Question about inherent existence

[Natan]

I didn't say Buddhism is antiquated. I said Vajrayana is light years advanced, while Buddhist philosophy is antiquated and frankly stupid.

Perhaps I am not clear on what you mean by “Buddhist philosophy”.
What are you referring to, exactly?

Madhyamaka. Yogacara. The shastras.

[Natan]

Only India can revive Vajrayana, because only India has that fluid conscious which fixes nothing as true, except the mind.

Can you elaborate on this? What would it mean in your view to "revive Vajrayana"?

Practiced like it was in India when it was widespread out to Indonesia with the kind of investment that could construct Borobodur.

[PadmaVonSamba]

I didn't say Buddhism is antiquated. I said Vajrayana is light years advanced, while Buddhist philosophy is antiquated and frankly stupid.

Perhaps I am not clear on what you mean by “Buddhist philosophy”.
What are you referring to, exactly?

Madhyamaka. Yogacara. The shastras.

But why do you think they are they antiquated and stupid? Is it because they basically reflect specific debates that in many cases have been resolved by modern science? Things like that?

[Natan]

Perhaps I am not clear on what you mean by “Buddhist philosophy”.
What are you referring to, exactly?

Madhyamaka. Yogacara. The shastras.

But why do you think they are they antiquated and stupid? Is it because they basically reflect specific debates that in many cases have been resolved by modern science? Things like that?

Wait. I was having a bad day. Actually, I just realized it's not logic. It's metaphysics. And as metaphysics it can be analyzed from a logical standpoint. What you end up with is nonconfirmability, because it's beyond logic. The Buddha who won't answer. But as metaphysics it's experiential and infinite. As experience it's aesthetic, joyful, beautiful. The problem is suffering. The path is joyful. The problem is not reality or truth.

[Johnny Dangerous]

Oh no. I have a complete Vajrayana education, lam rim, ngondro, empowerments, retreats, wandering, the works. You need to be clear about my argument. I didn't say Buddhism is antiquated. I said Vajrayana is light years advanced, while Buddhist philosophy is antiquated and frankly stupid

Now I defy you to show how Vasubandhu or Nagarjuna draws crowds at your center. I built a center. I paid for the whole center. It's Drikung Kagyu in San Francisco. I know what centers are.

They come for the bliss of mantras. Nothing else matters.

The most popular groups at my center are book groups on Madhymaka and Yogcara texts.

It’s kind of weird because the book group and the Vajrayana group are not the same people, but I can say that the book groups are consistently more popular at my center than Pujas, or anything related to Vajrayana. I think alot depends on local demographics.

That's interesting. I would never have thought that. Where do you live?

Olympia, Washington. At least where I live, the main demographic for Buddhist stuff is as or more into study than practice. Vajrayana practice is not popular here at all. Sakya monatery in Seattle (to which my center is connected, we've even ate Super Buffet with Sakya Trizen 41 lol) though I think the public Pujas were well attended pre Covid.

I'm just saying, there are lots of Buddhist people into book-learnin in my circles.

[justsit]

The NItartha Institute offers advanced studies in the Seattle area. There are quite a few serious students, classes are well attended.

https://nitarthainstitute.org/

[Rick]

There is no becoming. There is no transformation. Things do not arise out of nothing. One thing does not become another thing.

I have some questions about this passage (from the Encyclopedia of Buddhism):

Madhyamaka suggests that impermanent collections of causes and conditions are designated by mere conceptual labels, which also applies to the causes and conditions themselves and even the principle of causality itself since everything is dependently originated (i.e. empty). If unaware of this, things may seem to arise as existents, remain for a time and then subsequently perish.

1. What does 'designate' mean in "impermanent collections of causes and conditions are designated by mere conceptual labels?"

2. Does this passage explain why there is no becoming, no transformation (from your quote above) ?

[PadmaVonSamba]

What does 'designate' mean in "impermanent collections of causes and conditions are designated by mere conceptual labels?"

The glass is either half empty or half full, depending on your concept of it.

Also, (with reference to the impermanent part) we tend to see phenomena as static objects, not as temporary… events, really.
An old barn is a good example of this, if you have ever seen one put in the country, no longer used, its roof sagging or fallen in.
We tend to think of structures as solid objects rather than as slowly occurring events. But that’s what they are. Lots of parts put together, slowly, gradually falling down.


No becoming and no transformation simply means that there is never a fixed point where something can truly be said to exist unchangingly. Everything is in motion…there’s not even that. There is just motion.

I think the Diamond (Cutter) Sutra is the best read on this.

[Sherab]

Current scientific understanding of the physical world says that ultimately everything comes from quantum fields.

This looks like a good description of quantum fields at a time when people had no knowledge of quantum fields :

There is no becoming. There is no transformation. Things do not arise out of nothing. One thing does not become another thing.

[Rick]

I think the Diamond (Cutter) Sutra is the best read on this.

Thanks!

[Rick]

Current scientific understanding of the physical world says that ultimately everything comes from quantum fields.

Where do quantum fields come from?

[Johnny Dangerous]

Current scientific understanding of the physical world says that ultimately everything comes from quantum fields.

Where do quantum fields come from?

I think they are like Schrödinger’s cat, they neither exist nor don’t exist.

[Sherab]

Current scientific understanding of the physical world says that ultimately everything comes from quantum fields.

Where do quantum fields come from?

On the assumption that consciousness is not fundamental, then it can be said that the ground of all phenomena are quantum fields based on current science. Since quantum fields are the ground, they are just "there". They do not arise from anything. They do not become.

[Sherab]

Current scientific understanding of the physical world says that ultimately everything comes from quantum fields.

Where do quantum fields come from?

I think they are like Schrödinger’s cat, they neither exist nor don’t exist.

Schrodinger's cat is meant to point to an object (phenomenon) being in a state of supposition of possible states (dead or alive in the case of Schrodinger's cat) until it is measured.

[Johnny Dangerous]

Where do quantum fields come from?

I think they are like Schrödinger’s cat, they neither exist nor don’t exist.

Schrodinger's cat is meant to point to an object (phenomenon) being in a state of supposition of possible states (dead or alive in the case of Schrodinger's cat) until it is measured.

My layman’s understanding of a quantum field is pretty much that, so while I’m sure it might make someone in the sciences balk, it seems to be a decent analogy here.

[Malcolm]

1. What does 'designate' mean in "impermanent collections of causes and conditions are designated by mere conceptual labels?"

2. Does this passage explain why there is no becoming, no transformation (from your quote above) ?

A collection appears, it is then given a designation.

In order for there to be becoming and transformation, there should be an entity which comes into being and is transformed.

When the meaning of "arising through conditions" is understood, at that point, the meaning of dependent origination is understood, and at that point, emptiness is also understood.

[Rick]

A collection appears, it is then given a designation.

Does giving it a designation impute existence to the collection? (I'm not familiar with the term 'designate' as used in dharma teachings.)

In order for there to be becoming and transformation, there should be an entity which comes into being and is transformed.

So Buddhism doesn't buy the notion of a 'pure' becoming/transformation *without* an entity that becomes/transforms.

When the meaning of "arising through conditions" is understood, at that point, the meaning of dependent origination is understood, and at that point, emptiness is also understood.

"Arising through conditions" means to me (in my own words):

Every swarm* of phenomena is both the result of a swarm of past phenomena (conditions) *and* the cause of a swarm of future phenomena (results). Conventionally speaking.

* Phenomena always come as aggregates (swarms), never as singletons.

What am I getting wrong?

[Rick]

On the assumption that consciousness is not fundamental, then it can be said that the ground of all phenomena are quantum fields based on current science. Since quantum fields are the ground, they are just "there". They do not arise from anything. They do not become.

That would mean quantum fields existed before (independently of) the Big Bang?

[Malcolm]

A collection appears, it is then given a designation.

Does giving it a designation impute existence to the collection? (I'm not familiar with the term 'designate' as used in dharma teachings.)

"Designate" means "label." For example, "library" designates a collection of books. "Book" designates a collection of pages, and so on.

In order for there to be becoming and transformation, there should be an entity which comes into being and is transformed.

So Buddhism doesn't buy the notion of a 'pure' becoming/transformation *without* an entity that becomes/transforms.

Correct, since there is no entity, an inherent existent, that comes into being or transforms. All things are simply dependent designations, which are empty.

[Rick]

"Designate" means "label." For example, "library" designates a collection of books. "Book" designates a collection of pages, and so on.

So to designate a set of parts as a table is an act of mere naming, like assigning a ID number to a person, no reification of the designated object is involved, yes?