How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics

A forum for those wishing to discuss Buddhist history and teachings in the Western academic manner, referencing appropriate sources.
User avatar
conebeckham
Posts: 4606
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:49 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA, USA

Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics

Post by conebeckham » Fri Jan 20, 2017 3:01 pm

Kenneth Chan wrote:
Malcolm wrote: You do assert the ultimate is a nonexistence. All entities have two natures, one relative, one ultimate. You assert the ultimate nature of all entities is the absence of inherent existence alone. This means you assert the ultimate is a nonexistence. Ergo, you are an advocate of ultimate nonexistence.
Malcolm, stop playing semantic games. And stop putting words in my mouth. I did not assert "the ultimate is a nonexistence." I did not assert "the ultimate nature of all entities is the absence of inherent existence alone." And I did not assert "the ultimate is a nonexistence." I am not even sure, actually, what you mean with your terminology, since you do not accept the terminology as used by Lama Tsongkhapa. So, until you actually explain what you mean, all this is just a play with words.
If your system does not posit the Ultimate nature as the emptiness which is lack of inherent existence, what does it posit as the Ultimate nature?
Are you certain you understand TsongKhapa?
དམ་པའི་དོན་ནི་ཤེས་རབ་ཆེ་བ་དང་།
རྟོག་གེའི་ཡུལ་མིན་བླ་མའི་བྱིན་རླབས་དང་།
སྐལ་ལྡན་ལས་འཕྲོ་ཅན་གྱིས་རྟོགས་པ་སྟེ།
དེ་ནི་ཤེས་རབ་ལ་ནི་ལོ་རྟོག་སེལ།།


"Absolute Truth is not an object of analytical discourse or great discriminating wisdom,
It is realized through the blessing grace of the Guru and fortunate Karmic potential.
Like this, mistaken ideas of discriminating wisdom are clarified."
- (Kyabje Bokar Rinpoche, from his summary of "The Ocean of Definitive Meaning")

Kenneth Chan
Posts: 209
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2016 1:35 am

Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics

Post by Kenneth Chan » Fri Jan 20, 2017 3:03 pm

Malcolm wrote: I did explain it to you.
All entities have two natures, one ultimate, one relative. The ultimate nature of all entities is emptiness.
However, there is some disagreement about what emptiness means.

You assert that emptiness means the absence of inherent existence. If you define emptiness solely as the absence of inherent existence, you are defining emptiness as a nonexistence. The nonexistence of what? The nonexistence of inherent existence. This means you are defining ultimate emptiness as a nonexistence.
You are still playing semantic games and putting words in my mouth. Please explain your point instead of playing around with words. For example, what exactly do you mean by "defining ultimate emptiness as a nonexistence"? What, in fact, do you mean by "ultimate emptiness"? I do not know what you are talking about.

User avatar
smcj
Posts: 5480
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am

Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics

Post by smcj » Fri Jan 20, 2017 3:04 pm

Malcolm wrote: However, there is some disagreement about what emptiness means.

You assert that emptiness means the absence of inherent existence. If you define emptiness solely as the absence of inherent existence, you are defining emptiness as a nonexistence. The nonexistence of what? The nonexistence of inherent existence. This means you are defining ultimate emptiness as a nonexistence.
Ok, I'll bite. In contradistinction to this idea, what is it that you assert?
I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against Lama abuse.
*****
Once in a while you can get shown the light
In the strangest of places if you look at it right.
Robert Hunter

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 25065
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics

Post by Malcolm » Fri Jan 20, 2017 3:10 pm

Kenneth Chan wrote:
Malcolm wrote: I did explain it to you.
All entities have two natures, one ultimate, one relative. The ultimate nature of all entities is emptiness.
However, there is some disagreement about what emptiness means.

You assert that emptiness means the absence of inherent existence. If you define emptiness solely as the absence of inherent existence, you are defining emptiness as a nonexistence. The nonexistence of what? The nonexistence of inherent existence. This means you are defining ultimate emptiness as a nonexistence.
You are still playing semantic games and putting words in my mouth. Please explain your point instead of playing around with words. For example, what exactly do you mean by "defining ultimate emptiness as a nonexistence"? What, in fact, do you mean by "ultimate emptiness"? I do not know what you are talking about.
Kenneth, I never play with words, ever. So stop claiming that I do. It's rude.


Ultimate truth is emptiness. You define emptiness, the ultimate nature of things, as the nonexistence of inherent existence. It is very clear in every post that you write.
Atikosha
Tibetan Medicine Blog
Sudarsana Mandala, Tibetan Medicine and Herbs
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


Relax, don’t worry about all the problems of samsara. Everything is relative. But try to be present.


— Chogyal Namkhai Norbu

Kenneth Chan
Posts: 209
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2016 1:35 am

Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics

Post by Kenneth Chan » Fri Jan 20, 2017 3:11 pm

conebeckham wrote: If your system does not posit the Ultimate nature as the emptiness which is lack of inherent existence, what does it posit as the Ultimate nature?
Are you certain you understand TsongKhapa?
Malcolm, I recently posted a number of very long explanations of Lama Tsongkhapa's meaning, together with extensive quotes from the Lam Rim Chen Mo, in order to show that you have misinterpreted him. You did not even respond to the content of those explanations. And now you want to question whether I understand Lama Tsongkhapa? Why did you not even attempt to refute those earlier explanations of mine if you disagreed?

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 25065
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics

Post by Malcolm » Fri Jan 20, 2017 3:19 pm

Kenneth Chan wrote:
conebeckham wrote: If your system does not posit the Ultimate nature as the emptiness which is lack of inherent existence, what does it posit as the Ultimate nature?
Are you certain you understand TsongKhapa?
Malcolm, I recently posted a number of very long explanations of Lama Tsongkhapa's meaning, together with extensive quotes from the Lam Rim Chen Mo, in order to show that you have misinterpreted him. You did not even respond to the content of those explanations. And now you want to question whether I understand Lama Tsongkhapa? Why did you not even attempt to refute those earlier explanations of mine if you disagreed?
You are responding to cone, not me.

With respect to Lam rim chen mo —— marvelous book, good translation. Cutler and his team have done a remarkable job.

With respect to to certain points of LRCM, however, I have some disagreements. The essence of them we are discussing now. I do not need you to cite long passages from LRCM.

I did not question whether you understand Tsongkhapa, though your recent responses have indeed brought up the doubt about whether you understand Madhyamaka at all, let alone Tsongkhapa.
Atikosha
Tibetan Medicine Blog
Sudarsana Mandala, Tibetan Medicine and Herbs
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


Relax, don’t worry about all the problems of samsara. Everything is relative. But try to be present.


— Chogyal Namkhai Norbu

Kenneth Chan
Posts: 209
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2016 1:35 am

Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics

Post by Kenneth Chan » Fri Jan 20, 2017 3:39 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Kenneth Chan wrote:
conebeckham wrote: If your system does not posit the Ultimate nature as the emptiness which is lack of inherent existence, what does it posit as the Ultimate nature?
Are you certain you understand TsongKhapa?
Malcolm, I recently posted a number of very long explanations of Lama Tsongkhapa's meaning, together with extensive quotes from the Lam Rim Chen Mo, in order to show that you have misinterpreted him. You did not even respond to the content of those explanations. And now you want to question whether I understand Lama Tsongkhapa? Why did you not even attempt to refute those earlier explanations of mine if you disagreed?
You are responding to cone, not me.
With respect to Lam rim chen mo —— marvelous book, good translation. Cutler and his team have done a remarkable job.
With respect to to certain points of LRCM, however, I have some disagreements. The essence of them we are discussing now. I do not need you to cite long passages from LRCM.

I did not question whether you understand Tsongkhapa, though your recent responses have indeed brought up the doubt about whether you understand Madhyamaka at all, let alone Tsongkhapa.
My apologies, it was indeed Conebeckham who made that comment. In any case, both you and Conebeckham can take a look again at these two explanatory posts: One was posted on Sun Jan 15, 2017 5:45 pm, and another on Thu Jan 19, 2017 8:26 pm. If either of you disagree with them, please explain why you disagree.

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 25065
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics

Post by Malcolm » Fri Jan 20, 2017 3:45 pm

Kenneth Chan wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
Kenneth Chan wrote: Malcolm, I recently posted a number of very long explanations of Lama Tsongkhapa's meaning, together with extensive quotes from the Lam Rim Chen Mo, in order to show that you have misinterpreted him. You did not even respond to the content of those explanations. And now you want to question whether I understand Lama Tsongkhapa? Why did you not even attempt to refute those earlier explanations of mine if you disagreed?
You are responding to cone, not me.
With respect to Lam rim chen mo —— marvelous book, good translation. Cutler and his team have done a remarkable job.
With respect to to certain points of LRCM, however, I have some disagreements. The essence of them we are discussing now. I do not need you to cite long passages from LRCM.

I did not question whether you understand Tsongkhapa, though your recent responses have indeed brought up the doubt about whether you understand Madhyamaka at all, let alone Tsongkhapa.
My apologies, it was indeed Conebeckham who made that comment. In any case, both you and Conebeckham can take a look again at these two explanatory posts: One was posted on Sun Jan 15, 2017 5:45 pm, and another on Thu Jan 19, 2017 8:26 pm. If either of you disagree with them, please explain why you disagree.
You cited Tsongkhapa:
  • Even reality, the ultimate truth, has no intrinsic nature at all.
Again, this is the assertion that the ultimate is a nonexistence.
Atikosha
Tibetan Medicine Blog
Sudarsana Mandala, Tibetan Medicine and Herbs
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


Relax, don’t worry about all the problems of samsara. Everything is relative. But try to be present.


— Chogyal Namkhai Norbu

Kenneth Chan
Posts: 209
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2016 1:35 am

Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics

Post by Kenneth Chan » Fri Jan 20, 2017 3:57 pm

Malcolm wrote: You cited Tsongkhapa:
  • Even reality, the ultimate truth, has no intrinsic nature at all.
Again, this is the assertion that the ultimate is a nonexistence.
No, actually it does not mean that "the ultimate is a nonexistence." What it means is that the "ultimate truth" is also empty of inherent existence. "Empty of inherent existence" does not mean that it is nonexistent.

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 25065
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics

Post by Malcolm » Fri Jan 20, 2017 4:04 pm

Kenneth Chan wrote:
Malcolm wrote: You cited Tsongkhapa:
  • Even reality, the ultimate truth, has no intrinsic nature at all.
Again, this is the assertion that the ultimate is a nonexistence.
No, actually it does not mean that "the ultimate is a nonexistence." What it means is that the "ultimate truth" is also empty of inherent existence. "Empty of inherent existence" does not mean that it is nonexistent.
Defining emptiness as the absence of inherent existence is defining the ultimate as a nonexistence. For example, a pot. You claim a pot appears dependently, it relative nature; but that its ultimate nature, its emptiness, is the absence of inherent existence. This means you assert the ultimate nature of a pot is a nonexistence.
Atikosha
Tibetan Medicine Blog
Sudarsana Mandala, Tibetan Medicine and Herbs
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


Relax, don’t worry about all the problems of samsara. Everything is relative. But try to be present.


— Chogyal Namkhai Norbu

Kenneth Chan
Posts: 209
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2016 1:35 am

Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics

Post by Kenneth Chan » Fri Jan 20, 2017 4:18 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Kenneth Chan wrote:
Malcolm wrote: You cited Tsongkhapa:
  • Even reality, the ultimate truth, has no intrinsic nature at all.
Again, this is the assertion that the ultimate is a nonexistence.
No, actually it does not mean that "the ultimate is a nonexistence." What it means is that the "ultimate truth" is also empty of inherent existence. "Empty of inherent existence" does not mean that it is nonexistent.
Defining emptiness as the absence of inherent existence is defining the ultimate as a nonexistence. For example, a pot. You claim a pot appears dependently, it relative nature; but that its ultimate nature, its emptiness, is the absence of inherent existence. This means you assert the ultimate nature of a pot is a nonexistence.
I think we are understanding the terminology differently. The pot is empty of inherent existence because it is dependently arisen. Being dependently arisen does not mean that it is nonexistent. It just means that it exists in dependence on causes and conditions, in dependence on its parts, and in dependence on the imputation by the conventional mind.

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 25065
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics

Post by Malcolm » Fri Jan 20, 2017 4:19 pm

Kenneth Chan wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
Kenneth Chan wrote: No, actually it does not mean that "the ultimate is a nonexistence." What it means is that the "ultimate truth" is also empty of inherent existence. "Empty of inherent existence" does not mean that it is nonexistent.
Defining emptiness as the absence of inherent existence is defining the ultimate as a nonexistence. For example, a pot. You claim a pot appears dependently, it relative nature; but that its ultimate nature, its emptiness, is the absence of inherent existence. This means you assert the ultimate nature of a pot is a nonexistence.
I think we are understanding the terminology differently. The pot is empty of inherent existence because it is dependently arisen. Being dependently arisen does not mean that it is nonexistent. It just means that it exists in dependence on causes and conditions, in dependence on its parts, and in dependence on the imputation by the conventional mind.
What is the ultimate nature of something which, in the relative sense, arises in dependence?
Atikosha
Tibetan Medicine Blog
Sudarsana Mandala, Tibetan Medicine and Herbs
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


Relax, don’t worry about all the problems of samsara. Everything is relative. But try to be present.


— Chogyal Namkhai Norbu

Kenneth Chan
Posts: 209
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2016 1:35 am

Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics

Post by Kenneth Chan » Fri Jan 20, 2017 4:27 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Kenneth Chan wrote:
Malcolm wrote: Defining emptiness as the absence of inherent existence is defining the ultimate as a nonexistence. For example, a pot. You claim a pot appears dependently, it relative nature; but that its ultimate nature, its emptiness, is the absence of inherent existence. This means you assert the ultimate nature of a pot is a nonexistence.
I think we are understanding the terminology differently. The pot is empty of inherent existence because it is dependently arisen. Being dependently arisen does not mean that it is nonexistent. It just means that it exists in dependence on causes and conditions, in dependence on its parts, and in dependence on the imputation by the conventional mind.
What is the ultimate nature of something which, in the relative sense, arises in dependence?
OK, we are understanding the terminology differently. The ultimate truth is that the pot is empty of inherent existence because it is dependently arisen. The conventional truth refers to the "mere existence" of the conventional appearance and functionality.

Jeff H
Posts: 621
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2014 8:56 pm
Location: Vermont, USA

Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics

Post by Jeff H » Fri Jan 20, 2017 4:36 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Kenneth Chan wrote:
Malcolm wrote: You are responding to cone, not me.
With respect to Lam rim chen mo —— marvelous book, good translation. Cutler and his team have done a remarkable job.
With respect to to certain points of LRCM, however, I have some disagreements. The essence of them we are discussing now. I do not need you to cite long passages from LRCM.

I did not question whether you understand Tsongkhapa, though your recent responses have indeed brought up the doubt about whether you understand Madhyamaka at all, let alone Tsongkhapa.
My apologies, it was indeed Conebeckham who made that comment. In any case, both you and Conebeckham can take a look again at these two explanatory posts: One was posted on Sun Jan 15, 2017 5:45 pm, and another on Thu Jan 19, 2017 8:26 pm. If either of you disagree with them, please explain why you disagree.
You cited Tsongkhapa:
  • Even reality, the ultimate truth, has no intrinsic nature at all.
Again, this is the assertion that the ultimate is a nonexistence.
I don't think LTK is defining ultimate truth as a non-existent. He says inherent existence cannot be found when analyzed by reason. It is this irrationally imposed inherency which is non-existent. Rational analysis can only address rational objects. We can prove, rationally, that there is not, has not been, and could never be any inherently existing thing. That does not posit non-existence as the nature of ultimate truth; it simply points out that inherency is no truth at all, neither relative nor ultimate, and takes it out of the equation.

In LTK's system, that is only a first step: eliminate what can be shown by reason not to exist. We're still left with our conventional interactions, which cannot be analyzed by ultimate reason. Next, using the understanding that our ordinary reactions are based on a fictitious quality of inherency, we can re-examine our conventional reasoning. The new conventional reasoning is based on concepts of dependent arising and emptiness, and it applies the Dharma of what is to be abandoned and what is to be adopted in order to realize peace and happiness.

Although I do not pretend to understand Georges Dreyfus' full line of reasoning in Recognizing Reality, I think he does conclude that LTK was a realist, but not in the sense of an essentialist advocating real existence. He is a realist because what happens among ordinary beings is experienced as very real, but that there is a fundamental misapprehension (namely, inherent existence) which can be removed by reason, thereby facilitating the negation of samsaric suffering with bodhicitta.

This is not to say that the Dzogchen approach isn't faster, more efficient, and more direct. But it is to advocate the graduated path for those of us who need it. I believe it is possible to realize emptiness directly on the path of seeing through this method -- however, I say that based on what I have received from teachers, not any personal experience. I'm nowhere close to that.
We who are like children shrink from pain but love its causes. - Shantideva

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 25065
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics

Post by Malcolm » Fri Jan 20, 2017 4:38 pm

Kenneth Chan wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
Kenneth Chan wrote: I think we are understanding the terminology differently. The pot is empty of inherent existence because it is dependently arisen. Being dependently arisen does not mean that it is nonexistent. It just means that it exists in dependence on causes and conditions, in dependence on its parts, and in dependence on the imputation by the conventional mind.
What is the ultimate nature of something which, in the relative sense, arises in dependence?
OK, we are understanding the terminology differently. The ultimate truth is that the pot is empty of inherent existence because it is dependently arisen. The conventional truth refers to the "mere existence" of the conventional appearance and functionality.
So the ultimate truth of the pot is the nonexistence of something called inherent existence, correct?
Atikosha
Tibetan Medicine Blog
Sudarsana Mandala, Tibetan Medicine and Herbs
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


Relax, don’t worry about all the problems of samsara. Everything is relative. But try to be present.


— Chogyal Namkhai Norbu

Jeff H
Posts: 621
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2014 8:56 pm
Location: Vermont, USA

Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics

Post by Jeff H » Fri Jan 20, 2017 4:40 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Kenneth Chan wrote:
Malcolm wrote: What is the ultimate nature of something which, in the relative sense, arises in dependence?
OK, we are understanding the terminology differently. The ultimate truth is that the pot is empty of inherent existence because it is dependently arisen. The conventional truth refers to the "mere existence" of the conventional appearance and functionality.
So the ultimate truth of the pot is the nonexistence of something called inherent existence, correct?
No. Ultimate analysis asks, "how does this pot really exist?". The rational answer is, "I don't know, but it certainly isn't inherently."
We who are like children shrink from pain but love its causes. - Shantideva

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 25065
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics

Post by Malcolm » Fri Jan 20, 2017 4:41 pm

Jeff H wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
Kenneth Chan wrote: My apologies, it was indeed Conebeckham who made that comment. In any case, both you and Conebeckham can take a look again at these two explanatory posts: One was posted on Sun Jan 15, 2017 5:45 pm, and another on Thu Jan 19, 2017 8:26 pm. If either of you disagree with them, please explain why you disagree.
You cited Tsongkhapa:
  • Even reality, the ultimate truth, has no intrinsic nature at all.
Again, this is the assertion that the ultimate is a nonexistence.
I don't think LTK is defining ultimate truth as a non-existent. He says inherent existence cannot be found when analyzed by reason. It is this irrationally imposed inherency which is non-existent. Rational analysis can only address rational objects. We can prove, rationally, that there is not, has not been, and could never be any inherently existing thing. That does not posit non-existence as the nature of ultimate truth; it simply points out that inherency is no truth at all, neither relative nor ultimate, and takes it out of the equation.
Is the nonexistence of the true existence of things, the emptiness which is the absence of inherent existence, ultimate truth or not?

In Tsongkhapa's system he very clearly defines the nonexistence of the true existence of things, the emptiness which is the absence of inherent existence, as ultimate truth.

How can you then claim that Tsongkhapa is not advocating this nonexistence as the ultimate?
Atikosha
Tibetan Medicine Blog
Sudarsana Mandala, Tibetan Medicine and Herbs
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


Relax, don’t worry about all the problems of samsara. Everything is relative. But try to be present.


— Chogyal Namkhai Norbu

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 25065
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics

Post by Malcolm » Fri Jan 20, 2017 4:42 pm

Jeff H wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
Kenneth Chan wrote: OK, we are understanding the terminology differently. The ultimate truth is that the pot is empty of inherent existence because it is dependently arisen. The conventional truth refers to the "mere existence" of the conventional appearance and functionality.
So the ultimate truth of the pot is the nonexistence of something called inherent existence, correct?
No. Ultimate analysis asks, "how does this pot really exist?". The rational answer is, "I don't know, but it certainly isn't inherently."
Hahahahah, very funny Jeff. But this kind of eel-wriggling has never been allowed since the time of the Buddha. :-)
Atikosha
Tibetan Medicine Blog
Sudarsana Mandala, Tibetan Medicine and Herbs
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


Relax, don’t worry about all the problems of samsara. Everything is relative. But try to be present.


— Chogyal Namkhai Norbu

pael
Posts: 405
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2013 12:49 pm

Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics

Post by pael » Fri Jan 20, 2017 4:51 pm

Could you tell difference between Sanjaya's eel-wriggling and Nagarjuna's tetralemma?
In Samannaphala Sutta (DN 2), Sanjaya is recorded as saying:

'If you ask me if there exists another world [after death], if I thought that there exists another world, would I declare that to you? I don't think so. I don't think in that way. I don't think otherwise. I don't think not. I don't think not not. If you asked me if there isn't another world... both is and isn't... neither is nor isn't... if there are beings who transmigrate... if there aren't... both are and aren't... neither are nor aren't... if the Tathagata exists after death... doesn't... both... neither exists nor exists after death, would I declare that to you? I don't think so. I don't think in that way. I don't think otherwise. I don't think not. I don't think not not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanjaya_Belatthiputta
May all beings be free from suffering and causes of suffering

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 25065
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics

Post by Malcolm » Fri Jan 20, 2017 4:53 pm

pael wrote:Could you tell difference between Sanjaya's eel-wriggling and Nagarjuna's tetralemma?
In Samannaphala Sutta (DN 2), Sanjaya is recorded as saying:

'If you ask me if there exists another world [after death], if I thought that there exists another world, would I declare that to you? I don't think so. I don't think in that way. I don't think otherwise. I don't think not. I don't think not not. If you asked me if there isn't another world... both is and isn't... neither is nor isn't... if there are beings who transmigrate... if there aren't... both are and aren't... neither are nor aren't... if the Tathagata exists after death... doesn't... both... neither exists nor exists after death, would I declare that to you? I don't think so. I don't think in that way. I don't think otherwise. I don't think not. I don't think not not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanjaya_Belatthiputta

Most def.
Atikosha
Tibetan Medicine Blog
Sudarsana Mandala, Tibetan Medicine and Herbs
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


Relax, don’t worry about all the problems of samsara. Everything is relative. But try to be present.


— Chogyal Namkhai Norbu

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Coëmgenu, Kenneth Chan, The Cicada and 18 guests