understood his three truths as identical to the teaching of Ven Nagarjuna. His students twisted and changed that.
Last edited by Caoimhghín on Sun Jan 10, 2021 7:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Then, the monks uttered 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 ruined.
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
FiveSkandhas
Posts: 917
Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2019 6:40 pm

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

Post by FiveSkandhas »

Opponants of Madhyamaka, especially as formulated by Nagarjuna and (even more by so) his commentator Buddhapālita, often accused it of being a form of vitaṇḍā. In Indian philosophy in general, vitaṇḍā (or 'attack") was considered a shoddy and weak form of rhetoric which merely negated without putting forth a positive proposition. To many, it seemed dangerously close to nihilism, and also a system that left no room for core Buddhist concepts like compassion or paramitas to flourish.

Later Madhyamaka thinkers like Bhāvaviveka put forth more "positivist" versions of the teaching, largely in response to such criticism. But I think the Tendai 3 truth doctrine really upped the ante and tightened the concept of emptiness in a more logically economical way.

To my mind, it's not that at core Tendai and Madhyamaka are in opposition or are incompatible -- It's just that the Tendai formulation is more pithy and sidesteps some of the issues that plagued Madhyamaka due to the way it was formulated.
"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

"Just be kind." -Atisha
User avatar
Caoimhghín
Posts: 3419
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
Location: Whitby, Ontario

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

Post by Caoimhghín »

FiveSkandhas wrote: Sun Jan 10, 2021 7:34 pm To my mind, it's not that at core Tendai and Madhyamaka are in opposition or are incompatible -- It's just that the Tendai formulation is more pithy and sidesteps some of the issues that plagued Madhyamaka due to the way it was formulated.
:good:

Ven Zhiyi learned the three truths from the Madhyamakaśāstra, a Chinese translation of a Central Asian Madhyamaka text. Ven Zhiyi identified as a Madhyamaka. His later students will not identify as Madhyamakas and will say that their teacher's "perfect teaching" is superior to Madhyamaka. I'll have to substantiate this in a bit though. I'll have time in a few hours.
Then, the monks uttered 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 ruined.
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
Queequeg
Former staff member
Posts: 14462
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

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

Post by Queequeg »

Caoimhghín wrote: Sun Jan 10, 2021 7:42 pm
FiveSkandhas wrote: Sun Jan 10, 2021 7:34 pm To my mind, it's not that at core Tendai and Madhyamaka are in opposition or are incompatible -- It's just that the Tendai formulation is more pithy and sidesteps some of the issues that plagued Madhyamaka due to the way it was formulated.
:good:

Ven Zhiyi learned the three truths from the Madhyamakaśāstra, a Chinese translation of a Central Asian Madhyamaka text. Ven Zhiyi identified as a Madhyamaka. His later students will not identify as Madhyamakas and will say that their teacher's "perfect teaching" is superior to Madhyamaka. I'll have to substantiate this in a bit though. I'll have time in a few hours.
You seem to have this need to put Zhiyi in a box and the rest of Tiantai/Tendai outside of it. I think you might be all wrong every which way, but we'll see. :popcorn:
There is no suffering to be severed. Ignorance and klesas are indivisible from bodhi. There is no cause of suffering to be abandoned. Since extremes and the false are the Middle and genuine, there is no path to be practiced. Samsara is nirvana. No severance achieved. No suffering nor its cause. No path, no end. There is no transcendent realm; there is only the one true aspect. There is nothing separate from the true aspect.
-Guanding, Perfect and Sudden Contemplation,
User avatar
FiveSkandhas
Posts: 917
Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2019 6:40 pm

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

Post by FiveSkandhas »

Caoimhghín wrote: Sun Jan 10, 2021 7:42 pm
FiveSkandhas wrote: Sun Jan 10, 2021 7:34 pm To my mind, it's not that at core Tendai and Madhyamaka are in opposition or are incompatible -- It's just that the Tendai formulation is more pithy and sidesteps some of the issues that plagued Madhyamaka due to the way it was formulated.
:good:

Ven Zhiyi learned the three truths from the Madhyamakaśāstra, a Chinese translation of a Central Asian Madhyamaka text. Ven Zhiyi identified as a Madhyamaka. His later students will not identify as Madhyamakas and will say that their teacher's "perfect teaching" is superior to Madhyamaka. I'll have to substantiate this in a bit though. I'll have time in a few hours.
I know in early-medieval Japan, the various sects competed in an annual round of court-sponsored doctrinal debates that sharpened sectarian rivalry. The Japanese Madhyamaka school, 三論宗, was in deep doctrinal conflict with the 法相宗 Yogacara school for quite some time, with the latter eventually gaining the upper hand. But when Tendai came along they were both eclipsed. The Japanese Madhyamaka tradition was eventually weakened to the point where it collapsed completely and disappeared in the 12th century. (It could be argued that all this had more to do with temple rivalries and power-politics than pure doctrine..the big Nara/Heian era temples had enormous financial and political power).
"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

"Just be kind." -Atisha
User avatar
Caoimhghín
Posts: 3419
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
Location: Whitby, Ontario

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

Post by Caoimhghín »

Oh, certainly. Competition for imperial patronage does all sorts of harm to the Dharma. This I 100% agree with. It was competition with the Huáyán schools that drove much of the innovation in Tiāntāi.
Then, the monks uttered 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 ruined.
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: 3419
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
Location: Whitby, Ontario

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

Post by Caoimhghín »

Queequeg wrote: Sun Jan 10, 2021 7:58 pm I think you might be all wrong every which way, but we'll see. :popcorn:
If you care to give a better explanation for how the Buddha lacks the sense entrances etc. of the other nine destinies in the Open Dharma thread with the Makashikan quote we could actually see some of that critique in action. As it stands, it seems I've pointed out a rather serious inconsistency and you despite objecting haven't hit at the crux of the issue -- that all ten realms supposedly mutually possess one another.

:stirthepot: :spy: :sage:

I'm joking btw.
Then, the monks uttered 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 ruined.
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)
narhwal90
Global Moderator
Posts: 3509
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 3:10 am
Location: Baltimore, MD

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

Post by narhwal90 »

As Stone documents in her book, Tendai and all the Kamakura schools are prone to rewriting their own history to bolster their arguments, and its likewise the case there are a variety of factions within each school, some profoundly in opposition on various points. This is not new- and presumably the tendency to do extends far beyond them.

I wonder if it is misleading to be arguing about what a Tathagata lacks or not, uses or does not use, or indeed what is possible for him/her to do or not.
User avatar
Caoimhghín
Posts: 3419
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
Location: Whitby, Ontario

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

Post by Caoimhghín »

tkp67 wrote: Sun Jan 10, 2021 5:45 pm
Such was the Buddha’s prediction. Accordingly, we find that there were seventy scholars in India who followed in the wake of Nāgārjuna, all of them major scholars. And all of these seventy scholars took Treatise on the Middle Way as the basis of their teachings. Treatise on the Middle Way is a work in four volumes and twenty-seven chapters, and the core of its teachings is expressed in a four-phrase verse73 that describes the nature of phenomena arising from dependent origination. This four-phrase verse sums up the four teachings and three truths contained in the Flower Garland, Wisdom, and other sutras. It does not express the three truths as revealed and unified in the Lotus Sutra.
Here is one thing that we can touch on. Ven Nichiren is not omniscient. We can't expect him to be, that is foolish. He was taught a particular kind of Buddhism from a particular time and place.

For instance, Ven Nichiren in medieval Japan had no way by which he could possibly know that it was wrong that Ven Nagarjuna taught the MMK in four volumes. He is talking about Ven Vimalākṣa's commentary, which spans four scrolls. The MMK itself is not a four volume text. But it was very common to confuse the root text and the commentary of the MMK in medieval East Asia because the Vimalākṣa commentary was so famous and widespread.

However, Venerable Vimalākṣa is a Central Asian monk who lived between 300 and 400 AD. The Madhyamakaśāstra has no history in India. Ven Nichiren is conflating the history of Chinese Madhyamaka with Indian Madhyamaka and assuming the Indian masters will have used the same texts. This likely is not his fault though. It was likely how the history of Buddhism was taught to him.

IMO the enumeration tells us this 70 is likely a list that Ven Nichiren had to learn as part of his Buddhist education. The belief that there are 70 early Madhyamaka saints following off of Ven Nāgārjuna who all used Ven Vimalākṣa's commentary is wrong, but understandable when we have some context.

The last bolded text is definitely something that Ven Nichiren would have been taught as well, but we will get into that when I'm at the computer since it is to do with the main OP and substantiating past claims of mine in this thread.
Then, the monks uttered 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 ruined.
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
tkp67
Posts: 2905
Joined: Sun May 12, 2019 5:42 am

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

Post by 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.

:anjali:
User avatar
Caoimhghín
Posts: 3419
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
Location: Whitby, Ontario

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

Post by Caoimhghín »

tkp67 wrote: Sun Jan 10, 2021 9:10 pm 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.
:rolling:

Come back down to earth. Are you at a computer, able to type etc.? Show us where the LS objectively specifically disproves that Kamakura schools rewrite their histories, or that 70 Indian Madhyamaka saints taught according to the four volume MMK commentary? Or instead, since those will be hard, show us where four theses are discarded and replaced with three truths in the LS text?
Then, the monks uttered 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 ruined.
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
tkp67
Posts: 2905
Joined: Sun May 12, 2019 5:42 am

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

Post by tkp67 »

Caoimhghín wrote: Sun Jan 10, 2021 9:13 pm
tkp67 wrote: Sun Jan 10, 2021 9:10 pm 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.
:rolling:

Come back down to earth.
The nichiren tradition is held to the four standards. That is how the tradition is practice. From the ground up.

The thought that academics equals some sort of enlightenment is attachment to academia and intellect. One of the greatest poisons of western buddhism because it absolutely lacks the compassion displayed by past buddhas. Dedicating one's life to facilitate understanding doesn't take a higher ground based on form alone.
User avatar
Caoimhghín
Posts: 3419
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
Location: Whitby, Ontario

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

Post by Caoimhghín »

So who according to you thinks "that academics equals some sort of enlightenment?" Me? Narwhal? Stone?
Then, the monks uttered 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 ruined.
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
tkp67
Posts: 2905
Joined: Sun May 12, 2019 5:42 am

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

Post by tkp67 »

Caoimhghín wrote: Sun Jan 10, 2021 9:27 pm So who according to you thinks "that academics equals some sort of enlightenment?" Me? Narwhal? Stone?
One who attributes surety to them above/outside the tenants of the teaching being discussed itself.
standards that Buddhists must follow. According to the Nirvana Sutra and the Vimalakīrti Sutra, the four standards are (1) to rely on the Law and not upon persons; (2) to rely on the meaning of the teaching and not upon the words; (3) to rely on wisdom and not upon discriminative thinking; and (4) to rely on sutras that are complete and final and not upon those that are not complete and final.
Since none of you are definitively static I don't assume this perspective is pervasive, it would be patently false according to the simple tenant of impermanence.

If academic proof alone could condemn a tradition ...

All it does is make an easy out for doubt and discord.
User avatar
Caoimhghín
Posts: 3419
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
Location: Whitby, Ontario

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

Post by Caoimhghín »

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?
Then, the monks uttered 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 ruined.
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: 3419
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
Location: Whitby, Ontario

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

Post by Caoimhghín »

Also, if you have time, please point out where "it can be proofed from the Lotus regardless of translation" that Śākyamuni taught, in the LS, that four theses are supplanted by three truths. I myself am not at a computer, waiting in a hospital parking lot for a Covid test, so I can't make a very large involved post. I don't want to rush you if you can't type, but establishing that is fundamental to your OP.
Then, the monks uttered 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 ruined.
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
tkp67
Posts: 2905
Joined: Sun May 12, 2019 5:42 am

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

Post by tkp67 »

Caoimhghín wrote: Sun Jan 10, 2021 9:40 pm Ah, so everyone here according to you? No one? Just you?
I am not filling the envelope of who things this way or that way. You put names to it. I simply said no one is static so I don't assume one way or another. I also said academic arguments do not trump the metrics within the tradition itself.

We all express flatulence at some point in out lives but we don't go around identifying as such. The point is why take it personal that this tradition hasn't been understood well through doubt nor has it been deemed invalid by other traditions through the same methodology.

It is simply limiting to any beneficial dialog.

Not to say these means aren't necessary in translation and preservation or any of the other actions that do lend to propagation of buddhism.They are not mutually exclusive or even opposed/opposing. Rather they are appropriate to cause, condition and capacity.

The lack of appropriate application is very, very human. Should be reasonable to address as such? No? Does anyone realize that at the assembly the buddha was talking to a bunch of disciples who did not recognize each other as such?

This is why one should not doubt even seemingly oppositionaly opposed minds and their seemingly oppositely opposed traditions. According to the LS and the deepest meaning of the devadetta chapter they give rise to one another.

Thus Shakyamuni and Devadetta being such good friends.
Post Reply

Return to “Nichiren”