minimalist definitions of difficult concepts

If you're new to the forum or new to Buddhism, this is the best place for your questions. Responses require moderator approval before they are visible.
Post Reply
User avatar
Supramundane
Posts: 374
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 11:38 am
Location: Jakarta, Indonesia

minimalist definitions of difficult concepts

Post by Supramundane » Mon Jan 27, 2020 2:32 am

I heard a very pithy explanation of the difference between Mahayana and Theravada:

Theravada = what the Buddha wrote.
Mahayana = what the Buddha did.

It is super reduced but does convey a certain truth and helps encapsulate a Buddhist concept in a phrase. It could be useful for beginners to grasp difficult ideas.

So over the weekend I challenged myself to do the same for various difficult concepts, sum them up in Zen-like haiku; this is what I came up with:

There is no True Self or False Self but truth of the self.

Dharma is the Way: Karma are the wrong turns you take.

Eight-fold Path: New Year’s Resolutions for Buddhists

Sunyata = inevitability of change

Samsara is a way of experiencing Nirvana, just not the one we want.

Four Noble Truths: The executive summary of Buddhism.

Nirvana is where you aren’t

Dependent arising: Everything that is a thing is things.

Interconnectedness: the Lego-nature of reality

Dependent Origination: the momentum of impermanence

Math formulas
Dependent Origination + Interconnectedness + Karma = Rebirth
Nirvana +Samsara = reality
Dependent Origination + interconnectedness = karma

muni
Posts: 4872
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:59 am

Re: minimalist definitions of difficult concepts

Post by muni » Mon Jan 27, 2020 9:52 am

Eight-fold Path: New Year’s Resolutions for Buddhists. LOl.

Lego? :applause:
The fortress of the spacious and timeless expanse has no division into
higher or lower or in between.

User avatar
Supramundane
Posts: 374
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 11:38 am
Location: Jakarta, Indonesia

Re: minimalist definitions of difficult concepts

Post by Supramundane » Mon Jan 27, 2020 11:10 am

I think in the sutra I read the word Lego was used but have to re-check lol.

User avatar
Aemilius
Posts: 2517
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 11:44 am

Re: minimalist definitions of difficult concepts

Post by Aemilius » Thu Mar 12, 2020 9:39 am

Supramundane wrote:
Mon Jan 27, 2020 2:32 am
I heard a very pithy explanation of the difference between Mahayana and Theravada:

Theravada = what the Buddha wrote.
Mahayana = what the Buddha did.
Buddha didn't write anything. There is a good explantion of Indian culture at the time of Buddha, and in chapter VII why the sutras were not written but memorized, in T. W. Rhys Davids' Buddhist India : http://www.ahandfulofleaves.org/documen ... Davids.pdf
svaha
"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Sarvē mānavāḥ svatantrāḥ samutpannāḥ vartantē api ca, gauravadr̥śā adhikāradr̥śā ca samānāḥ ēva vartantē. Ētē sarvē cētanā-tarka-śaktibhyāṁ susampannāḥ santi. Api ca, sarvē’pi bandhutva-bhāvanayā parasparaṁ vyavaharantu."
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 1. (in english and sanskrit)

User avatar
Supramundane
Posts: 374
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 11:38 am
Location: Jakarta, Indonesia

Re: minimalist definitions of difficult concepts

Post by Supramundane » Fri Mar 13, 2020 3:27 am

Aemilius wrote:
Thu Mar 12, 2020 9:39 am
Supramundane wrote:
Mon Jan 27, 2020 2:32 am
I heard a very pithy explanation of the difference between Mahayana and Theravada:

Theravada = what the Buddha wrote.
Mahayana = what the Buddha did.
Buddha didn't write anything. There is a good explantion of Indian culture at the time of Buddha, and in chapter VII why the sutras were not written but memorized, in T. W. Rhys Davids' Buddhist India : http://www.ahandfulofleaves.org/documen ... Davids.pdf
Well, you know what they say --- all generalizations are false.

.... oops!

Simon E.
Posts: 7434
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 11:09 am

Re: minimalist definitions of difficult concepts

Post by Simon E. » Fri Mar 13, 2020 11:14 am

THAT is not a generalisation. The Buddha wrote nothing. He spoke a language which is now extinct. That was rendered into Pali which was a a largely artificial language created because the Buddhas language had no written form.
“The difference between us and Tara is that she knows she doesn’t exist”.

User avatar
Supramundane
Posts: 374
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 11:38 am
Location: Jakarta, Indonesia

Re: minimalist definitions of difficult concepts

Post by Supramundane » Fri Mar 13, 2020 11:28 am

no one gets my sense of humor hehe i guess it is too dry.

i was referring to my generalization...

i :)

Simon E.
Posts: 7434
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 11:09 am

Re: minimalist definitions of difficult concepts

Post by Simon E. » Fri Mar 13, 2020 12:17 pm

Point taken.
“The difference between us and Tara is that she knows she doesn’t exist”.

User avatar
Aemilius
Posts: 2517
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 11:44 am

Re: minimalist definitions of difficult concepts

Post by Aemilius » Sat Mar 14, 2020 10:55 am

Simon E. wrote:
Fri Mar 13, 2020 11:14 am
THAT is not a generalisation. The Buddha wrote nothing. He spoke a language which is now extinct. That was rendered into Pali which was a a largely artificial language created because the Buddhas language had no written form.
Etienne Lamotte thinks that Buddha probably spoke several languages, he has some proof of this. Lamotte further mentions a canonical source where Buddha speaks a dravidian language, i.e. a non-aryan or aboriginal-indian language.
T. W. Rhys Davids says in his book Buddhist India, that writing existed at the time of Buddha, but its use was limited to commerce, law and governmental uses. Writing must have been well known, because there was a childrens game involving the guessing of letters. Rhys Davids thinks the memorizing of sacred instructions was highly regarded, and it was the norm in spiritual matters for centuries after the Parinirvana of the Blessed One.
svaha
"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Sarvē mānavāḥ svatantrāḥ samutpannāḥ vartantē api ca, gauravadr̥śā adhikāradr̥śā ca samānāḥ ēva vartantē. Ētē sarvē cētanā-tarka-śaktibhyāṁ susampannāḥ santi. Api ca, sarvē’pi bandhutva-bhāvanayā parasparaṁ vyavaharantu."
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 1. (in english and sanskrit)

User avatar
Aemilius
Posts: 2517
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 11:44 am

Re: minimalist definitions of difficult concepts

Post by Aemilius » Sat Mar 14, 2020 11:09 am

Supramundane wrote:
Mon Jan 27, 2020 2:32 am

Sunyata = inevitability of change

Dependent Origination: the momentum of impermanence
You can't reduce Shunyata and Dependent Origination to mere impermanence. Something else, or some other aspect of reality, is said in both of them.
You could try to illustrate dependent origination with a figure of speech, like "things are hanging on a thread", or something similar.

Shunyata itself is a figure or an image, that illustrates something. There are several alternative images for it, it is "like a pith of a banana tree" (which is hollow, banana tree is a grass species botanically). I can't think of anything that has not been said already (for Shunyata).
svaha
"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Sarvē mānavāḥ svatantrāḥ samutpannāḥ vartantē api ca, gauravadr̥śā adhikāradr̥śā ca samānāḥ ēva vartantē. Ētē sarvē cētanā-tarka-śaktibhyāṁ susampannāḥ santi. Api ca, sarvē’pi bandhutva-bhāvanayā parasparaṁ vyavaharantu."
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 1. (in english and sanskrit)

Simon E.
Posts: 7434
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 11:09 am

Re: minimalist definitions of difficult concepts

Post by Simon E. » Sat Mar 14, 2020 11:59 am

Aemilius wrote:
Sat Mar 14, 2020 10:55 am
Simon E. wrote:
Fri Mar 13, 2020 11:14 am
THAT is not a generalisation. The Buddha wrote nothing. He spoke a language which is now extinct. That was rendered into Pali which was a a largely artificial language created because the Buddhas language had no written form.
Etienne Lamotte thinks that Buddha probably spoke several languages, he has some proof of this. Lamotte further mentions a canonical source where Buddha speaks a dravidian language, i.e. a non-aryan or aboriginal-indian language.
T. W. Rhys Davids says in his book Buddhist India, that writing existed at the time of Buddha, but its use was limited to commerce, law and governmental uses. Writing must have been well known, because there was a childrens game involving the guessing of letters. Rhys Davids thinks the memorizing of sacred instructions was highly regarded, and it was the norm in spiritual matters for centuries after the Parinirvana of the Blessed One.
The point is ...The Buddha did not write the Pali Canon.
“The difference between us and Tara is that she knows she doesn’t exist”.

smcj
Posts: 6828
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am

Re: minimalist definitions of difficult concepts

Post by smcj » Sat Mar 14, 2020 1:49 pm

Madhyamaka = How phenomena abide is beyond your powers of imagination.
https://soundcloud.com/user-730689343/chenrezig-puja
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
LastLegend
Posts: 3760
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:46 pm
Location: Washington DC

Re: minimalist definitions of difficult concepts

Post by LastLegend » Sat Mar 14, 2020 2:12 pm

smcj wrote:
Sat Mar 14, 2020 1:49 pm
Madhyamaka = nothing is how you can imagine it to be.
That imagines is perceptions?
Make personal vows.

smcj
Posts: 6828
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am

Re: minimalist definitions of difficult concepts

Post by smcj » Sat Mar 14, 2020 6:50 pm

LastLegend wrote:
Sat Mar 14, 2020 2:12 pm
smcj wrote:
Sat Mar 14, 2020 1:49 pm
Madhyamaka = nothing is how you can imagine it to be.
That imagines is perceptions?
Fundamental ignorance = how you currently see things, including how you see yourself (no-self). The tetralemma demonstrates that every way we can possibly think about phenomena—and ourselves—is incorrect. Therefore how phenomena abide is beyond our imaginations.

Right?
https://soundcloud.com/user-730689343/chenrezig-puja
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
Aemilius
Posts: 2517
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 11:44 am

Re: minimalist definitions of difficult concepts

Post by Aemilius » Sun Mar 15, 2020 10:32 am

Simon E. wrote:
Sat Mar 14, 2020 11:59 am
Aemilius wrote:
Sat Mar 14, 2020 10:55 am
Simon E. wrote:
Fri Mar 13, 2020 11:14 am
THAT is not a generalisation. The Buddha wrote nothing. He spoke a language which is now extinct. That was rendered into Pali which was a a largely artificial language created because the Buddhas language had no written form.
Etienne Lamotte thinks that Buddha probably spoke several languages, he has some proof of this. Lamotte further mentions a canonical source where Buddha speaks a dravidian language, i.e. a non-aryan or aboriginal-indian language.
T. W. Rhys Davids says in his book Buddhist India, that writing existed at the time of Buddha, but its use was limited to commerce, law and governmental uses. Writing must have been well known, because there was a childrens game involving the guessing of letters. Rhys Davids thinks the memorizing of sacred instructions was highly regarded, and it was the norm in spiritual matters for centuries after the Parinirvana of the Blessed One.
The point is ...The Buddha did not write the Pali Canon.
Sure, we agree on that point.
svaha
"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Sarvē mānavāḥ svatantrāḥ samutpannāḥ vartantē api ca, gauravadr̥śā adhikāradr̥śā ca samānāḥ ēva vartantē. Ētē sarvē cētanā-tarka-śaktibhyāṁ susampannāḥ santi. Api ca, sarvē’pi bandhutva-bhāvanayā parasparaṁ vyavaharantu."
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 1. (in english and sanskrit)

User avatar
Aemilius
Posts: 2517
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 11:44 am

Re: minimalist definitions of difficult concepts

Post by Aemilius » Sun Mar 15, 2020 10:38 am

smcj wrote:
Sat Mar 14, 2020 6:50 pm
LastLegend wrote:
Sat Mar 14, 2020 2:12 pm
smcj wrote:
Sat Mar 14, 2020 1:49 pm
Madhyamaka = nothing is how you can imagine it to be.
That imagines is perceptions?
Fundamental ignorance = how you currently see things, including how you see yourself (no-self). The tetralemma demonstrates that every way we can possibly think about phenomena—and ourselves—is incorrect. Therefore how phenomena abide is beyond our imaginations.

Right?
That is too much self-deprecating, even if it is true. You have your inherent buddha-nature. You should appreciate, value and love yourself, and be a psychologically healthy person.
svaha
"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Sarvē mānavāḥ svatantrāḥ samutpannāḥ vartantē api ca, gauravadr̥śā adhikāradr̥śā ca samānāḥ ēva vartantē. Ētē sarvē cētanā-tarka-śaktibhyāṁ susampannāḥ santi. Api ca, sarvē’pi bandhutva-bhāvanayā parasparaṁ vyavaharantu."
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 1. (in english and sanskrit)

smcj
Posts: 6828
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am

Re: minimalist definitions of difficult concepts

Post by smcj » Sun Mar 15, 2020 1:47 pm

That is too much self-deprecating, even if it is true. You have your inherent buddha-nature. You should appreciate, value and love yourself, and be a psychologically healthy person.
The teachings on Buddha Nature use a series of analogies to describe how it is present in sentient beings. Whether it is a statue covered in dirty rags, a jewel hidden under a pauper’s house, or butter in unchurned milk, it is always depicted as something present yet hidden and unknown.

What understanding Madhyamaka does is allow us to do is have a fresh start in our search for this hidden treasure. Following Madhyamaka reasoning, we can let go of our attachment to appearances in a healthy and reasoned way. Trying to do that without Madhyamaka usually results in internal conflict, or mental illness, or some other kind of disaster.

We can make a clean sweep of our mental baggage of issues, dramas, attachments, opinions and such. What are we left with? The way I’ve been taught is that our curiosity (which will ultimately become Wisdon) and our good intentions (which will become Bodhicitta) are not to be dismissed. They are legitimate indicators of the presence of our Buddha Nature, albeit in diminished form. Starting afresh we begin to work from there.

Anyway that’s how I’ve seen it presented. YMMV.

:focus:
https://soundcloud.com/user-730689343/chenrezig-puja
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
Supramundane
Posts: 374
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 11:38 am
Location: Jakarta, Indonesia

Re: minimalist definitions of difficult concepts

Post by Supramundane » Mon Mar 16, 2020 2:34 am

Aemilius wrote:
Sun Mar 15, 2020 10:32 am
Simon E. wrote:
Sat Mar 14, 2020 11:59 am
Aemilius wrote:
Sat Mar 14, 2020 10:55 am


Etienne Lamotte thinks that Buddha probably spoke several languages, he has some proof of this. Lamotte further mentions a canonical source where Buddha speaks a dravidian language, i.e. a non-aryan or aboriginal-indian language.
T. W. Rhys Davids says in his book Buddhist India, that writing existed at the time of Buddha, but its use was limited to commerce, law and governmental uses. Writing must have been well known, because there was a childrens game involving the guessing of letters. Rhys Davids thinks the memorizing of sacred instructions was highly regarded, and it was the norm in spiritual matters for centuries after the Parinirvana of the Blessed One.
The point is ...The Buddha did not write the Pali Canon.
Sure, we agree on that point.
Yes, we all agree.

The original statement is inaccurate, as are all generalizations to an extent.
I guess i could change it to be:

Theravada: paper Buddhism
Mahayana: Buddhism in action

User avatar
Supramundane
Posts: 374
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 11:38 am
Location: Jakarta, Indonesia

Re: minimalist definitions of difficult concepts

Post by Supramundane » Mon Mar 16, 2020 2:36 am

Aemilius wrote:
Sat Mar 14, 2020 11:09 am
Supramundane wrote:
Mon Jan 27, 2020 2:32 am

Sunyata = inevitability of change

Dependent Origination: the momentum of impermanence
You can't reduce Shunyata and Dependent Origination to mere impermanence. Something else, or some other aspect of reality, is said in both of them.
You could try to illustrate dependent origination with a figure of speech, like "things are hanging on a thread", or something similar.

Shunyata itself is a figure or an image, that illustrates something. There are several alternative images for it, it is "like a pith of a banana tree" (which is hollow, banana tree is a grass species botanically). I can't think of anything that has not been said already (for Shunyata).
"like the pith of a banana tree" probably leaves most people cold though, A.
i think we will have to keep working on that one:).

User avatar
Aemilius
Posts: 2517
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 11:44 am

Re: minimalist definitions of difficult concepts

Post by Aemilius » Wed Mar 18, 2020 12:15 pm

There is a list of 32 similes for the nature of samsara in Life and Teaching of Naropa, transl Herbert Von Guenther, Shambhala 1995. It is probably the original source of the metaphor "like honey on the razor's edge"; another simile is "samsara is like a merciless hunter".
Another list of metaphors is in the Holy Teachng of Vimalakirti, Chapter 7, The Goddess, transl Robert Thurman, Motilal Banarsidass 1991. Here are some of the unusual ones: "like the erection of a eunuch"; "like the fun of games for one who wishes to die"; "like the core of the plaintain tree (i.e. banana tree)" is also found there.
svaha
"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Sarvē mānavāḥ svatantrāḥ samutpannāḥ vartantē api ca, gauravadr̥śā adhikāradr̥śā ca samānāḥ ēva vartantē. Ētē sarvē cētanā-tarka-śaktibhyāṁ susampannāḥ santi. Api ca, sarvē’pi bandhutva-bhāvanayā parasparaṁ vyavaharantu."
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 1. (in english and sanskrit)

Post Reply

Return to “Discovering Mahayana Buddhism”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests