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

Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

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

Post by Malcolm »

haha wrote: Thu Jan 21, 2021 8:10 pm
Malcolm wrote: Thu Jan 21, 2021 2:56 pm
With respect to the first two masters you mention, they did not build anything over Madhyamaka, they are simply Vajrayana practitioners; with the respect to the third, his Madhyamaka is distorted; with respect to fourth, it seems he used Madhyamaka as a departure and indeed constructed a novel system, and the fifth follows the fourth.
Different is method. That is accepted. If Madhyamaka needs no improvement, then why one should need different methods.
Madhyamaka concerns the view, not the path.
In other word, it means that it is not enough to realize. If someone says it takes three asamkhyakalpas, it is polite way to saying one is not going to attain. lol Three asamkhyakalpas is differentiating rhetoric (between arhat and buddhahood).
This is your interpretation. "Asamkhya" is an actual Indian number.
Somewhere, someone wrote articles mentioning Dolpopa theory based on Prajnaparamita. So, I would not say distortion; otherwise, one is saying such and such the prajnaparamita texts are distortion.
Dolbupa's Madhyamaka is distorted. If you are interested, you can read Gorampa and Tsongkhapa to find out why.
Nagarjuna is a big tree. Svatantrika Madhyamaka, Prasangika Madhyamaka, Yogacara Madyamaka,
There is at base only a disagreement over how to present emptiness, no disagreement about the nature of the two truths here.
Great Madhyamaka, Secret Mantra-Madhyamaka, they all are the branches.
Great Madhyamaka is a term all Tibetans use for their own school. There is no such thing as "Secret Mantra Madhyamaka."
haha
Posts: 562
Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 3:30 pm

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

Post by haha »

Malcolm wrote: Thu Jan 21, 2021 8:28 pm
Madhyamaka concerns the view, not the path. It is implicitly regarding Madhyamaka is not sufficient; there were many teachings in India (i.e. Buddha’s teachings) which did not cover by Tibetan Buddhism (i.e. one aspect: Mahasiddha’s tradition and Nalanda tradition and their fusion). However, at least, some Indian Master composed madyamaka meditation.

That (madhyamaka) is not my categorization.

The buddha’s teachings were the unorganized. In term of organizing and reinterpreting the words of the buddha, the concept of two truths had begun (i.e. not by word). That is why one emphasis is to study Buddhism through masters’ commentaries. Even the debates with non-buddhists at that time reshaped the development new theories. Candrakarti centric reinterpretation (who was not in limelight in India) does not affect Chinese Mastar’s interpretation; three truths do not come under that kind of categorization. So, it is outside the scope of such modal of interpretation. It is natural to believe this way of thinking-line is correct and according to tradition Arya Nagarjuna. Candrakīrti reinterpretation of Nagarjuna and Tibetan reinterpretation of Candrakirti would not affect Zhiyi (i.e. there was no Svatantrika- Prasangika - Yogacara Madyamaka for him; just one opinion). That is outside of the scope.

Here is another angle:
Chih-i's doctrine of the middle truth provides a point of unity between the two truths in a transcendent synthesis encompassing them both. Ge-luk-bas, on the other hand, assert that concealer-truth and ultimate truth are direct contradictories: there can never be anything that is both, and there can never be any third truth beyond just these two.
Further,
Thus, it seems that in Ge-luk-ba, emptiness itself carries out at least one of philosophical functions of Chih-i's middle truth.
Two Truth in the Madhyamaika Philosophy of the Gelukba Order of Tibetan Buddhism, by Guy Newland, The Two Truths as a Dichotomy
What we decide that is based on our own examination about the fact (i.e. own collected information and personal experience).

Dolpopa, then, was not innovating when he advocated understanding the Prajñā-pāramitā sūtras by way of the three natures taught in Yogācāra texts. He was merely following a much older Indian tradition. This led him to find correspondences to these three natures in the Prajñā-pāramitā sūtras themselves, such as the Pañcaśatikā Prajñāpāramitā. He quoted the whole opening section of this sūtra at the beginning of his concise text, Ngo sprod khyad ‘phags, “Exceptional Introduction.

By David Reigle
http://prajnaquest.fr/blog/the-three-na ... aparamita/
I had indeed read some, refutation by Gorampa (about Dolpopa, Tsongkhapa), and some basic ideas about Tsongkhapa and Dolpopa. I am also aware about non-Buddhist presentation, too, how they define the self within their tradition.
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 »

Malcolm wrote: Thu Jan 21, 2021 3:04 am They exist conventionally.
bbbbbbut... only one convention (or rather conventional way to look at reality) is TRUE!!!!

Christ. This conversation has gone stupid.

This is what happens when someone takes a convention and insists, ONLY THIS IS TRUE, EVERYTHING ELSE IS FALSE.

How appropriate that this takes place in the Nichiren forum.
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
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 »

The introductory Mahayana teaching, incorporates the doctrine of the middle path. That is the reason for the term "Inclusion of the Middle Path." The specific teaching (Bekkyo), a more profound level of Mahayana Buddhism, only expounds the middle path as a doctrine unrelated to non-substantiality and temporary existence, which is why the nomenclature "Conditional Middle Path" is used. The perfect teaching (Engyo), or true Mahayana teaching, expounds the perfectly endowed middle path contained in the Three Truths. Thus, it is called the "Unconditional Middle Path."
https://www.nst.org/articles/concerning ... ree-truths
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

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

Post by Malcolm »

Queequeg wrote: Sat Jan 23, 2021 3:13 pm
Malcolm wrote: Thu Jan 21, 2021 3:04 am They exist conventionally.
bbbbbbut... only one convention (or rather conventional way to look at reality) is TRUE!!!!

Christ. This conversation has gone stupid.
“Conventional” simply means “functional,” it does not mean arbitrary or subjective. For example, perceiving water as amṛta, pus, boiling metal, etc., is invalid in the human realm.

One can build many kinds of cars, but if they don’t function as cars, they are not cars, conventionally speaking.
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 »

convention is subjective and thus conditional
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

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

Post by Malcolm »

tkp67 wrote: Sat Jan 23, 2021 4:27 pm convention is subjective and thus conditional
No, conventions are not subjective, they are conventions because one or more people have agreed to call a functional thing a given name. For example, a truck is called a lorry in England, but they both refer to a heavy vehicle that carries loads.
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 »

Malcolm wrote: Sat Jan 23, 2021 4:33 pm
tkp67 wrote: Sat Jan 23, 2021 4:27 pm convention is subjective and thus conditional
No, conventions are not subjective, they are conventions because one or more people have agreed to call a functional thing a given name. For example, a truck is called a lorry in England, but they both refer to a heavy vehicle that carries loads.
One or more people does not resent all sapient beings so it is still subjective within those terms.

The unconditioned model supersedes the conditioned model for a reason.
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 »

Malcolm wrote: Sat Jan 23, 2021 4:21 pm “Conventional” simply means “functional,” it does not mean arbitrary or subjective.
Yes. Exactly. That's exactly what Zhiyi said the Middle Way/Buddhanature is.

Functions are responsive. Conditions being various, various functions are necessary.

Give it a rest, bro.
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,
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

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

Post by Malcolm »

Queequeg wrote: Sat Jan 23, 2021 5:57 pm
Malcolm wrote: Sat Jan 23, 2021 4:21 pm “Conventional” simply means “functional,” it does not mean arbitrary or subjective.
Yes. Exactly. That's exactly what Zhiyi said the Middle Way/Buddhanature is.

Functions are responsive. Conditions being various, various functions are necessary.

Give it a rest, bro.
The middle way is inexpressible. It's beyond convention. That's the point.

If you are claiming that the term "the middle way" is merely a convention, thats fine. The words "middle way" have a function. But those words are not the inexpressible middle way taught by the Buddha in the sutras I mentioned.

If something has a function, it is compounded, and impermanent. There are no permanent, functional phenomena. Buddhanature is not a functional phenomena, if it were, it would be compounded.
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 »

Malcolm wrote: Sat Jan 23, 2021 6:21 pm
Queequeg wrote: Sat Jan 23, 2021 5:57 pm
Malcolm wrote: Sat Jan 23, 2021 4:21 pm “Conventional” simply means “functional,” it does not mean arbitrary or subjective.
Yes. Exactly. That's exactly what Zhiyi said the Middle Way/Buddhanature is.

Functions are responsive. Conditions being various, various functions are necessary.

Give it a rest, bro.
The middle way is inexpressible. It's beyond convention. That's the point.

If you are claiming that the term "the middle way" is merely a convention, thats fine. The words "middle way" have a function. But those words are not the inexpressible middle way taught by the Buddha in the sutras I mentioned.

If something has a function, it is compounded, and impermanent. There are no permanent, functional phenomena. Buddhanature is not a functional phenomena, if it were, it would be compounded.
I was at the playground a while back. My son comes crying to me, "They won't play with me!"
"Well, son. What do you mean they won't play with you?"
"I want to play tag but they want to play the floor is lava."
"Well, sometimes if you want to play with others, you have to be willing to play their game."
"But the floor is lava is stupid."
"Then, maybe you need to find your own game, or make some new friends who want to play tag."
"But there's no one else."
"You have a choice then, son. You can either play the game everyone else is playing or you can go play by yourself."
"This is stupid."
:crying:

We get what you're saying. There's something else going on.
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,
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

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

Post by Malcolm »

Queequeg wrote: Sat Jan 23, 2021 6:41 pm We get what you're saying. There's something else going on.
So you keep saying.
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 »

Malcolm wrote: Sat Jan 23, 2021 6:45 pm
Queequeg wrote: Sat Jan 23, 2021 6:41 pm We get what you're saying. There's something else going on.
So you keep saying.

I don't doubt your capacity and or your intimacy with your own desires. Grasping these teachings theoretically and lacking doubt in them is the predicate here. If you have difficulty falsifying some of your doubts then articulate them directly and clearly. I am sure you will seek the assistance you require.

One thing about the assembly is the buddha himself foresaw the cause and effect of his own enlightenment and understood that people over time would not recognize they were all "taking water from the same source" Besmirching them at this point is as voluntary as leaving the assembly.

The conditioning that allows it to continue will only benefit those who recognize it as such and identify it as the workings of the lotus itself. It won't benefit the person perpetuating it. There are more fertile places for those that leave the assembly. There is the most special place that is apparently easily understood as an inexpressible emptiness.
illarraza
Posts: 1257
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2011 4:30 am

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

Post by illarraza »

Caoimhghín wrote: Thu Jan 21, 2021 3:22 am
Malcolm wrote: Thu Jan 21, 2021 3:04 amHow is space, absence of impediment, an experience of meditation? How is the cessation of the series of a burnt seed an experience of meditation? Granted, cessation due to analysis is a result of insight, but that refers to the cessation of births, so how are these three uncompounded dharmas not even conventional entities?
The space between your fingers is conditioned. The space that is seen in a cave is conditioned. The unconditioned spaces are the products of divine vision, as far as I am aware, like the "endless deepest darkness" between world systems described in the suttas. Similarly, the burnt seed is not burnt, because the Buddhas rouse the Arhats. When I talk about "dharmas," I mean "moments." I don't think the "moments" actually exist. They are just one way to divide experience. According to the MMK, they have no moment of arising, no moment of abiding, and no moment of cessation. They do not actually exist as discrete entities at all, ultimately speaking, because they have no "edges."

I was once very seriously interested in Theravada, so I don't feel that I'm especially ignorant of how Theravadin Abhidhammika Buddhism presents itself to potential lay adherents.

They way that I understand Theravadin notion of a "dhamma" is that it is like an immaterial peddle. The Madhyamaka perspective is that they are inventions of the analyst and have no basis in objectivity. The mind can simply be impermanent without the constant stream of systematized atomic "moments" that are discreet and conceptually separated from one another. The dharmas, instead of being like separate slides in a projector that run in front of the light and are projected onto the screen, can instead be like hallucinations. The dharmas can have no sharply-defined boundaries (i.e. the "edges" of a particular moment) and blur into one another yet still correspond to a diversity of experiences without "the moments." This ultimately is, AFAIK myself and from instruction, the Madhyamaka proposal, that the dharmas are like lumps of foam and not pebbles. A pebble here is like a moment because it is concrete, specific, and has demarcated edges. The pebble has an edge, a core that is distinct from its edge (i.e. the stone within is not of the same texture as the stone without), and sides that are roughly opposite each other.

pebble.jpg

The pebble has a right side and a left side. The differentiated core, the right side, and the left side, are like arising, abiding, and ceasing. The Abhidharmika believes arising, abiding, and ceasing to be particular moments, particular moments unlike one another, and particular things therefore. A lump of foam, being a conglomerate of air-bubbles are watery material, has no such core that is different from its surface when it is split open to look inside (i.e. smooth versus jagged, edge versus non-edge before it is split, or if it is a geode then crystal versus non-crystal). When splitting the lump of foam, there is no hard boundary to break. Inside is like outside. Analysing it, the Madhyamaka finds no discreet particular "moments" of arising, abiding, or ceasing for it, just like the one who examines foam instead of a pebble finds it comparatively insubstantial. I'm sure we're not in disagreement.

A lump of foam however is not a piece of particular rock and is a conglomerate of air bubbles. The edge of where one lump of foam ends and the next begins is poorly-defined compared to the boundary between one pebble and the next or one section of the pebble and the next section.

Of course, knowing how objects are through modern science, we can see that even seemingly-solid objects like pebbles actually have no properly-defined edges and boundaries. So much for human intuition. That the mind has moments is like suggesting that the beach has a bunch of tiny pebbles in the form of sand. To the everyday person, yes, the beach is full of sand, but on a deeper level, the sand is a series of excitements of wavelengths.
Malcolm wrote: Thu Jan 21, 2021 3:10 am
Caoimhghín wrote: Thu Jan 21, 2021 3:07 amI don't believe in Abhidharma, but I do agree that I need to study it if I want to criticize it.
You mean you don’t believe you have five skandhas? Twelves ayatanas, eighteen dhatus, twenty-two indriyas? Etc?
Not that they exist how the Sri Lankan Venerables explained them to exist at the Scarborough Mahavihara. Like I said, this is a difficult matter to talk about. I don't think that the five aggregates are "things" that immaterially exist in the manner that material things conventionally exist. They are just ways to divide experience.
The Truth of the Middle Way has characteristics of both temporary existence (body) and non-substantiality but is neither, What is it then? The Lotus Sutra teaches that is is "thus" or such. "Only a Buddha with a Buddha can exhaustively penetrate the Reality of the Dharmas*.", the way things really are.

*The myriad data of all phenomenal worlds."

My two cents.

Mark
illarraza
Posts: 1257
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2011 4:30 am

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

Post by illarraza »

PeterC wrote: Tue Jan 19, 2021 8:26 am
illarraza wrote: Mon Jan 18, 2021 11:03 pm Nagarjuna's Tetralemma can be understood through the concept of latency, manifestation, and Tientai the Great's Mutual Possession of the Ten Worlds and Three Truth Doctrine

1). P; that is being...A single World (being or phenomena) manifestation is equivalent to Tientai's Truth of Temporary Existence (body)
2). not P; that is not being...Nine Worlds (being or phenomena) not manifest (latent) is equivalent to Tientai's Truth of Non-substantiality (mind)
3). P and not P; that is being and that is not being...A single World (or phenomena) manifest and Nine Worlds not manifest is equivalent to both Tientai's temporary existence and non-substantiality or relative understanding of mind and body.
4). not (P or not P); that is not being or not not being... not manifest or not latent (not not being) is a near equivalent to Tientai's Truth of the Middle Way (though not actually temporarily manifest or not actually non-substantial, exhibiting characteristics of both.)

Therefore, contrary to the assertions to most Tibetans and Madhyamaka adherents, Nagarjuna's did postulate Three Truths (not merely Two Truths) in his Tetralemma but they differ slightly from Tientai's "unification of the Three Truths".
illarraza - I'm curious to hear how you reconcile your interpretation with the following:
(a) Nagarjuna nowhere mentions three truths, indeed that doctrine was only developed centuries after Nagarjuna; and
(b) the whole point of Nagarjuna's philosophy is that he doesn't postulate anything. Indeed that's the whole point of the tetralemma as a formal device.
He doesn't need to mention them. It is "thus", is it not?

Mark
illarraza
Posts: 1257
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2011 4:30 am

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

Post by illarraza »

Caoimhghín wrote: Tue Jan 19, 2021 5:36 pm This is going to be overlong, sorry.
illarraza wrote: Mon Jan 18, 2021 11:03 pm
Caoimhghín wrote: Mon Jan 18, 2021 8:07 pm First I mistake chapter 25 for 24, then I don't paste half of the section I wanted to paste. I'm not Interneting very well today. The full section should be:
Very good. Here is my association of Nagarjuna's Tetralemma and Tientai's Three Truths revised. Tell me what you think.

Nagarjuna's Tetralemma can be understood through the concept of latency, manifestation, and Tientai the Great's Mutual Possession of the Ten Worlds and Three Truth Doctrine

1). P; that is being...A single World (being or phenomena) manifestation is equivalent to Tientai's Truth of Temporary Existence (body)
2). not P; that is not being...Nine Worlds (being or phenomena) not manifest (latent) is equivalent to Tientai's Truth of Non-substantiality (mind)
3). P and not P; that is being and that is not being...A single World (or phenomena) manifest and Nine Worlds not manifest is equivalent to both Tientai's temporary existence and non-substantiality or relative understanding of mind and body.
4). not (P or not P); that is not being or not not being... not manifest or not latent (not not being) is a near equivalent to Tientai's Truth of the Middle Way (though not actually temporarily manifest or not actually non-substantial, exhibiting characteristics of both.)

Therefore, contrary to the assertions to most Tibetans and Madhyamaka adherents, Nagarjuna's did postulate Three Truths (not merely Two Truths) in his Tetralemma but they differ slightly from Tientai's "unification of the Three Truths".
It looks like you have the positive tetralemma from the 18th chapter of MMK overlayed onto different permutations of latent or manifested realms of the ten realms. I say the "positive" or "reverse" tetralemma because none of the elements of this tetralemma are negated aside from elements 2 and 4. Elements 1 and 3 are forms of "affirmed existence" as we might conventionally call it. Because you have used the positive/reverse tetralemma, this isn't really the four negated theses of Madhyamaka. This is just "the four theses." So this is going to be overlong because I want to first compare the negated theses with Tiantai and then, after that, the affirmed theses.

There's a certain Sarvāstivādin sensibility in explaining unmanifest things as latencies, but this comes from Ven Zhiyi himself rather than yourself having "a certain Sarvastivadin sensibility." He describes fire as latent in bamboo, for instance, requiring a convergence of causes and conditions to make it manifest, so I see where that comes from. Because you are using the positive or "reversed" tetralemma, it is functioning IMO fundamentally differently than the negative tetralemma. This will seem very roundabout, like I am not answering your question, but hopefully by the end of it something has been said.

The tetralemma or "four theses" are four ways to respond to a question: "it is," "it isn't," "it is and isn't," "it neither is nor isn't," like in your example above. We can take a frivolous question like "Does the Buddha exist after he appears to die?" and the four theses will give us a matrix of "Yes (he exists postmortem)," "No (he does not exist postmortem)," "Yes and no (he kind of does, kind of doesn't)," and "Neither yes nor no (something entirely else is the case)." These four are really the only places we can go to answer simple questions of any sort: affirmation, negation, some combination of the two, or none of the above. It's how we form philosophical stances and views, etc. The Buddha "is," Jehovah "isn't," etc. or the other way around. If it's option 4 that is the answer to "Does the Buddha exist or not exist after apparent death," then that means that he fundamentally "is" in some manner other than existence or nonexistence (a very queer suggestion indeed but a common one!).

Positive Tetralemma:
1. P; that is being -- affirmation
2. not P; that is not being -- negation
3. P and not P; that is being and that is not being -- a combination of the two
4. not (P or not P); that is neither being nor that is not being -- none of the above


Negative Tetralemma:
1. not P -- existence is negated
2. not not P -- nonexistence is negated
3. not both P and not P -- some intermediary
4. not not (P or not P) -- none of the above


Let's consider how the tetralemma appears in the literature of the Śrāvakas for the simple reason that I have this following short section typed out already. We could have used an example from a Mahāyāna sutra, but the tetralemma itself is largely the same however it appears. Let's pretend we know nothing about Ven Nagarjuna and the Buddhadharma and just read the passage as we imagine an uninstructed tirthika worldling might:
“Reverend Sāriputta, does a Realized One exist after death?”

“Reverend, this has not been declared by the Buddha.”

“Well then, does a Realized One not exist after death? …

Does a Realized One both exist and not exist after death? …

Does a Realized One neither exist nor not exist after death?”

“This too has not been declared by the Buddha.”
(SN 44.3)

We now break these down into the pseudo-logical language we often see on things like Wikipedia pages on Madhyamaka, where A is "The Tathagata existing after death," not A is "not existing," etc.

1. Not A
2. Not not A

Now we will pause. We are pretending to be someone who has neither heard the Buddha's sutras in which he outlines the four negated theses nor someone who has been exposed to anything like the MMK or the Heart Sutra. We are pretending to be a non-Buddhist, perhaps a materialist atheist, who is encountering a logical proposition of a negatory nature allegedly professing to describe "something," and reading these for the first time.

Because we are taking the text at its word, we now believe "neither 1 nor 2," which means "neither A nor not A." That is how our imagined reader reads elements 1 and 2 together or this list. We continue:

3. Not both A and not A
4. Not neither A nor not A

What has happened? What we have learned from 1 and 2 is now negated in 4. 1 and 2 are no longer "true" statements in light of 4. The entire proposition is logically incoherent from a so-called "objectively logical" perspective. This is just as true of the diamond slivers as it is true of the four theses in Madhyamaka as it is true of the four non-declared statements of the Buddha in SN 44.3. This tells us that the purpose of the four negations is not to "reason through" to a 5th alternative that is the "true thesis," which is nonetheless the winding road that many Buddhists, many Madhyamaka Buddhists too, venture down. The lesson of the tetralemma is to "just stop" trying to inquire into the origin and destiny of the world, the Buddha, and nirvana, and well as to "just stop" trying to define the world, the Buddha, and nirvana via conditioned and ignorant thinking. "Existence" and "nonexistence" are themselves modalities of the conditioned. They are opposites. They bring each other mutually about. "Nonexistence" is technically just a prapanca, a "frivolous pondering." There is "nothing" that "doesn't exist." The point of the tetralemma is to delineate inconceivables and imponderables. Madhyamaka illustrates this imponderability by negating all avenues of recourse that the interlocutor has with which to answer questions such as: "Is the world a oneness?" and "Is the world a multitude instead?" and others like it (MMK 25:24).

One of the most significant things that the tetralemma is applied to is the "existence or nonexistence" of nirvana in the 25th chapter of MMK.

If nirvana "exists," it is not in the world. Why? The world "exists" in a particular way, as designated conventionality. The world is characterized by suffering, impermanence, etc. Because nirvana is not characterized by these things, if nirvana and the world both "exist," then they have to exist "as different things." You would have to leave the world or in some way negate it in order to experience nirvana. The Theravadins believe that nirvana exists as a particular wondrous dharma. The mind can focus on one dharma at a time. So when the mind experiences nirvana, the mind does not experience "the world" in how they see things. They have to "leave the world" so to speak, to experience their nirvana. And sometimes they never come back after (well, not entirely true). So we begin to see perhaps, if I am leading readers properly, why it is important that "nirvana doesn't exist" even though that sounds odd, like saying "There is no Buddha." Now, "Nirvana does not exist" is itself an absurd statement. If nirvana "does not exist" full stop, then the Buddha was never enlightened at Bodh Gaya, because "Buddha" or "Arya" is a term for someone who has "touched" or experienced nirvana at least once. So the next question arises: "Does nirvana in some way exist as a rarified modality of nonexistence?" We can all imagine how this is rejected. I could go through every element of the tetralemma, but the MMK itself does this and the relevant section is already copied out here beginning at section XXV that I misidentify as chapter 24 instead of 25.

In Tiantai Buddhism, there is no leaving the world to experience nirvana. There is "one world" even though there are "ten worlds" and "three worlds."
The nature and characteristics of the path of suffering -– they misunderstand this path of suffering and saṃsāra remains expansive. This is misunderstanding the dharmakāya as the path of suffering. There is no separate dharmakāya apart from the path of suffering, like mistaking south as north, like how there is no separate south (apart from north). If one realizes saṃsāra, then it is the dharmakāya. Thus it is said the nature and characteristics of the path of suffering are the nature and characteristics of the dharmakāya.
(Ven Zhiyi, "The Dharma Flower's Profound Meaning," T1716.743c25-744a3-7)

This is fundamentally different than any version of Śrāvaka Buddhism. But there is something more. Ven Zhiyi is reacting to more than just "the Śrāvaka." Ven Zhiyi is laying out in clearer terms and with more hand-holding that there is no nirvana apart from samsara, which is the same point that Ven Nagarjuna makes when he points out that nirvana and samsara are actually "the same." Pointing out that they are "the same" involves, for Ven Nagarjuna, applying the tetralemma to them.

25:17
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.

25:18
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.


"After parinirvana" is "in nirvana" and "presently" is "in the world." The same applies to the Tathagata before and after. There is no change for the Tathagata with parinirvana, even though to us it appears like the change of all changes. This is directly related to the proclamation of the Buddha in Ch 16 concerning what "the world" thinks of his entering into parinirvana and his transforming of the body into ash and relics. To quote Ven Sengzhao:
[...] the Sage’s wisdom embraces all things yet it is never belabored; his bodily form fills the eight directions but this brings him no distress. If you add to him, he will not overflow; if you subtract from him, he will not be lessened. How could anyone take literally the story that he contracted dysentery on the way to Kuśinagara, that his life ended under the twin trees, that his mind ceased in the regal casket, and that his body was cremated on a pyre? Yet all the while the deluded, investigating the traces of his extraordinary responsiveness, cling to the evidence of their eyes and ears. Carpenter’s square and ruler in hand, they go about trying to measure the Great Square: they want to find the Perfect belabored by knowledge and distressed by bodily form. “He discarded being to delve into nonbeing,” they claim, and then assign to him the corresponding names.

Surely what they do is not picking words of subtlety from the realm beyond speech, or pulling the root of mystery from the vacuous field.
(Venerable Sēngzhào 肇論 Zhào's Essays T1858.158a4 BDK translation, translator unknown by poster)

"He discarded being to delve into nonbeing" is the world's understanding of the Buddha's parinirvana. What is "the world?" The demons, ghosts, titans, animals, humans, gods, etc., living in it. A sentient being itself is "a world" and indeed is also "worlds" in the plural. Ven Nagarjuna, Ven Zhiyi, and the Lotus Sutra itself say in different ways, "That's not quite the case" that "he discarded being to delve into nonbeing." Not only did he not discard being for nonbeing, he didn't "go anywhere" either, because nirvana is not a location (this is part of it "not existing"). Furthermore, the world is not a "location" similarly, despite the protestations of the worldlings, so indeed he could not have left it to begin with.

As I see it, and please anyone feel free to disagree, the three truths are not an "equivalent" to the two truths, they are the fruits of a particular meditation that Ven Zhiyi learned. Ven Jizang also practiced this. I have no proof, but I speculate that Ven Zhiyi learned it from Ven Huiwen and not Ven Huisi.
In order to enter into emptiness, you must contemplate conventional existence; emptiness is realized through this encounter. This realization is as when the clouds are scattered and vanquished, and above is made manifest and below is clear [...] The conventional is that which is to be destroyed; the real is that which is used to destroy [...] If you enter emptiness, you realize that emptiness itself has no being, and re-enter the conventional with that insight, knowing that this contemplation is done for the sake of saving sentient beings, and knowing that the real is not reality but a utility that appears conventionally. Therefore we say "entering from emptiness" [從空入], and one who attains this contemplation differentiates the proper medicine according to the disease without mistaken discriminations.
(Ven Zhìyǐ, Mahāśamathavipaśyanā T1911.23c12, published as "Clear Serenity, Quiet Insight," p. 452)

The important thing that people often miss IMO is that "this contemplation is done for the sake of saving sentient beings." Ven Zhiyi's "ultimate" or "emptiness" or "non-conventional truth" is an extreme. It is not emptiness of emptiness. It is emptiness as the destruction of conventionality. It is not, as the MMK says, an emptiness of this nature:

By virtue of the principle of emptiness
all phenomena are established.
If there were no principle of emptiness,
nothing would be established.

(MMK 24 T1564.32b)

Ven Zhiyi actually says the complete opposite. By virtue of the ultimate truth, emptiness, nothing is established and everything is destroyed. "The real," which is to say emptiness, "is used to destroy" the conventional, not establish it. So there's actually something fundamentally different between the "three truths" and "two truths." For Ven Zhiyi, if he were to rest in the absorption of the ultimate, it would be like Śrāvaka liberation. All of the dharmas are ended. Mind is ended, body is ended, speech is ended. For the sake of saving sentient beings, Ven Zhiyi emerges from the absorption into emptiness and finds conventionality not to be a reality, but instead "a utility." This is all about bodhisattvayana and bodhicitta. Ven Nagarjuna must have also emerged from his nirvanic absorption. This is another way we can read "they knew it in their hearts" other than my silly "they didn't write a commentary" speculations. If Ven Nagarjuna and the Buddha did not know in their hearts how to "enter from emptiness," the principle behind the realization of the third truth, the middle, then the Buddha would have never been able to teach, Ven Nagarjuna would not have been able to write the MMK, and there would be no such thing as samyaksaṃbuddhatva. There would only be arhatva and Pratyekabuddhas.

Observe how Ven Vimalaksa describes the absorption into the ultimate:
[Root text]
If all phenomena are not empty,
then there is no arising and no ceasing.
What then is severed and what ceases
and what is called 'nirvāṇa?'

[Ven Vimalākṣa] Existence and nonexistence, these two gates, do not lead to nirvāṇa. That which is called nirvāṇa is:


[Root text]
neither attained nor arrived at,
neither severed nor permanent,
neither arising nor ceasing.
This is called 'nirvāṇa.'

[Ven Vimalākṣa] It is unattained, because in its action and in its reward there is nothing attained. It is not arrived at, because there is nowhere to arrive. It is unsevered, because the five aggregates have been completely empty from the outset. Therefore, upon attaining awakening and entering into nirvāṇa without remainder, there is nothing severed. It is impermanent. If (from within nirvāṇa) phenomena could still be established, those would otherwise be called 'permanent.' In nirvāṇa there is calm cessation and no phenomena can be established, and so it is not called 'permanent.' Arising and ceasing are also like this(, unestablished). Like this are the characteristics of that which is called 'nirvāṇa.' Furthermore, the scriptures speak of nirvāṇa as neither existent, nor nonexistent, nor existent and nonexistent, nor neither existent nor nonexistent. The calm cessation that is independent of all phenomena is called 'nirvāṇa.'
(MMK XV with commentary)

"Independent" of the world. Something that is truly "independent" of the world cannot then go participate in the world and go for alms runs and teach the Dharma. So we actually find two conflicting messages in the Sinitic MMK, that "By virtue of the principle of emptiness all phenomena are established" and yet from within nirvana "no phenomena can be established." These two are contradictory. This is where Ven Zhiyi is getting his idea that the ultimate "destroys" the conventional from. If we believe in the emptiness of emptiness, then we know that the ultimate is not itself an entity that destroys or replaces another entity. The middle is such that the two co-exist mysteriously. If emptiness itself is empty, it cannot obscure -- this is Ven Zhiyi's middle. The ultimate, for Ven Zhiyi, is emptiness, but the middle is "the emptiness of emptiness." But Ven Zhiyi and the Indian Madhyamakas have very different ways of communicating this.

If the Madhyamakas did not know how to "enter from emptiness," they would all have been pratyekabuddhas and would never have taught the Dharma due to cultivated bodhicitta. All phenomena for them forever would remain unestablished, including body, speech, and mind. As such is not the case, we know that actually emptiness establishes body, speech, and mind, and it does not destroy them.

There is another contradiction still. In the above, Ven Vimalaksa says "Furthermore, the scriptures speak of nirvāṇa as neither existent, nor nonexistent, nor existent and nonexistent, nor neither existent nor nonexistent." We continue at another section:
[Ven Vimalākṣa] [...] Living beings are of three kinds: a superior, a middling, and an inferior. The superior sees the characteristics of all phenomena as neither real nor unreal. The middling sees the characteristics of all phenomena as either all real or all unreal. The inferior, on account of his shallow intellect, reasons seeing the characteristics of all phenomena as slightly real and slightly unreal. He sees nirvāṇa as the unconditioned phenomena and imperishable and reasons it as the real. He sees saṁsāra as the conditioned and the false and reasons it as the unreal. "Neither real nor unreal" is taught to break "Both real and unreal."

[Interlocutor] The Buddha in other places says "separate from neither existence nor nonexistence." In light of this, why say "neither existence nor nonexistence" are the Buddhas' words?

[Ven Vimalākṣa] On those occasions, it was to break the four kinds of attachment to existence that it was taught (referencing earlier: "'Neither real nor unreal' is taught to break 'Both real and unreal'"), not for dramatic discourse. We hear the words of the Buddhas. We attain the way. Like this, we say, "Neither existence nor nonexistence."
(MMK XVIII commentary)

Argument from authority, but one must concede that the Venerable has some degree of authority here. Now, the reason Ven Vimalaksa has to say "not neither existence nor nonexistence" and then turn around and say "neither existence not nonexistence" has to do with the difference between an affirming and a non-affirming negation. Either way, this is outside the purview of this particular post where I, believe it or not, am really trying not to ramble. It is a loosing battle.

I'm going to stop this suddenly and maybe continue it in a bit. It is too long.
Nichiren summarizes:

"What then does myō signify? It is simply the mysterious nature of our life from moment to moment, which the mind cannot comprehend or words express. When we look into our own mind at any moment, we perceive neither color nor form to verify that it exists. Yet we still cannot say it does not exist, for many differing thoughts continually occur. The mind cannot be considered either to exist or not to exist. Life is indeed an elusive reality that transcends both the words and concepts of existence and nonexistence. It is neither existence nor nonexistence, yet exhibits the qualities of both. It is the mystic entity of the Middle Way that is the ultimate reality. Myō is the name given to the mystic nature of life, and hō, to its manifestations. Renge, which means lotus flower, is used to symbolize the wonder of this Law. If we understand that our life at this moment is myō, then we will also understand that our life at other moments is the Mystic Law. This realization is the mystic kyō, or sutra. The Lotus Sutra is the king of sutras, the direct path to enlightenment, for it explains that the entity of our life, which manifests either good or evil at each moment, is in fact the entity of the Mystic Law.

If you chant Myoho-renge-kyo with deep faith in this principle, you are certain to attain Buddhahood in this lifetime. That is why the sutra states, “After I have passed into extinction, [one] should accept and uphold this sutra. Such a person assuredly and without doubt will attain the Buddha way.” Never doubt in the slightest." - On Attaining Buddhahood in This Lifetime
PeterC
Posts: 5191
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 12:38 pm

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

Post by PeterC »

illarraza wrote: Sat Feb 13, 2021 9:12 am
Therefore, contrary to the assertions to most Tibetans and Madhyamaka adherents, Nagarjuna's did postulate Three Truths (not merely Two Truths) in his Tetralemma but they differ slightly from Tientai's "unification of the Three Truths".
illarraza - I'm curious to hear how you reconcile your interpretation with the following:
(a) Nagarjuna nowhere mentions three truths, indeed that doctrine was only developed centuries after Nagarjuna; and
(b) the whole point of Nagarjuna's philosophy is that he doesn't postulate anything. Indeed that's the whole point of the tetralemma as a formal device.
He doesn't need to mention them. It is "thus", is it not?

Mark
Of course he needs to - otherwise you’re putting words into his mouth that he never said. The MMK is extremely clear and explicit; that’s it’s great merit as a text. It would be very strange that there exists some important concept or device in his theory that he chose only to imply but not discuss directly
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

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

Post by Malcolm »

tkp67 wrote: Sun Jan 24, 2021 3:17 pm
One thing about the assembly is the buddha himself foresaw the cause and effect of his own enlightenment
Buddhahood has a cause?
The conditioning that allows it to continue...


Buddhahood is conditioned?

That's some pretty strange buddhahood.
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 »

Malcolm wrote: Sat Feb 13, 2021 2:53 pm
tkp67 wrote: Sun Jan 24, 2021 3:17 pm
One thing about the assembly is the buddha himself foresaw the cause and effect of his own enlightenment
Buddhahood has a cause?
Yes it is a function driven by cause and effect. The cause was suffering the effect was liberation.

He understood through the wisdom acquired how best these teachings could be propagated.
“Monks, the thus come one is in a similar position. He is now acting as a great leader for you. He knows that the bad road of birth and death and earthly desires is steep, difficult, long, and far-stretching, but that it must be traveled, it must be passed over. If living beings hear only of the one buddha vehicle, then they will not want to see the Buddha, will not want to draw near him, but will immediately think to themselves, The buddha road is long and far-stretching and one must labor diligently and undergo difficulties over a long period before one can ever attain success!

“The Buddha knows that the minds of living beings are timid, weak, and lowly, and so, using the power of expedient means, he preaches two nirvanas in order to provide a resting place along the road. If living beings choose to remain in these two stages, then the thus come one will say to them, ‘You have not yet understood what is to be done. This stage where you have chosen to remain is close to the buddha wisdom. But you should observe and ponder further. This nirvana that you have attained is not the true one. It is simply that the thus come one, using the power of expedient means, has taken the one buddha vehicle and, making distinctions, has preached it as three.’
https://www.nichirenlibrary.org/en/lsoc/Content/7


Malcolm wrote:
The conditioning that allows it to continue...


Buddhahood is conditioned?

That's some pretty strange buddhahood.
If you put that statement back into the context it came from it is referring to the people who do not realize that all these teachings are derivative of the same source. It never implied buddhahood is conditioned rather the people who make a contest of the teachings are doing so out of conditioning.

I hope this clarifies these things for you friend.

:anjali:
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

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

Post by Malcolm »

tkp67 wrote: Sat Feb 13, 2021 10:06 pm
Malcolm wrote: Sat Feb 13, 2021 2:53 pm
tkp67 wrote: Sun Jan 24, 2021 3:17 pm
One thing about the assembly is the buddha himself foresaw the cause and effect of his own enlightenment
Buddhahood has a cause?
Yes it is a function driven by cause and effect. The cause was suffering the effect was liberation.
That is the provisional view.
Post Reply

Return to “Nichiren”