Kenneth Chan wrote:
Minobu wrote:So the Masters did use these words to teach ?...?
or are these just used by someone who interpreted the teachings and thought to themselves" What a good boy am I...voila i give you true existence and ultimate existence..."
I say this for they seem a little ...how would you say...harsh and corrosive to use in establishing the view. There is no such thing as true existence..and ultimate existence sounds like your selling a condo in Trump Tower.
It's all about the view one arrives at ....and words are all we can use ...unless of course you practice and it just comes to you sort of naturally to your perception of what we dwell in.
Please do not get fixated over the literal meaning of individual words taken out of context. Words are only tools of communication and have serious limitations. It is the intended meaning that the words are trying to convey that is of paramount importance, not the words themselves.
That is why words must always be taken in the correct context. Any individual word can mean many different things when used in different contexts. Just consider, for example, the English word "existence"; it can mean so many different things when used under different circumstances. That is the nature of words - it is true for English, and also true for Sanskrit, and in fact, true for any language.
What is important is for us to understand is the meaning that is being conveyed, not the individual words themselves. That is why context is important, and that is why commentaries are important, and that is also why maintaining the lineage of transmission is important.
No need to lecture me in the use of words by the Masters, or maintaining the lineage of transmission.
Thats the point of my posts all along.
You have every right to explore the possibilities of Madhyamika view on all aspects of life.
If you decide to introduce words that could alter the path to establishing the correct view, i will point that out.
It's dangerous and damaging to get it wrong, if you respect what you are doing.
Those words were never used by the Masters.
These are the only words used in the context we are now discussing by the Masters and interpreted in order to establish the correct view:
Nihilism , nihilistic
convention , conventional
and Inherent Existence
You mention lineage and transmission.
Which Qualified Teacher actually sat you down and taught you Madhyamika , which method of meditation and Buddhist practice did you use to come to your understanding of Madhyamika..
I ask for this is vital to know if you are going to lecture people on Madhyamika.
Did you get it your understanding solely from a book?
Excuse me if i sound insulting, after all you just arrogantly told us to allow for the use of any words you please...
meaning that is being conveyed, not the individual words themselves
There is something every Master explains to the student on embarking on attaining the establishment of correct view of Sunyata.
Never try to teach someone the view unless you yourself have grasped it. It actually causes harm to one's self and others of the gravest nature.
The use of
shows me just that. I have a nagging suspicion that you have not actually grasped it totally yet.
Words have a subtle effect in every use, they have incredible effect when teaching Dharma .