what makes Buddhist deathlessness not eternalism?

General discussion, particularly exploring the Dharma in the modern world.
Malcolm
Posts: 40185
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: what makes Buddhist deathlessness not eternalism?

Post by Malcolm »

Karma Dorje wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
Karma Dorje wrote:
That depends entirely on who is teaching, but of course they are not equivalents. They each derive from their own particular context. However, the terms point to the same basis.
No, they do not. The basis in Dzogchen and Mahāmudra teachings is not transpersonal, it is personal.
What is the Sanskrit term you are taking as "transpersonal"? The basis of tantric and vedantic path is always personal.
Brahmin is transpersonal. In others words, all jivātmans (personal selves) are just subsets, if you will, of parātman (ultimate or transpersonal self). The distinction between the two is merely apparent in other words.

This is not compatible with Dzogchen or Mahāmudra, let alone Buddhadharma, on any level.
Momento mori.
Schrödinger’s Yidam
Posts: 7885
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am

Re: what makes Buddhist deathlessness not eternalism?

Post by Schrödinger’s Yidam »

Malcolm wrote:
smcj wrote:
Malcolm wrote:The basis in Dzogchen and Mahāmudra teachings is not transpersonal, it is personal.
Since you are authorized to teach about Dzogchen you are 100% entitled to put forward that position. There is plenty of commentary to support it and anyone that wants to see it that way is not in error to do so. However as has been discussed in another thread there is no consensus to that effect, specifically among later tibetan authors.
You don't understand the later Tibetan authors, sorry to say. The only lack of consensus is among westerners who really do not have a grasp of difficult tantric subjects, written in intentional language (i.e. coded), who are also unfamiliar with the broad range of the textual tradition and rely on tiny slices of translations of varying qualities and differing terminologies with which to form their views.
Again I quote from Kongtrul's "Myriad Worlds" p. 204:

What is the fundamental nature of the origin, primordial ground of being, before buddhas appear by realizing it and before sentient beings appear by not realizing it? To answer this, the tradition of Great Perfection states that...

So evidently Kongtrul disagrees with you. Please understand I am not saying that Kongtrul is right and that you are wrong, just that there is a legitimate gamut of possible opinions on this.
In others words, all jivātmans (personal selves) are just subsets, if you will, of parātman (ultimate or transpersonal self). The distinction between the two is merely apparent in other words.

This is not compatible with Dzogchen or Mahāmudra, let alone Buddhadharma, on any level.
This is the gist of the matter. You reject any Tibetan author that suggests anything of the sort. You have a right to do that. However since this is a public forum it is appropriate to voice dissenting opinions backed by authoritative quotations.
Last edited by Schrödinger’s Yidam on Sun Nov 23, 2014 6:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
1.The problem isn’t ‘ignorance’. The problem is the mind you have right now. (H.H. Karmapa XVII @NYC 2/4/18)
2. I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against lama abuse.
3. Student: Lama, I thought I might die but then I realized that the 3 Jewels would protect me.
Lama: Even If you had died the 3 Jewels would still have protected you. (DW post by Fortyeightvows)
Malcolm
Posts: 40185
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: what makes Buddhist deathlessness not eternalism?

Post by Malcolm »

smcj wrote:
So evidently Kongtrul disagrees with you, as do others.
No, actually he does not, you just do not understand what he is saying.

M
Momento mori.
Malcolm
Posts: 40185
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: what makes Buddhist deathlessness not eternalism?

Post by Malcolm »

smcj wrote:
This is the gist of the matter. You reject any Tibetan author that suggests anything of the sort. You have a right to do that. However since this is a public forum it is appropriate to voice dissenting opinions backed by authoritative quotations.
There aren't any Tibetan authors that do say anything of the kind. They all take great pains to distinguish their views from tīrthika views like Advaita. There are many westerns however who do not understand what they are reading and thus jump to incorrect conclusions, and therefore conflate tīrthika views like Advaita with Buddhadharma, such as yourself. Even the gzhan stong pas (especially the gzhan stong pas) go through great lengths to distinguish their view from the views of non-Buddhists such as Shankara. You do a disservice to them everytime you assert the contrary (based on no evidence whatsoever). Even the Bonpos spend a great deal of time differentiating their views from Advaita and so forth.
Last edited by Malcolm on Sun Nov 23, 2014 6:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Momento mori.
Schrödinger’s Yidam
Posts: 7885
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am

Re: what makes Buddhist deathlessness not eternalism?

Post by Schrödinger’s Yidam »

Malcolm wrote:
smcj wrote:
This is the gist of the matter. You reject any Tibetan author that suggests anything of the sort. You have a right to do that. However since this is a public forum it is appropriate to voice dissenting opinions backed by authoritative quotations.
There aren't any Tibetan authors that do say anything of the kind. They all take great pains to distinguish their views from tīrthika views like Advaita. There are many westerns however who do not understand what they are reading and thus jump to incorrect conclusions, and therefore conflate tīrthika views like Advaita with Buddhadharma, such as yourself.
I will agree that we disagree, with respect.
1.The problem isn’t ‘ignorance’. The problem is the mind you have right now. (H.H. Karmapa XVII @NYC 2/4/18)
2. I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against lama abuse.
3. Student: Lama, I thought I might die but then I realized that the 3 Jewels would protect me.
Lama: Even If you had died the 3 Jewels would still have protected you. (DW post by Fortyeightvows)
User avatar
anjali
Former staff member
Posts: 1644
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 10:33 pm

Re: what makes Buddhist deathlessness not eternalism?

Post by anjali »

Jikan wrote:I still don't think Brahman and thusness are the same thing.
Yes. They are not the same.

Suchness is emptiness. Yet, I think we would agree that the Buddhist emptiness is not an inert emptiness—it is a knowing, or aware, emptiness. In addition, this empty awareness is expressive or radiant—it has a projecting aspect. Even though we speak of three aspects, they are, in fact, inseparable.

Hindu systems of thought focus on the inseparability of the knowing and projecting aspects: Shiva/Shaki in Shaivism, Purusha/Prakriti in Sankhya, or Brahman/Maya in Vedanta. Within the Upanishadic system of thought, the knowing aspect (pure consciousness) is called Brahman. The expressive aspect is called Maya (illusory power). The knowing aspect when discussed separately, is known as Nirguna Brahman. The knowing aspect when discussed in connection with Maya, it is called Saguna Brahman.

Going back to the trikaya nature in Buddhism. Perhaps a rough Buddhist analogy would go something like this. Focusing on the aware aspect alone would be Nirguna Buddha. Focusing on the aware aspect inseparable for its expression would be Saguna Buddha. There is only one “Buddha”, but it can be discussed from different perspectives (Emptiness, Awareness, Expression, Empty-Awareness, Aware-Expression, Empty-Expression, Empty-Aware-Expression).

Hindus tend to discuss Awareness, Expression and Awareness-Expression. The "Empty-" combinations are not covered, with the possible exception of Empty-Expression as the illusory nature of appearances. That's my opinion anyway.
Image
User avatar
Karma Dorje
Posts: 1383
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 10:35 pm

Re: what makes Buddhist deathlessness not eternalism?

Post by Karma Dorje »

Malcolm wrote: Brahmin is transpersonal. In others words, all jivātmans (personal selves) are just subsets, if you will, of parātman (ultimate or transpersonal self). The distinction between the two is merely apparent in other words.

This is not compatible with Dzogchen or Mahāmudra, let alone Buddhadharma, on any level.
That's simply incorrect when discussing Shankaradvaita. Jiva and Ishvara are the appearance of Brahman under the veil of maya. Jiva is a confused appearance only, not a subset of anything. Paramatman is jiva freed from confusion.

A realized teacher can and will use any symbol system necessary to reach the beings to be tamed. Do you really think that when Buddhist dharma disappeared on the subcontinent the bodhisattvas just gave up and said "oh well, they don't have the correct words and thoughts so screw 'em"? You are welcome to that limitation if you like, but it's not for me.
"Although my view is higher than the sky, My respect for the cause and effect of actions is as fine as grains of flour."
-Padmasambhava
krodha
Posts: 2524
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:30 pm

Re: what makes Buddhist deathlessness not eternalism?

Post by krodha »

Karma Dorje wrote:That's simply incorrect when discussing Shankaradvaita. Jiva and Ishvara are the appearance of Brahman under the veil of maya. Jiva is a confused appearance only, not a subset of anything. Paramatman is jiva freed from confusion.
This still means that an existent, unconditioned purusha is being realized once confusion is dispelled.
Malcolm
Posts: 40185
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: what makes Buddhist deathlessness not eternalism?

Post by Malcolm »

Karma Dorje wrote:[qsubset of anything. Paramatman is jiva freed from confusion.
Is there one parātman or many? If there is one, it is transpersonal, if it is many, then what is the difference between Saṃkhya and Advaita?

In reality, Shankara argues theres is in reality only one purusha, not many, as in the Saṃkhya system. He makes this abundantly clear in his Yogasutra commentary, as did Ramaswami when he taught us the Yoga sutras, confirming everything I thought about Advaita. Also his teacher of Advaita was the Sankaracarya of Kanchi, the old one, Chandrashekarendra Saraswati, not the new one.
Momento mori.
User avatar
Karma Dorje
Posts: 1383
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 10:35 pm

Re: what makes Buddhist deathlessness not eternalism?

Post by Karma Dorje »

Malcolm wrote:
Karma Dorje wrote:[qsubset of anything. Paramatman is jiva freed from confusion.
Is there one parātman or many? If there is one, it is transpersonal, if it is many, then what is the difference between Saṃkhya and Advaita?

In reality, Shankara argues theres is in reality only one purusha, not many, as in the Saṃkhya system. He makes this abundantly clear in his Yogasutra commentary, as did Ramaswami when he taught us the Yoga sutras, confirming everything I thought about Advaita. Also his teacher of Advaita was the Sankaracarya of Kanchi, the old one, Chandrashekarendra Saraswati, not the new one.
The same as saying one dharmakaya for all Buddhas.

And Periyavar is my paramaguru. I can't speak for Ramaswami's understanding or realization, but I know what my own guru taught (and typically Brahmasutrabhasya or Upadesasahasri are used for the difficult philosophical points, not Yogasutras).
"Although my view is higher than the sky, My respect for the cause and effect of actions is as fine as grains of flour."
-Padmasambhava
Malcolm
Posts: 40185
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: what makes Buddhist deathlessness not eternalism?

Post by Malcolm »

Karma Dorje wrote: The same as saying one dharmakaya for all Buddhas.
It's really not the same thing at all.

Why? Because when it is said there is only one dharmakāya it means that realization of all Buddhas is the same, not that the continuum of all sentient beings is the same; just like saying that the nature of all fires is heat; nevertheless, every buddha's continuum is distinct and separate. This is not the case with Advaita which insists there is only one purusha for everyone, i.e. that the continuum of all sentient beings is the same.
Momento mori.
User avatar
dzogchungpa
Posts: 6333
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 10:50 pm

Re: what makes Buddhist deathlessness not eternalism?

Post by dzogchungpa »

From "On The Nature Of Samantabhadra: A Conversation with Chögyal Namkhai Norbu":
Question: Is the state of Adibuddha, or Kunjed Gyalpo, something universal, present in all beings?
Answer: The state of Kunjed Gyalpo is knowledge, and in knowledge there is not even the concept of "one and two," otherwise we have already entered into dualism. Also the concept of "individual" presupposes dualistic vision. But Samantabhadra is beyond all this, isn't he?
There is not only nothingness because there is always, and always can manifest. - Thinley Norbu Rinpoche
krodha
Posts: 2524
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:30 pm

Re: what makes Buddhist deathlessness not eternalism?

Post by krodha »

dzogchungpa wrote:From "On The Nature Of Samantabhadra: A Conversation with Chögyal Namkhai Norbu":
Question: Is the state of Adibuddha, or Kunjed Gyalpo, something universal, present in all beings?
Answer: The state of Kunjed Gyalpo is knowledge, and in knowledge there is not even the concept of "one and two," otherwise we have already entered into dualism. Also the concept of "individual" presupposes dualistic vision. But Samantabhadra is beyond all this, isn't he?
Right, because Samantabhadra is dharmakāya i.e. emptiness free from extremes. The adibuddha is universal in the sense that all sentient beings endowed with a mind have a mind-nature (e.g., all fires have heat), but not 'universal' in the sense that said nature is a single, transpersonal essence pervading everything (e.g., every fire shares the exact same heat). That fire-heat example (mentioned by Malcolm directly above) is also why there isn't a concept of one or two.

From the point of view of Samantabhadra there is no 'individual' but then again there isn't anything findable that accords with the extremes of existence or non-existence from that standpoint. This does not contradict conventional distinctions, nor does it suggest a transpersonal, single nature of mind pervading everything.
odysseus
Posts: 1125
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 11:50 pm

Re: what makes Buddhist deathlessness not eternalism?

Post by odysseus »

asunthatneversets wrote:This does not contradict conventional distinctions, nor does it suggest a transpersonal, single nature of mind pervading everything.
I like this. Other than that, the rest of your talking is gibberish. lol
krodha
Posts: 2524
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:30 pm

Re: what makes Buddhist deathlessness not eternalism?

Post by krodha »

odysseus wrote:I like this. Other than that, the rest of your talking is gibberish. lol
Authentic frontier gibberish, to be exact.

phpBB [video]
User avatar
Karma Dorje
Posts: 1383
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 10:35 pm

Re: what makes Buddhist deathlessness not eternalism?

Post by Karma Dorje »

Oh look, another thread on Hinduism vs. Buddhism on Dharmawheel! How positively scintillating.

Image
"Although my view is higher than the sky, My respect for the cause and effect of actions is as fine as grains of flour."
-Padmasambhava
User avatar
dzogchungpa
Posts: 6333
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 10:50 pm

Re: what makes Buddhist deathlessness not eternalism?

Post by dzogchungpa »

Image
There is not only nothingness because there is always, and always can manifest. - Thinley Norbu Rinpoche
odysseus
Posts: 1125
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 11:50 pm

Re: what makes Buddhist deathlessness not eternalism?

Post by odysseus »

dzogchungpa wrote:Image
Hmm, is it a masculine or a feminine player Devadatta speaking to the girl? :-) Which man would say an opening line like that..? I´m laughing my socks off, thanks!
User avatar
dzogchungpa
Posts: 6333
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 10:50 pm

Re: what makes Buddhist deathlessness not eternalism?

Post by dzogchungpa »

*cough* Saint Young Men *cough*
There is not only nothingness because there is always, and always can manifest. - Thinley Norbu Rinpoche
odysseus
Posts: 1125
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 11:50 pm

Re: what makes Buddhist deathlessness not eternalism?

Post by odysseus »

Thanks man, even better. Let´s join the YMCA and stay real males. *cough* isn´t Buddhism about becoming an adult or something?
Post Reply

Return to “Dharma in Everyday Life”