Gorampa untenable according to Karmapa

A forum for scholastic discussion/debate.

Re: Gorampa untenable according to Karmapa

Postby Mariusz » Sat Jan 28, 2012 1:48 pm

Here I made the syntesis from my previous posts based on quotes:


The "self-liberation" for Centrists (Madhyamikas) means never need (process, production, possibility) of liberation of what was never in the first place. Never need (process, production, possibility) of liberation of the seeming which was never in the first place (sentient beings; obscurations to liberation and to omniscience). Never need (process, production, possibility) of liberation of perfect nirvāṇa by nature which was never in the first place (buddhahood).

It also means there is always the need (process, production, possibility) for worldly beings of the Dharma Path as the method of the seeming (the obscurations to liberation and to omniscience).

Why it is the method of the seeming only. Because for worldly beings in Mahayana it seems to last the three incalculable eons during many reincarnations as bodhisattva, in tantra one human lifetime, in Dzogchen seems to be already the "self-liberated". So where is the time here when the method is possible? So according to Centrists the method was never at the first place but only seems to be.

Worldly beings as Animals, Humans, Pretas perceive differently. But there is the Path for them indeed. Because of this Path, sentient beings by subject-side perceive gross Nirmanakaya, bodhisattvas free from clinging perceive subtle Sambhogakaya, buddhas?.... because there is not any division at this level "they" can not continue to perceive but the Dharmakaya. The object of all of these is what? The division is where? For Centrists never was at the first place but only seems to.

Nevetheless, until it seems to be division is also the Path. This Path leads to the no division. When division between "Buddha" and "sentient being" is completely no more, it means the all qualities (Dharmakaya, Rupakaya). This means: All divisions belong to the seeming not to the buddhas.

According to Centrists the “Two Truths” division is only from deceiving perspective of sentient beings (the seeming): conventional - it is not possible to know by them the infinitive causes/conditions or cognitions of any object, ultimate - is not possible for sentient beings to have the freedom from all reference points. Conventional reality of any object is "workable daily life" consensus only as far as not analyzed (sentient beings). When analyzed is completely lost (Centrists).
In Buddhahood there is no such division: if Buddha would know precisely the seeming (the omniscience) it will be the total freedom from all reference points.
The both "the two truths" are the same impossible for sentient beings, and the same beyond "the seeming of sentient being" (so impossible for sentient beings) from the perspective of buddhas. So there is no any basis or need for divisions.


If is any error in this syntesis, please let me know where. Thanx :smile:
Mariusz
 
Posts: 708
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 12:08 pm

Re: Gorampa untenable according to Karmapa

Postby cloudburst » Sat Jan 28, 2012 2:18 pm

Namdrol wrote:I think the question you are asking is "Does Gorampa accept that idea that Candrakirit thinks the ālaya as a consciousness is like the hair on a bald man's head."


no, if you read it carefully you will see that I am not actually asking a question, but making a conditional statement.

Namdrol wrote:As I stated before, I think that Gorampa thinks that Candrakirti's view on the conventional existence or non-existence of the ālayavijñāna is more nuanced and subtle then what some other scholars are willing to allow and that he disagrees with how some other scholars present Candrakirti's refutation of the ālayavijñāna, and so on, for reasons that are complex.


ok, got it. I think some scholars made some interpretive errors and decided that Chandrakirti accepted the alaya conventionally.

Namdrol wrote:My suggestion is that one should examine the Bhasya and Jayānanda's commentary.


As soon as some credible individual translates these in to english, I am there.
User avatar
cloudburst
 
Posts: 184
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2011 4:49 pm

Re: Gorampa untenable according to Karmapa

Postby cloudburst » Sat Jan 28, 2012 2:45 pm

Mariusz wrote:Did you mean from the perspective of worldly beings or Centrists?


Lamps dispel darkness from everyone' point of view

Mariusz wrote: How do you explain the acceptance of this dispelling as "really produced" by Centrist?

I do not.

Mariusz wrote:How Centrists can point something what they directly realized as was not in the first place at all?

how does one person show another that they have nothing in their pockets?


Mariusz wrote:Excuse me. I agree with you if "Conventionally, we (worldly beings) can say it..." but not if "Conventionally, we (Centrists) can say it..."


conventionally anyone can say it.

Mariusz wrote:If Centrists use the perspective "what worldly beings accept" in the dabate for the help of those worldly beings, it will be only like "skilled physicians using the medicine" and it proofs they are "skilled" only, not they are "sick".


no, they are not sick, but they also accept conventionalities.

Mariusz wrote:And it is should be realized until not reference points at all,


This is nonsense, you yourself refer to Karl's text, how can you say there are no reference points at all? you are contradicting yourself.

Mariusz wrote:In contrast, if you want locate the "perceived object" precisely (e.g. a table) even conventionally, it is impossible for you sentient being, because infinite causes/conditions since beginigless time.


It is not impossible to locate a table conventionally, it is very easy. Send me a picture of a room with a table, I will locate it for you.


Mariusz wrote:(The Feast; p.321) The notion of “inherent arising” refers to an arising
of the very characteristics of phenomena themselves, an arising that exists
independent of the conceptual mind. There is no such arising in either of
the truths.


this is perfectly correct.
read your own quotation carefully, you will understand all my responses above.
User avatar
cloudburst
 
Posts: 184
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2011 4:49 pm

Re: Gorampa untenable according to Karmapa

Postby Mr. G » Sat Jan 28, 2012 5:01 pm

    How foolish you are,
    grasping the letter of the text and ignoring its intention!
    - Vasubandhu
User avatar
Mr. G
 
Posts: 4098
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 6:36 am
Location: Spaceship Earth

Re: Gorampa untenable according to Karmapa

Postby Mariusz » Sat Jan 28, 2012 5:36 pm

I can defend myself in the same manner but I don't think it will be more constructive for us:

cloudburst wrote:
Mariusz wrote:Did you mean from the perspective of worldly beings or Centrists?


Lamps dispel darkness from everyone' point of view


Yes, for everyone, which means for worldly beings. So irrelevant.

cloudburst wrote:
Mariusz wrote: How do you explain the acceptance of this dispelling as "really produced" by Centrist?

I do not.
Because you are worldly being. So irrelevant.

cloudburst wrote:
Mariusz wrote:How Centrists can point something what they directly realized as was not in the first place at all?

how does one person show another that they have nothing in their pockets?
Centrists use it as "medicine" as a worldly daily-life consensus for the help of those worldly being only not because they accept it. So irrelevant.

cloudburst wrote:
Mariusz wrote:Excuse me. I agree with you if "Conventionally, we (worldly beings) can say it..." but not if "Conventionally, we (Centrists) can say it..."


conventionally anyone can say it.
Yes, for everyone, which means for worldly beings. So irrelevant.

cloudburst wrote:
Mariusz wrote:If Centrists use the perspective "what worldly beings accept" in the dabate for the help of those worldly beings, it will be only like "skilled physicians using the medicine" and it proofs they are "skilled" only, not they are "sick".


no, they are not sick, but they also accept conventionalities.
Centrists use it as "medicine" as a worldly daily-life consensus for the help of those worldly being only not because they accept it. So irrelevant.

cloudburst wrote:
Mariusz wrote:And it is should be realized until not reference points at all,


This is nonsense, you yourself refer to Karl's text, how can you say there are no reference points at all? you are contradicting yourself.
As a worldly daily-life consensus for the help of those worldly being who asked me only not because I accept it. So irrelevant.

cloudburst wrote:
Mariusz wrote:In contrast, if you want locate the "perceived object" precisely (e.g. a table) even conventionally, it is impossible for you sentient being, because infinite causes/conditions since beginigless time.


It is not impossible to locate a table conventionally, it is very easy. Send me a picture of a room with a table, I will locate it for you.
You don't locate even the worldly daily-life consensus called by worldly beings "a table" but the "picture" worldly daily-life consensus only. So even more irrelevant.


cloudburst wrote:
Mariusz wrote:(The Feast; p.321) The notion of “inherent arising” refers to an arising
of the very characteristics of phenomena themselves, an arising that exists
independent of the conceptual mind. There is no such arising in either of
the truths.


this is perfectly correct.
read your own quotation carefully, you will understand all my responses above.
Yes it is perfectly correct as I explained in my previous post where my synthesis. So irrelevant.
Mariusz
 
Posts: 708
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 12:08 pm

Re: Gorampa untenable according to Karmapa

Postby cloudburst » Sat Jan 28, 2012 8:18 pm

Mariusz wrote:
cloudburst wrote:Lamps dispel darkness from everyone' point of view

Yes, for everyone, which means for worldly beings. So irrelevant.


sorry, do you mean "which means for worldly beings" in addition to Madhyamikas?
When I say everyone's point of view, I mean Madhymikas and worldly beings. Did you understand that?

Mariusz wrote:
cloudburst wrote:
Mariusz wrote: How do you explain the acceptance of this dispelling as "really produced" by Centrist?

I do not.
Because you are worldly being. So irrelevant.


I am a worldly being, correct. You asked how I explain something, I said I do not explain it. That is my answer to your question. In what way is it irrelevant, please?

I think part of the problem here is that some of your writing is extremely ambiguous. Is it fair to say that English is not your first language? I applaud your skill in discussing this in a foreign language, but that doesn't prevent some of your sentences from being very unclear. Forgive me if I ask for clarification.

In saying "How do you explain the acceptance of this dispelling as "really produced" by Centrist?"
Do you mean how do I explain the fact that Madhyamikas accept that the dispelling is really produced?

Is that fair?

Mariusz wrote:
cloudburst wrote:
Mariusz wrote:How Centrists can point something what they directly realized as was not in the first place at all?

how does one person show another that they have nothing in their pockets?
Centrists use it as "medicine" as a worldly daily-life consensus for the help of those worldly being only not because they accept it. So irrelevant.


Again, I am afraid I don't know what you mean by irrelevant here. You asked "how can centrists point..." I answered so as to say that they do so in the same way that one points to or demonstates that one has empty pockets.
In what way is this answer irrelevant, please?

Mariusz wrote:
cloudburst wrote:
Mariusz wrote:Excuse me. I agree with you if "Conventionally, we (worldly beings) can say it..." but not if "Conventionally, we (Centrists) can say it..."

conventionally anyone can say it.
Yes, for everyone, which means for worldly beings. So irrelevant.


same confusion as above. I am saying that conventionally, both worldly beings and Madhyamikas can say it.
Is that what you understood?


Mariusz wrote:
cloudburst wrote:
Mariusz wrote:If Centrists use the perspective "what worldly beings accept" in the dabate for the help of those worldly beings, it will be only like "skilled physicians using the medicine" and it proofs they are "skilled" only, not they are "sick".

no, they are not sick, but they also accept conventionalities.
Centrists use it as "medicine" as a worldly daily-life consensus for the help of those worldly being only not because they accept it. So irrelevant.


my point is relevant and clear: Madhaymikas accept conventionalities.
Can you provide a quotation from a source we both accept (perhaps Buddha, Chandrakirti, Nagarjuna or Aryadeva, Buddhapalita etc?) that says they do not?
Please do not bother quoting one Karmapa or other, I do not accept these as authoritative.


Mariusz wrote:
cloudburst wrote:
Mariusz wrote:And it is should be realized until not reference points at all,

This is nonsense, you yourself refer to Karl's text, how can you say there are no reference points at all? you are contradicting yourself.
As a worldly daily-life consensus for the help of those worldly being who asked me only not because I accept it. So irrelevant.


Sorry, so you do not accept Karl's text ? We can agree there, at least.

You said "only as a worldly daily-life consensus" but that is what a reference point is. "Worldly daily-life consensus" is an ugly, belabored way of saying "conventional," and as everyone knows, conventionally there are reference points, for example Karl's book which you referred to earlier. So to say "no refernece points at all" is nonsense, as I pointed out. And whether you accept or not is what is irrelevant. Worldly folks do, and so do Madhyamikas. In this case, you are out of step with both.

Mariusz wrote:
cloudburst wrote:
Mariusz wrote:In contrast, if you want locate the "perceived object" precisely (e.g. a table) even conventionally, it is impossible for you sentient being, because infinite causes/conditions since beginigless time.
It is not impossible to locate a table conventionally, it is very easy. Send me a picture of a room with a table, I will locate it for you.
You don't locate even the worldly daily-life consensus called by worldly beings "a table" but the "picture" worldly daily-life consensus only. So even more irrelevant.


the suggestion of the picture was only becasue I don't want to spend time arranging to meet you, I assure you I could locate an actual table as well. So can whoever you live with, like your mom, roomate. or girlfriend. If you need help, ask them, I'm sure they would be happy to locate your table for you.

Mariusz wrote:
cloudburst wrote:this is perfectly correct.
read your own quotation carefully, you will understand all my responses above.
Yes it is perfectly correct as I explained in my previous post where my synthesis. So irrelevant.


The meaning of the quotation is wonderful, it explains there is no inherent arising in either of the two truths. Your synthesis is not very clear, and appears to imply that there are no reference points at all and no need for divisions, but this is clearly false, for we do have reference points and divisions conventionally.

I apologize but I cannot pore over that and try to make sense of it, it would take too long and I fear you would find it "irrelevant."
User avatar
cloudburst
 
Posts: 184
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2011 4:49 pm

Re: Gorampa untenable according to Karmapa

Postby Mariusz » Sat Jan 28, 2012 10:15 pm

cloudburst wrote:I think part of the problem here is that some of your writing is extremely ambiguous. Is it fair to say that English is not your first language?

Hmm. I did not realize it yet. I'm very sorry. Please read only the books I quoted, especially "The Center", not my english. Many answers to your questions is in the chapter "Seeming Divisions of the Seeming" and "Dividing Space". :anjali:
Mariusz
 
Posts: 708
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 12:08 pm

Re: Gorampa untenable according to Karmapa

Postby cloudburst » Sat Jan 28, 2012 11:15 pm

Mariusz wrote:
cloudburst wrote:I think part of the problem here is that some of your writing is extremely ambiguous. Is it fair to say that English is not your first language?

Hmm. I did not realize it yet. I'm very sorry. Please read only the books I quoted, especially "The Center", not my english. Many answers to your questions is in the chapter "Seeming Divisions of the Seeming" and "Dividing Space". :anjali:


Please don't apologize, you are doing a wonderful job. I very much respect that anyone could argue fine points ins a foreign tongue.

The thing is, I HAVE read Center of the Sunlit Sky.
I do not find it the least bit impressive. It is full of confusions, especially where presenting Je Tsonkhapa's view.
I assume that this view was simply misunderstood by Mikkyo Dorje, and not willfully misrepresented, and this misunderstanding has been passed on to Karl. Frome the point of view of anyone who understands Je Tsongkhapa, "Center" is not something one would spend a great deal of time on.

I even worte a small peice on smoe mistakes Karl made, you can read it here http://madhyamisc.wordpress.com/

There was another one I started, I think it's a draft, I may take this opportunity to finish and post it, I'll let you know so you can argue with it if you like.

cheers
User avatar
cloudburst
 
Posts: 184
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2011 4:49 pm

Re: Gorampa untenable according to Karmapa

Postby Mariusz » Sun Jan 29, 2012 12:42 pm

cloudburst wrote:I even worte a small peice on smoe mistakes Karl made, you can read it here http://madhyamisc.wordpress.com/
cheers
Thank you for it. Excuse I only have "the tibetan" books. I will not use my english anymore but I recommend "The Feast" (page 152) the quote from IX Karmapa:

Does the refutation of arising from the four extremes apply to ultimate
truth or to conventional truth? The Autonomists (Svātantrika, Rang-
gyüpa/rang rgyud pa) assert that it only applies to the ultimate truth, but
here, [in the Consequentialist system], arising from the four extremes is
refuted in both truths. This is explained by this very treatise in the follow-
ing and other verses:
Reasonings prove that arising from self and other
Are illogical in suchness.
Since they also prove that arising is illogical conventionally,
On what basis do you speak of “arising”? (6.36)
One may protest, “It follows that you deny the conventional arising
of phenomena, because for you phenomena do not arise from the four
extremes.” It is true that we do not assert “conventional arising.” However,
to ensure that our presentation does not lapse from the worldly perspec-
tive renowned to others, and to avoid denying the connection between
actions and results, we present conventional arising from the perspective
of others. When doing so, we accept and proclaim—from the perspec-
tive of others—an arising resembling the arising of dreams and reflections.
Arising in this context is synonymous with dependent arising, free from
the four extremes. We describe arising, actions, results, and so on merely
in accordance with what is accepted in the world.
Therefore, the consequence that arising would not exist even conven-
tionally does not apply to us:
when we speak of arising, we do so free of
any logical analysis. When we analyze with logic, no arising is accepted.
Since arising accepted in the context of analysis would definitely entail
one of the four extremes, we do not accept any form of arising when ena-
gaged in analysis.
Therefore, although Followers of the Middle Way do not accept aris-
ing even on the conventional level from their own perspective, they do
accept arising and so forth on the conventional level from the perspec-
tive of others.
There is no contradiction in doing this, because accept-
ing something from the perspective of others is not an assertion of one’s
own position. It is, rather, a mere repetition of what others say, like an
echo. This principle can be applied to all instances of accepting something
provisionally.
According to Rendawa one should not refute arising on the conven-
tional level if there has been no analysis, because the arising free of the four
extremes is dependent arising. Furthermore, worldly people say things like
“sprouts arise from seeds” and so on, and it is necessary to speak in har-
mony with the world. However, arising from any of the four extremes is
not to be accepted even on the conventional level.
It seems that on this
topic there are no great contradictions between the position of Rendawa
and that expressed here.
In sum, mere dependent arising, free from the four extremes, is empti-
ness. It is the path of the Middle Way, the antidote to all views. It is not a
mistake, therefore, to accept arising conventionally from the perspective
of others and at the same time say that there is no arising even conven-
tionally. This is so because upon analyzing dependent arising it is seen to
be free from all extremes. Therefore whoever propounds arising from any
of the four extremes is not a proponent of dependent arising. The master
Nāgārjuna, in a praise to the Buddha, said:
Logicians imagine that
Suffering is created by itself,
By others, by both, or causelessly.
You taught that it arises in dependence.
Those who speak of dependent arising are free of bias; in neither of the
two truths do they fall into any of the four or eight extremes.
Since they
are free of clinging to anything, they do not lapse from ultimate truth.
Since they are free from error regarding any mundane or transcendent
conventions, they also do not lapse from relative truth. For that reason,
the master Nāgārjuna said (Fundamental Wisdom):
For the one for whom emptiness is possible,
Everything is possible..........................
Mariusz
 
Posts: 708
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 12:08 pm

Re: Gorampa untenable according to Karmapa

Postby Mariusz » Sun Jan 29, 2012 1:08 pm

...and here (The Feast; IX Kamapa, p. 333):

The sūtras say:
Those who study a teaching and become attached to it
Will become angry when they hear something that is not that
teaching.
Their pride and conceit will defeat them
And lead them only to suffering.
Those who desire liberation must first let go of their clinging to posi-
tions. They will then be capable of relying on the teachings of Nāgārjuna,
which explain the nature of reality in a way that harmonizes with what is
generally accepted in the world. They should train in the essential point
that all phenomena are merely dependently arisen. This training itself will
become the cause of their liberation.
From the perspective of analysis, and from the perspective of the noble
ones, even interdependence and the liberation that its realization causes
are inexpressible. Nothing is attained, and no one attains anything. At the
time of realizing this, one does not even say that such things “do not exist.”
One does not attempt any description using words such as “exist,” “does
not exist,” “both,” or “neither.”
At that time, one does not conceive of anything. One does not fixate
on anything. One does not apply any effort. One does not do anything.
In this great state of no action itself, one rests uncontrived, loosely, and
evenly.

When resting in that way, all appearances of the sixfold collection of
consciousness are appearance-emptiness, sound-emptiness, awareness-
emptiness. Look nakedly. Rest in their naked liberation.
This is the supreme view and meditation of the Middle Way.

.............Followers of the Middle Way, therefore, do not affirm nonexistence
through refuting existence. Nor do they affirm or accept “being neither”
through refuting “being both.” The refutations of existence, being both,
being neither, and so on are simply words used to undermine the wrong
thinking of others
. They are accepted merely as statements from the per-
spective of other, worldly beings. Relying on them as such, the Follow-
ers of the Middle Way reverse others’ misconceptions. They do not refute
anything or affirm anything as their own system. They simply speak in
accordance with the following quotation from Shāntideva’s Entrance to
the Conduct of Bodhisattvas:
All analyses depend
On simply what is renowned in the world. (9.108cd)
Mariusz
 
Posts: 708
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 12:08 pm

Re: Gorampa untenable according to Karmapa

Postby Mariusz » Sun Jan 29, 2012 5:55 pm

cloudburst wrote: Your synthesis is not very clear, and appears to imply that there are no reference points at all and no need for divisions, but this is clearly false, for we do have reference points and divisions conventionally.


Sherab wrote:
Namdrol wrote:The suffering of chasing mirages never ends. The only way to end it is simply to stop.
The suffering of accepting and rejecting never ends.The only way to end it is simply to stop.

I can agree with these.

Namdrol wrote:..likewise, the suffering of intellectual pursuits never ends. The only way to end it is simply to stop.
..likewise, the suffering of proof and rebuttal never ends. The only way to end it is simply to stop.

I have a problem with these. Why? I cannot leave contradictions and paradoxes unresolved as they eat away at my faith/belief in the Dhamma/Dharma and disturb my mental peace. That's just me I guess.


Again it. So it is important to quote IX Karmapa what I in my english wrote "the seeming is not totally faulty" for worldly beings only:

(The Feast; p.224)Granted that, ultimately, there are not two truths. Yet, conventionally,
the relative truth is not just confusion
—it is also a method for realizing
the ultimate truth. Without analyzing whether relative phenomena arise
from themselves or from something different than themselves, the Follow-
ers of the Middle Way accept—from the perspective of others
—whatever
is asserted by worldly people on the basis of worldly ways.
When one analyzes to find whether relative things—forms, feelings,
etc.—arise from themselves or other and so on, one cannot find any abid-
ing thing apart from the suchness that is the true nature of those things.
This suchness itself is the ultimate truth, free of arising and ceasing. The
arising, ceasing, and so on of the relative truth cannot be found.

(p.279) (Chandrakirti)The conventional truth is the method;
The ultimate truth is what arises from the method.
Those who do not know the distinctions between these two
Will, due to wrong thinking, follow inferior paths.
(6.80)

This verse explains the reasons why falling from the two truths will make
attaining liberation impossible. The conventional truth refers to the inter-
dependent phenomena—aggregates, constituents, and sources—taught
by the perfect Buddha as methods for realizing the ultimate truth. The
teaching on the ultimate truth is what arises from such methods. The ulti-
mate truth is taught in dependence upon the conventional truth. And
through comprehending the ultimate truth, one attains the ultimate, that
is, nirvāṇa. The Treatise says:
Without relying on conventions,
One cannot realize the ultimate.
Without realizing the ultimate,
One cannot attain nirvāṇa.
(24.10)
In this context, the following are synonyms: that which arises from
methods, the result, that which is to be attained, that which is to be real-
ized, the object that is to be seen by the wisdom of meditative equipoise,
and nonabiding nirvāṇa.
Unlike the Followers of the Middle Way, those who do not understand
the distinctions between the two truths (such as the Proponents of Mind
Only), will, due to their wrong thinking, follow inferior paths. They incor-
rectly interpret the intention of the Transcendent Conqueror.
Mariusz
 
Posts: 708
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 12:08 pm

Re: Gorampa untenable according to Karmapa

Postby Mariusz » Sun Jan 29, 2012 5:59 pm

cloudburst wrote:The thing is, I HAVE read Center of the Sunlit Sky.
I do not find it the least bit impressive. It is full of confusions, especially where presenting Je Tsonkhapa's view.
I assume that this view was simply misunderstood by Mikkyo Dorje, and not willfully misrepresented, and this misunderstanding has been passed on to Karl. Frome the point of view of anyone who understands Je Tsongkhapa, "Center" is not something one would spend a great deal of time on.

I even worte a small peice on smoe mistakes Karl made, you can read it here http://madhyamisc.wordpress.com/


I've read it a little and have also a quote from IX Karmapa for you:

Your statement there: If the table is different from it’s “real existence,” this ends the possibility of the clinging Karl posits,
Your statement there: Karl seems disturbed that the object of negation would be a nonexistent..

(IX Karmapa; The Feast; p.222) agrees with you (take the vase instead of the table) but in another context:
If what you assert is the
case, is a vase empty of its own entity or is it not? It would be impossible
for you to explain how it is not, because you accept that a Follower of the
Middle Way is someone who speaks of the nonexistence of entities. If you
say that a vase is empty of its own entity, what is the “entity of the vase”?
Is it the thing that has a bulbous belly, is thin at its bottom, and performs
the function of carrying water or is it the true existence inherent in the
very presence of the vase (döluk kyi drubpe dendrup/sdod lugs kyis grub pa’i
bden grub)?
It is impossible for the entity of the vase to be the second one. Such
true existence does not even exist among knowable objects! If you accept
the first option—that the entity of the vase is the thing that carries water
and so on—but do not accept that a vase is empty of this entity, you fail to
qualify as a Follower of the Middle Way who speaks of the nonexistence
of entities regarding all phenomena: for you, the entity of the vase is its
defining characteristics, the bulbous belly and so on, but the vase is not
empty of its own entity.

We (Centrists), on the other hand, hope we would avoid ascribing the above asser-
tions to the tradition that propounds the nonexistence of entities even in
our dreams. Speaking as Tsongkapa and his followers do about this topic
hinders the development of realization and contradicts the scriptures of
the Transcendent Conqueror.
In the definitive meaning teachings, the Transcendent Conqueror went
to great lengths to reject assertions claiming that vases, as opposed to sim-
ply being empty of vases, are empty of a phenomenon extraneous to the
vases. The Buddha described those assertions as insufficient portrayals of
emptiness.
Mariusz
 
Posts: 708
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 12:08 pm

Previous

Return to Academic Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests

>