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

User avatar
Queequeg
Former staff member
Posts: 14456
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 »

middle=thusness; not just emptiness. emptiness is just another aspect of conventionality. middle in the sudden & perfect teaching is seeing both fully integrated. distinct teaching sees the three aspects of the perfect teaching distinctly. Perfect teaching is described in MMK 24:18
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
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 »

Are you sure it's 24:18, or is it my mislabeled 25:18?

I knew messing up those citations would be no good lol
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: 14456
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 »

“Whatever is dependently co-arisen, that is explained to be emptiness. That, being a dependent designation, is itself the middle way.”
24:18
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
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 »

:good:

Not my mislabeled 25 at all.
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: 14456
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 »

:rolling:
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
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 »

Caoimhghín wrote: Tue Jan 19, 2021 11:36 pm Nirvāṇa as an object of meditative absorption, a dharma, is how the Theravādins believe nibbāna to be a particularized "object." It is in this sense that it appears in the matrices of the Ābhidharmikas.

[...]

Ven Vimalākṣa even says, "No one dharma known as the unconditioned is found." One of the things that Madhyamaka responds to is what we can call historical Ābhidharmika fundamentalism, the belief that the matrices of the Abhidharmas correspond to discrete sets of ultimate realities. Let me find that śāstra quote when I get to posting again.
It is from the commentary to MMK 25:4
[Root text]
Nirvāṇa is not called 'existent.'
The existent is characterized as aging and dying.
In the end, there is not an existent phenomenon
not characterized as aging and dying.

[Ven Vimalākṣa] Because we see, ourselves, that all things are always arising and ceasing, they are characterized by aging and dying. If nirvāṇa is an existence, then it is characterized by aging and dying, but this is not so. Therefore, nirvāṇa is not called 'existent.' Also, we do not see (free from arising, ceasing, aging, and dying,) any particular phenomenon called 'nirvāṇa.' Because it is freedom from aging and death, it is called 'nirvāṇa.'
Any material in brackets is editorial addition by me.
Caoimhghín wrote: Tue Jan 19, 2021 11:36 pmOne of the things that Madhyamaka responds to is what we can call historical Ābhidharmika fundamentalism, the belief that the matrices of the Abhidharmas correspond to discrete sets of ultimate realities.
To contextualize this, we all know that the MMK is a dialogue between Ven Nagarjuna and an interlocutor, or at least contains in it passages that represent a polemicized-against view. In the MMK-śāstra, Ven Vimalākṣa has as his interlocutor a Saṃmitīya Pudgalavādin, as evidenced by his recourse to Saṃmitīya Abhidharma to defend the existence of a particular "moment of arising" in MMK 7. The interlocutor introduces a matrix of mind-moments: (1) the phenomena, (2) arising, (3) abiding, (4) ceasing, (5) arising-of-arising, (6) abiding-of-abiding, (7) ceasing-of-ceasing. Orthodox Sarvāstivāda has 9 mind-moments, the dharma itself 本法, arising 生, abiding 住, transformation 異, cessation 滅, the arising of arising 生生, the abiding of abiding 住住, the transforming of transformation 異異, and the ceasing of cessation 滅滅.

So we know part of the project of these very ancient Madhyamakas was, IMO, combating Abhidharma fundamentalism, which I don't think is a controversial assertion.
Last edited by Caoimhghín on Wed Jan 20, 2021 2:44 am, edited 2 times 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)
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: Wed Jan 20, 2021 12:33 am middle=thusness; not just emptiness. emptiness is just another aspect of conventionality. middle in the sudden & perfect teaching is seeing both fully integrated. distinct teaching sees the three aspects of the perfect teaching distinctly. Perfect teaching is described in MMK 24:18
Suchness is also just a convention, it’s nothing more than emptiness. Suchness and emptiness are absiolute synonyms.
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 »

Malcolm wrote: Wed Jan 20, 2021 2:37 am
Queequeg wrote: Wed Jan 20, 2021 12:33 am middle=thusness; not just emptiness. emptiness is just another aspect of conventionality. middle in the sudden & perfect teaching is seeing both fully integrated. distinct teaching sees the three aspects of the perfect teaching distinctly. Perfect teaching is described in MMK 24:18
Suchness is also just a convention, it’s nothing more than emptiness. Suchness and emptiness are absiolute synonyms.
It's a difference of method being accompanied by different conceptions. Are they equivalent? I won't say definitely, but it seems to me they are functionally the same and expressed differently. Ven Zhiyi's "truth of emptiness" is not the same as the truth of emptiness in the two truths necessarily. Emptiness in what we could call "normal Madhyamaka" is itself empty. The emptiness that constitutes one of the three truths is not itself empty. It destroys all dharmas rather than establishing them. It is actually the emptiness of emptiness that establishes the dharmas, how I'm thinking right now of it. If emptiness itself is empty, it cannot obscure anything, it cannot destroy anything. Similarly, the middle is what establishes the dharmas after they have been "destroyed" by emptiness in the "entering from emptiness" meditation. The middle is what allows for "designation" after there has been a destruction of "existence."

Also, something that should be pointed out, is that all of the meditations from Ven Zhiyi brought up so far are gradual/sudden, but that is simply because that is the only real way to talk about them in depth IMO. That is the reason IMO that Ven Zhiyi introduces the three truths and their practice sequentially before he introduces them in round-fusion. The round-fusion is a matter all its own.

I think it's worth a thought at least that when Ven Zhiyi says "the middle" he means what others call "the emptiness of emptiness itself," and that, normally, emptiness and suchness are the same, but for Ven Zhiyi, because his emptiness is not itself empty (for that is the middle), emptiness is emptiness and the middle is suchness (which is also empty, of course). They are two different perspectives.
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)
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 »

Caoimhghín wrote: Wed Jan 20, 2021 3:04 am
Malcolm wrote: Wed Jan 20, 2021 2:37 am
Queequeg wrote: Wed Jan 20, 2021 12:33 am middle=thusness; not just emptiness. emptiness is just another aspect of conventionality. middle in the sudden & perfect teaching is seeing both fully integrated. distinct teaching sees the three aspects of the perfect teaching distinctly. Perfect teaching is described in MMK 24:18
Suchness is also just a convention, it’s nothing more than emptiness. Suchness and emptiness are absiolute synonyms.
It's a difference of method being accompanied by different conceptions.
You want citations?
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 »

I'm not disagreeing that emptiness is suchness and suchness is emptiness and these all refer to the same.

I do want citations though, but not because I'm disputing it. I like reading. Ven Zhiyi himself says several times that suchness is emptiness, also that suchness is conventionality and that conventionality is emptiness, but I don't think that Ven Zhiyi has normal "Indian" Madhyamaka either.
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)
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 »

Caoimhghín wrote: Wed Jan 20, 2021 3:41 am I'm not disagreeing that emptiness is suchness and suchness is emptiness and these all refer to the same.

I do want citations though, but not because I'm disputing it. I like reading. Ven Zhiyi himself says several times that suchness is emptiness, also that suchness is conventionality and that conventionality is emptiness, but I don't think that Ven Zhiyi has normal "Indian" Madhyamaka either.
I was responding QQ’s claim that emptiness was an extreme and suchness was term for freedom from extremes (the middle). It’s a baseless claim, one which cannot be supported in sutra, sashtra, nor through reasoning.
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 »

Caoimhghín wrote: Wed Jan 20, 2021 3:41 am
I do want citations
Tomorrow.
User avatar
Queequeg
Former staff member
Posts: 14456
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: Wed Jan 20, 2021 2:37 am
Queequeg wrote: Wed Jan 20, 2021 12:33 am middle=thusness; not just emptiness. emptiness is just another aspect of conventionality. middle in the sudden & perfect teaching is seeing both fully integrated. distinct teaching sees the three aspects of the perfect teaching distinctly. Perfect teaching is described in MMK 24:18
Suchness is also just a convention, it’s nothing more than emptiness. Suchness and emptiness are absiolute synonyms.
And same as conventions. Mmk 24:18
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
Queequeg
Former staff member
Posts: 14456
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 »

To use ziporyn's terminology, local coherence (conventions/dharma's) / global incoherence (emptiness). A is A in contrast to Not A; but Not A is an arbitrary distinction (Buddha makes distinctions in order to teach - upaya); but if A is intelligible only contrasted with Not A, Not A is actually an integral aspect of A. Taken to it's end, everything turns out to be an aspect of A, which makes A incoherent when everything is taken into account. Without distinctions, A can't be discerned. A is the sum of everything Not A. Careful examination of A reveals only Not A.

That last analysis is Madhyamaka. The rest of the argument is a sort of reverse analysis. This is Zhiyi's threefold contemplation. The argument doesn't just devolve to emptiness as some interpretations of Madhyamaka argue. It is reversible. Emptiness after all is emptiness of a compound thing. There's no emptiness without a compounded thing. This fluid identity between compounded things and emptiness is called the middle. Nagarjuna says just this in 24:18.

Zhiyi also points out that this fluid identity is the Buddha function to point this out. We don't see it without the Buddha pointing this out. We are without buddha, naively convinced of the soldity of compounded dharmas. The fact that they are compounded though is the reality of buddha. Or in other words, middle way/buddha nature.

There is something else going on here than mere Madhyamaka.
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
Queequeg
Former staff member
Posts: 14456
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 »

Just to add, middleway/buddha nature is a teaching on the aspect of reality itself being both the basis of ignorance and gnosis. When obscured, it's ignorance, but with reflection it's nature comes to be known.

Zhiyi explains this as threefold buddha nature. Real aspect, buddha's teaching pointing this out, and one's efforts that result in gnosis. All are indelible aspects of mind/reality.
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: Wed Jan 20, 2021 5:09 am To use ziporyn's terminology, local coherence (conventions/dharma's) / global incoherence (emptiness). A is A in contrast to Not A; but Not A is an arbitrary distinction (Buddha makes distinctions in order to teach - upaya); but if A is intelligible only contrasted with Not A, Not A is actually an integral aspect of A. Taken to it's end, everything turns out to be an aspect of A, which makes A incoherent when everything is taken into account. Without distinctions, A can't be discerned. A is the sum of everything Not A. Careful examination of A reveals only Not A.

That last analysis is Madhyamaka. The rest of the argument is a sort of reverse analysis. This is Zhiyi's threefold contemplation. The argument doesn't just devolve to emptiness as some interpretations of Madhyamaka argue. It is reversible. Emptiness after all is emptiness of a compound thing. There's no emptiness without a compounded thing. This fluid identity between compounded things and emptiness is called the middle. Nagarjuna says just this in 24:18.

Zhiyi also points out that this fluid identity is the Buddha function to point this out. We don't see it without the Buddha pointing this out. We are without buddha, naively convinced of the soldity of compounded dharmas. The fact that they are compounded though is the reality of buddha. Or in other words, middle way/buddha nature.

There is something else going on here than mere Madhyamaka.
Not so, there is also the emptiness of uncompounded entities.
User avatar
Queequeg
Former staff member
Posts: 14456
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: Wed Jan 20, 2021 2:15 pm
Queequeg wrote: Wed Jan 20, 2021 5:09 am To use ziporyn's terminology, local coherence (conventions/dharma's) / global incoherence (emptiness). A is A in contrast to Not A; but Not A is an arbitrary distinction (Buddha makes distinctions in order to teach - upaya); but if A is intelligible only contrasted with Not A, Not A is actually an integral aspect of A. Taken to it's end, everything turns out to be an aspect of A, which makes A incoherent when everything is taken into account. Without distinctions, A can't be discerned. A is the sum of everything Not A. Careful examination of A reveals only Not A.

That last analysis is Madhyamaka. The rest of the argument is a sort of reverse analysis. This is Zhiyi's threefold contemplation. The argument doesn't just devolve to emptiness as some interpretations of Madhyamaka argue. It is reversible. Emptiness after all is emptiness of a compound thing. There's no emptiness without a compounded thing. This fluid identity between compounded things and emptiness is called the middle. Nagarjuna says just this in 24:18.

Zhiyi also points out that this fluid identity is the Buddha function to point this out. We don't see it without the Buddha pointing this out. We are without buddha, naively convinced of the soldity of compounded dharmas. The fact that they are compounded though is the reality of buddha. Or in other words, middle way/buddha nature.

There is something else going on here than mere Madhyamaka.
Not so, there is also the emptiness of uncompounded entities.
Are uncompounded entities even entities? Or just imputation of entities? If imputations, then they're actually compounded... takes a subject to impute it. In a sense, that is the same as all entities that we otherwise say are compounded - its all imputation.

We say they are uncompounded as a matter of distinction only.

This brings us back to... all this is really about the mind and mistaken apprehensions.

"If there is no mind, that is the end of the matter. If there is mind, then there are three thousand." Zhiyi in MHCK... reality arises dependent on mind. No point in talking about stuff that is distinct from the mind.
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 »

Caoimhghín wrote: Wed Jan 20, 2021 3:41 am I'm not disagreeing that emptiness is suchness and suchness is emptiness and these all refer to the same.

I do want citations though, but not because I'm disputing it. I like reading. Ven Zhiyi himself says several times that suchness is emptiness, also that suchness is conventionality and that conventionality is emptiness, but I don't think that Ven Zhiyi has normal "Indian" Madhyamaka either.
Ārya-dharmasaṃgīti-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra:


Child of a good family, so called "suchness, suchness" is a term designating emptiness. The empty neither arise nor cease.


As for QQ:

Ārya-aṣṭādaśasāhasrikā-prajñāpāramitā-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra:

If one is diligent in the emptiness of ignorance, one is called diligent. If one is diligent in the emptiness of ignorance, formations, consciousness, name, form, six sense bases, contact, sensation, craving, addiction, becoming, birth, aging, and death, one is called "diligent." If one is diligent in the emptiness of all dharmas, one is called "diligent." If one is diligent in the emptiness of compounded and uncompounded phenomena, one is called "diligent."

The Sūtra of Great Liberation (no Sanskrit title, so probably translated from Chinese):

That being the case, child of a good family, the Buddha is the the dharma, the dharma is the sangha. The sangha is uncompounded. The uncompounded is emptiness. The emptiness of the uncompounded, the emptiness of the compounded, the internal emptiness, and external emptiness, the emptiness of the large, and the emptiness of the small are alike as emptiness, and not otherwise.

As for the middle way, the so-called middle way is inexpressible as we see in such sūtras as the Ārya-kāśyapa-parivarta-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra:

Kāśyapa, if it is asked how one undertakes the dharma according to the approach of a bodhisattva, it is as follows, true discernment into the dharmas of the middle way.

Kāśyapa, If it is asked what is true discernment into the dharmas of the middle way, Kāśyapa, the true discernment into the absence of identity, true discernment into the absence of a sentient being, the absence of a creature, the absence of a life, the absence of a person, the absence of an individual, the absence of a human, the absence of a man. Kāśyapa, this is called "true discernment into the dharmas of the middle way."

Kāśyapa, furthermore, the true discernment into the dharmas of the middle way is not discerning permanence nor discerning impermanence in matter. Kāśyapa, likewise, it is not discerning permanence nor discerning impermanence in sensations, perceptions, formations, and consciousness. Kāśyapa, this is called "orrect discernment into the dharmas of the middle way."

Kāśyapa, further, the true discernment into the dharmas of the middle way is is not discerning permanence nor discerning impermanence in the element of earth, and likewise, is not discerning permanence nor discerning impermanence in the element of water, the element of fire, the element of air, the element of space, or the element of consciousness. Kāśyapa, this is called "the true discernment into the dharmas of the middle way."

Kāśyapa, further, the true discernment into the dharmas of the middle way is not discerning permanence nor discerning impermanence in the eye sense base, and likewise, not discerning permanence nor discerning impermanence in the ear, nose, tongue, tactile, and mental sense bases. Kāśyapa, this is called "the true discernment into the dharmas of the middle way."

Kāśyapa, "permanence" is one extreme, "impermanence" is the second extreme. Whatever is between those two extremes cannot be investigated, demonstrated, cannot be a support, cannot appear, cannot be made known, and cannot abide. Kāśyapa, this is called "the true discernment into the dharmas of the middle way."

Kāśyapa, "self" is one extreme, "nonself" is the second extreme. Whatever is between those two extremes cannot be investigated, demonstrated, cannot be a support, cannot appear, cannot be made known, and cannot abide. Kāśyapa, this is called "the true discernment into the dharmas of the middle way."

Kāśyapa, "correct thought" is one extreme, "incorrect thought" is the second extreme. Absence of thought, absence of intention, absence of mind, and absence of consciousness, Kāśyapa, this is called "the true discernment into the dharmas of the middle way."

All dharmas of virtue and nonvirtue, mundane and transcendent, with sin and without sin, contaminated and uncontaminated, compounded and uncompounded are just like that.

Kāśyapa, "afflicted" is one extreme, "purified" is the second extreme. Whatever is nonacceptance, nonexpression, or nonspeaking of those two extremes, Kāśyapa, this is called "the true discernment into the dharmas of the middle way."

Kāśyapa, "existence" is one extreme, "nonexistence" is the second extreme. Whatever is between those two extremes cannot be investigated, demonstrated, cannot be a support, cannot appear, cannot be made known, and cannot abide. Kāśyapa, this is called "the true discernment into the dharmas of the middle way."

Kāśyapa, "samsara" is one extreme, "nirvana" is the second extreme. Whatever is between those two extremes cannot be investigated, demonstrated, cannot be a support, cannot appear, cannot be made known, and cannot abide. Kāśyapa, this is called "the true discernment into the dharmas of the middle way."

Kāśyapa, I have explained to you, "Through the condition of ignorance arise formations; through the condition of formations, consciousness; through the condition of consciousness, name-and-form; through the condition of name-and-form, six sense bases; through the condition of six-sense bases, contact; through the condition of contact, sensation; through the condition of sensation, craving; through the condition of craving, addiction; through the condition of addiction, becoming; through the condition of becoming, birth, through the condition of birth, aging-and-death, misery, lamentation, suffering, unhappiness, and the arising of disturbance. As such only a great mass of suffering arises.

Because ignorance ceases, formations cease; because formations cease, consciousness ceases; because consciousness ceases, name-and-form ceases; because name-and-form ceases, the six sense bases cease; because the six sense bases cease, contact ceases; because contact ceases, sensation ceases; because sensation ceases, craving ceases; because craving ceases, addiction ceases; because addiction ceases, becoming ceases; because becoming ceases, birth ceases; because birth ceases, aging-and-death, misery, lamentation, unhappiness, and disturbance cease. As such, this whole mass of suffering ceases."

Kāśyapa, knowledge and ignorance, those are not two, but are inseparable as two aspects. Kāśyapa, knowledge of this is called the true discernment into the dharmas of the middle way.

Likewise, formations and the cessation of formations; consciousness and the cessation of consciousness; name-and-form and the cessation of name-and-form; six sense bases and the cessation of six sense bases; sensation and the cessation of sensation; craving and the cessation of craving; addiction and and the cessation of addiction; becoming and the cessation of becoming; birth and the cessation of birth; aging-and-death and the cessation of aging-and-death, those are not two, but are inseparable as two aspects. Knowledge of this is called "the true discernment into the dharmas of the middle way."

Kāśyapa, moreover, the true discernment into dharmas of the middle way is not making dharmas empty with emptiness, dharmas themselves are empty; it is not making dharmas without characteristics with the absence of characteristics; dharmas themselves lack characteristics; it is not making dharmas free of aspiration through aspirationlessness, dharmas themselves are without aspiration; it is not making dharmas unfabricated through nonfabrication, dharmas themselves are not fabricated; it is not making dharma not arise through nonarising, dharmas themselves do not arise; it is not making dharmas unproduced through nonproduction, dharmas themselves are unproduced; it is not making dharmas lack inherent existence through lacking inherent existence, dharmas themselves lack inherent existence. And such discernment, Kāśyapa, is called "the true discernment into the dharmas of the middle way."


And the Mahāparinirvana sūtra:

Bodhisattvas teach the middle way. If it is asked why, though all dharmas do not exist, it is also explained they do not not exist, and are not ascertained to be the same. Why? Consciousness arises by means of the condition of eye, form, light, mental factors, and the intellect. Also it is definite that consciousness does not exist in the eye, the form, the light, the mental factor, nor the the intellect, nor in between. It does not exist, it does not not exist, but because it arises from being dependently produced it is said "to exist." Because it has no inherent existence, it is said "not to exist." Therefore, the Tathāgata has said that though all dharmas do not exist neither do they not exist.

and the Ārya-mahāyānopadeśa-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra:

Abandoning all views is entering into the middle way, seeing all dharmas as equal.

But one does not need to propose a third truth to understand this.

Arya-pratyutpanne buddha-saṃmukhāvasthita-samādhi-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra:

Bhadrapāla, in that way, any son or daughter of a good family who wishes for perfect full awakening and any son or daughter of a good family who wishes for personal awakening, or any son or daughter of a good family who wishes for arhatship, they must investigate those dharmas. After they investigate those dharmas in that way, dharmas should not be investigated as pacified, nor should they be investigated as not pacified. Why Bhadrapāla? Because nothing is destroyed and nothing is born. If one conceives "all dharmas are pacified" in dharmas that are totally unestablished, this is one extreme. If one conceives "all dharmas are not pacified", this is the second extreme.

Bhadrapāla, not perceiving, not conceiving, not establishing, not thinking about, and not engaging these two extremes—pacified and unpacified—is the middle way through the explanation of the mundane relative in a manner of enumeration, however, in the ultimate, the extremes or the middle are not perceived. Why Bhadrapāla? As such all phenomena are like space, equal with nirvana. They cannot be annihilated, cannot be destroyed, are not permanent, and do not exist forever. They do not abide in a region, they do not abide in a direction, they are without characteristics, and cannot be enumerated. Since they cannot even be approached by the learned through enumeration nor perceived, all phenomena are called "non-enumerable."
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: Wed Jan 20, 2021 7:15 pm

Are uncompounded entities even entities? Or just imputation of entities? If imputations, then they're actually compounded... takes a subject to impute it. In a sense, that is the same as all entities that we otherwise say are compounded - its all imputation.

We say they are uncompounded as a matter of distinction only.
Space, the two cessations, suchness/emptiness and all their synonyms are the uncompounded entities mentioned in Mahāyāna.

But as Nagārajuna cogently points out in the MMK,

Since arising, abiding, and perishing are not established, the compounded are not established;
since the compounded have never been established, why would the uncompounded be established?


People keep on trying to fix or improve upon Madhyamaka. It's never been necessary.
User avatar
Queequeg
Former staff member
Posts: 14456
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 »

I've got nothing to argue. Nothing to comment on. No particular disagreement.
Queequeg wrote: Wed Jan 20, 2021 5:09 am There is something else going on here than mere Madhyamaka.
Nothing to argue about, bro. Its not your cup of tea. Move 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,
Post Reply

Return to “Nichiren”