Does Mahayana lose its entire validity...

General forum on the teachings of all schools of Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism. Topics specific to one school are best posted in the appropriate sub-forum.
User avatar
Astus
Former staff member
Posts: 7111
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Budapest

Re: Does Mahayana lose its entire validity...

Post by Astus » Fri Jan 11, 2019 2:58 pm

PeterC wrote:
Fri Jan 11, 2019 2:29 pm
These are people using the materials of the past to construct something new. It’s not the same thing.
What would be the same thing?
1 Myriad dharmas are only mind.
Mind is unobtainable.
What is there to seek?

2 If the Buddha-Nature is seen,
there will be no seeing of a nature in any thing.

3 Neither cultivation nor seated meditation —
this is the pure Chan of Tathagata.

4 With sudden enlightenment to Tathagata Chan,
the six paramitas and myriad means
are complete within that essence.


1 Huangbo, T2012Ap381c1 2 Nirvana Sutra, T374p521b3; tr. Yamamoto 3 Mazu, X1321p3b23; tr. J. Jia 4 Yongjia, T2014p395c14; tr. from "The Sword of Wisdom"

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 29044
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Does Mahayana lose its entire validity...

Post by Malcolm » Fri Jan 11, 2019 3:27 pm

Astus wrote:
Fri Jan 11, 2019 2:25 pm
Malcolm wrote:
Fri Jan 11, 2019 1:40 pm
The question is [not] whether history matters, rather whose history matters. And, Peter points out, history is not science.
...history should not be viewed any different from fiction.
As it is said, "History is written by the victors."
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


[A]nything at all that is well spoken is the word of the Buddha.

-- Ārya-adhyāśaya-sañcodana-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

-- Samadhirāja Sūtra

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 29044
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Does Mahayana lose its entire validity...

Post by Malcolm » Fri Jan 11, 2019 3:38 pm

Astus wrote:
Fri Jan 11, 2019 8:34 am


Presenting past events with an ideological bias is certainly a more common approach, especially when it comes to nationalism and religion. One of the main goals of history as an academic discipline (similarly to other scientific studies) is to eliminate such distortions as much as possible.
Academic disciplines introduce their own distortions.

So far it seems that there is no person or group trying to defend traditional views. Or do you know Tibetans (or others) who attempt to refute the academic history of Buddhism?
You need to get out more.
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


[A]nything at all that is well spoken is the word of the Buddha.

-- Ārya-adhyāśaya-sañcodana-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

-- Samadhirāja Sūtra

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 29044
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Does Mahayana lose its entire validity...

Post by Malcolm » Fri Jan 11, 2019 5:11 pm

Wayfarer wrote:
Fri Jan 11, 2019 11:48 am
Astus wrote:
Fri Jan 11, 2019 8:38 am
Most of such "Mahayana ideas" are present in non-Mahayana sources, like Dharmaguptaka, Mahasamghika, and Sarvastivadin teachings.
For sure, and I did acknowledge that 'the Mahāyāna will say that these were all at least implicitly present in the Buddha’s original teaching.' That is part of the genius of the Buddha - so many layers of meaning in the apparently simple teachings of 'the first turning' which could then be interpreted and give rise to whole schools.
There is no "original teaching of the Buddha." Why? Śākyamuni Buddha is not the original Buddha. There is no original Buddha.
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


[A]nything at all that is well spoken is the word of the Buddha.

-- Ārya-adhyāśaya-sañcodana-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

-- Samadhirāja Sūtra

User avatar
Queequeg
Global Moderator
Posts: 6652
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: Does Mahayana lose its entire validity...

Post by Queequeg » Fri Jan 11, 2019 6:04 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Fri Jan 11, 2019 5:11 pm
Wayfarer wrote:
Fri Jan 11, 2019 11:48 am
Astus wrote:
Fri Jan 11, 2019 8:38 am
Most of such "Mahayana ideas" are present in non-Mahayana sources, like Dharmaguptaka, Mahasamghika, and Sarvastivadin teachings.
For sure, and I did acknowledge that 'the Mahāyāna will say that these were all at least implicitly present in the Buddha’s original teaching.' That is part of the genius of the Buddha - so many layers of meaning in the apparently simple teachings of 'the first turning' which could then be interpreted and give rise to whole schools.
There is no "original teaching of the Buddha." Why? Śākyamuni Buddha is not the original Buddha. There is no original Buddha.
This is one of those statements that ignores context and in the end just causes heat and sparks.
Those who, even with distracted minds,
Entered a stupa compound
And chanted but once, “Namo Buddhaya!”
Have certainly attained the path of the buddhas.

-Lotus Sutra, Expedient Means Chapter

There are beings with little dust in their eyes who are falling away because they do not hear the Dhamma. There will be those who will understand the Dhamma.
-Ayacana Sutta

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 29044
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Does Mahayana lose its entire validity...

Post by Malcolm » Fri Jan 11, 2019 6:07 pm

Queequeg wrote:
Fri Jan 11, 2019 6:04 pm
Malcolm wrote:
Fri Jan 11, 2019 5:11 pm
Wayfarer wrote:
Fri Jan 11, 2019 11:48 am


For sure, and I did acknowledge that 'the Mahāyāna will say that these were all at least implicitly present in the Buddha’s original teaching.' That is part of the genius of the Buddha - so many layers of meaning in the apparently simple teachings of 'the first turning' which could then be interpreted and give rise to whole schools.
There is no "original teaching of the Buddha." Why? Śākyamuni Buddha is not the original Buddha. There is no original Buddha.
This is one of those statements that ignores context and in the end just causes heat and sparks.
Even if we assume there wasn't any previous Buddhas, it is very clearly stated by Maitreyanatha that the three turnings are actually simultaneous, they happen together. Seeing them as sequential gives rise to many misconceptions, some of which, for example, your man Zhiyi suffered from, as well as many Tibetan commentators, including Longchenpa, Rangjung Dorje, and so on.
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


[A]nything at all that is well spoken is the word of the Buddha.

-- Ārya-adhyāśaya-sañcodana-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

-- Samadhirāja Sūtra

User avatar
Queequeg
Global Moderator
Posts: 6652
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: Does Mahayana lose its entire validity...

Post by Queequeg » Fri Jan 11, 2019 6:14 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Fri Jan 11, 2019 6:07 pm
Queequeg wrote:
Fri Jan 11, 2019 6:04 pm
Malcolm wrote:
Fri Jan 11, 2019 5:11 pm


There is no "original teaching of the Buddha." Why? Śākyamuni Buddha is not the original Buddha. There is no original Buddha.
This is one of those statements that ignores context and in the end just causes heat and sparks.
Even if we assume there wasn't any previous Buddhas, it is very clearly stated by Maitreyanatha that the three turnings are actually simultaneous, they happen together. Seeing them as sequential gives rise to many misconceptions, some of which, for example, your man Zhiyi suffered from.
LOL. Under your skin?

You misunderstand Zhiyi, so I'm just putting that comment aside.

Wayfarer and Astus are working within a view that supposes linear course of development. You're responding with particular teachings about the instantanousness of the teachings. Your response is not actually responding except to implicitly assert that your view is correct and considering Dharma as unconnected to history. Its the same disagreement you guys have been going back and forth over for the last few pages.

I'm not taking sides on any of this. I'm fine with dealing with either view so long as its understood which context we're talking about.
Those who, even with distracted minds,
Entered a stupa compound
And chanted but once, “Namo Buddhaya!”
Have certainly attained the path of the buddhas.

-Lotus Sutra, Expedient Means Chapter

There are beings with little dust in their eyes who are falling away because they do not hear the Dhamma. There will be those who will understand the Dhamma.
-Ayacana Sutta

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 29044
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Does Mahayana lose its entire validity...

Post by Malcolm » Fri Jan 11, 2019 6:21 pm

Queequeg wrote:
Fri Jan 11, 2019 6:14 pm
Malcolm wrote:
Fri Jan 11, 2019 6:07 pm
Queequeg wrote:
Fri Jan 11, 2019 6:04 pm


This is one of those statements that ignores context and in the end just causes heat and sparks.
Even if we assume there wasn't any previous Buddhas, it is very clearly stated by Maitreyanatha that the three turnings are actually simultaneous, they happen together. Seeing them as sequential gives rise to many misconceptions, some of which, for example, your man Zhiyi suffered from.
LOL. Under your skin?

You misunderstand Zhiyi, so I'm just putting that comment aside.
No, I don't, but that is another matter.
Wayfarer and Astus are working within a view that supposes linear course of development.
This is not a Dharma view.
You're responding with particular teachings about the instantanousness of the teachings. Your response is not actually responding except to implicitly assert that your view is correct and considering Dharma as unconnected to history.
Dharma is connected to Dharma history.

The putative "history" of the academic study of "Buddhism" is just forensics, and not even very good forensics, at that.
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


[A]nything at all that is well spoken is the word of the Buddha.

-- Ārya-adhyāśaya-sañcodana-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

-- Samadhirāja Sūtra

User avatar
hermitseb
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 1:19 am
Location: Canada

Re: Does Mahayana lose its entire validity...

Post by hermitseb » Fri Jan 11, 2019 6:33 pm

There is a lot of interesting analytical information here, opinions and theories and all of that, and this could use some of that Tibetan Dharma Debate Hand Slapping just for effect.. But ultimately, isn't the important thing the sharing of the Dharma, not the format this dharma takes, or the source of the Dharma? It's all about Awakening, in the here and now, and if some folk created new teaching texts in order to spread their techniques, is that really a bad thing? Focusing on the wordly conditions of the teachings instead of the teachings themselves as put into practice in one's own Mind, how is that helpful?

User avatar
Queequeg
Global Moderator
Posts: 6652
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: Does Mahayana lose its entire validity...

Post by Queequeg » Fri Jan 11, 2019 6:33 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Fri Jan 11, 2019 6:21 pm
Queequeg wrote:
Fri Jan 11, 2019 6:14 pm
Malcolm wrote:
Fri Jan 11, 2019 6:07 pm


Even if we assume there wasn't any previous Buddhas, it is very clearly stated by Maitreyanatha that the three turnings are actually simultaneous, they happen together. Seeing them as sequential gives rise to many misconceptions, some of which, for example, your man Zhiyi suffered from.
LOL. Under your skin?

You misunderstand Zhiyi, so I'm just putting that comment aside.
No, I don't, but that is another matter.
Wayfarer and Astus are working within a view that supposes linear course of development.
This is not a Dharma view.
You're responding with particular teachings about the instantanousness of the teachings. Your response is not actually responding except to implicitly assert that your view is correct and considering Dharma as unconnected to history.
Dharma is connected to Dharma history.

The putative "history" of the academic study of "Buddhism" is just forensics, and not even very good forensics, at that.
The way you construct these strawmen.

The study of history in the Academy is more than just forensics, and you know that. Putting it that way just gives you something to knock down easily.

History is people telling stories about themselves. To do this, they employ a host of methods and analytical tools. Whether is stories among Dharma Practitioners or people in the academy, its story telling to express identity. But you know this.

Whether the stories that scholars in the academy tell are deficient because they are based on erroneous information, that's all up for peer review and discussion at conferences. Whether the Dharma History is the one that is correct, that's up for debate and discussion among Buddhists, or maybe some just prefer faith.

Like I said, I don't have a dog in this except that I am pointing out where your assumptions lie. Its not making for a particularly informative discussion.
Those who, even with distracted minds,
Entered a stupa compound
And chanted but once, “Namo Buddhaya!”
Have certainly attained the path of the buddhas.

-Lotus Sutra, Expedient Means Chapter

There are beings with little dust in their eyes who are falling away because they do not hear the Dhamma. There will be those who will understand the Dhamma.
-Ayacana Sutta

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 29044
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Does Mahayana lose its entire validity...

Post by Malcolm » Fri Jan 11, 2019 6:44 pm

Queequeg wrote:
Fri Jan 11, 2019 6:33 pm

The study of history in the Academy is more than just forensics, and you know that.
No, it is just forensics.
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


[A]nything at all that is well spoken is the word of the Buddha.

-- Ārya-adhyāśaya-sañcodana-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

-- Samadhirāja Sūtra

User avatar
Wayfarer
Global Moderator
Posts: 4292
Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 8:31 am
Location: Sydney AU

Re: Does Mahayana lose its entire validity...

Post by Wayfarer » Fri Jan 11, 2019 9:41 pm

Malcolm wrote:Śākyamuni Buddha is not the original Buddha. There is no original Buddha.
Is there an unborn? An unconditioned? An unmade? Because I would have thought that the Tathāgata, having 'realised the unconditioned', is a manifestation or, or embodiment of, the unborn, unmade and unconditioned.

Of course, the unborn, unconditioned, unmade, is elusive, we can't say what it is exactly, as it is 'beyond the scope of discursive reason'. Nevertheless it is central to the teaching of the Buddha, and the Buddha is 'one who teaches that', is he not?
Only practice with no gaining idea ~ Suzuki Roshi

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 29044
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Does Mahayana lose its entire validity...

Post by Malcolm » Fri Jan 11, 2019 10:11 pm

Wayfarer wrote:
Fri Jan 11, 2019 9:41 pm
Malcolm wrote:Śākyamuni Buddha is not the original Buddha. There is no original Buddha.
Is there an unborn? An unconditioned? An unmade?
Ultimately, no.

The unborn, uncompounded, and unmade are precisely defined in the sūtra which addresses them in contrast to the born, the compounded, and the made; that makes the unborn, the uncompounded, and the unmade relative and not ultimate.
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


[A]nything at all that is well spoken is the word of the Buddha.

-- Ārya-adhyāśaya-sañcodana-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

-- Samadhirāja Sūtra

User avatar
Wayfarer
Global Moderator
Posts: 4292
Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 8:31 am
Location: Sydney AU

Re: Does Mahayana lose its entire validity...

Post by Wayfarer » Fri Jan 11, 2019 10:19 pm

in which sūtra are they precisely defined thus?

And aren't we on the slippery slope to nihilism in saying that? That nothing is real whatever?
Only practice with no gaining idea ~ Suzuki Roshi

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 29044
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Does Mahayana lose its entire validity...

Post by Malcolm » Fri Jan 11, 2019 10:25 pm

Wayfarer wrote:
Fri Jan 11, 2019 10:19 pm
in which sūtra are they precisely defined thus?
There is, monks, an unborn[1] — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated. If there were not that unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, there would not be the case that escape from the born — become — made — fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, escape from the born — become — made — fabricated is discerned
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

And aren't we on the slippery slope to nihilism in saying that?
Not in the slightest.

That nothing is real whatever?
If you can show me something real, then you can show me something that is not empty. Since there is nothing that is not empty, how could you ever show me anything that is real? It is all just dependent designation.
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


[A]nything at all that is well spoken is the word of the Buddha.

-- Ārya-adhyāśaya-sañcodana-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

-- Samadhirāja Sūtra

User avatar
Wayfarer
Global Moderator
Posts: 4292
Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 8:31 am
Location: Sydney AU

Re: Does Mahayana lose its entire validity...

Post by Wayfarer » Sat Jan 12, 2019 12:22 am

Malcolm wrote:
Fri Jan 11, 2019 10:25 pm
Wayfarer wrote:
Fri Jan 11, 2019 10:19 pm
in which sūtra are they precisely defined thus?
There is, monks, an unborn[1] — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated. If there were not that unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, there would not be the case that escape from the born — become — made — fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, escape from the born — become — made — fabricated is discerned
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

And aren't we on the slippery slope to nihilism in saying that?
Not in the slightest.

That nothing is real whatever?
If you can show me something real, then you can show me something that is not empty. Since there is nothing that is not empty, how could you ever show me anything that is real? It is all just dependent designation.
Yes, I am very familiar with that verse - "there is, monks...", which I take to mean, 'there is an unborn, unconditioned'. I don't take that to mean something which is only real as a matter of definition. Can I 'show it to you'? Well, that's a different question; the Buddha says 'the dharmas of which I speak are deep, profound, difficult to fathom, perceivable only by the wise;' that too I take to be a reference to reals, not to verbal distinctions.

With respect to the 'two extreme views' of eternalism and nihilism, what do you take 'nihilism' to mean?
Only practice with no gaining idea ~ Suzuki Roshi

User avatar
Sherab
Posts: 1246
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am

Re: Does Mahayana lose its entire validity...

Post by Sherab » Sat Jan 12, 2019 12:22 am

Malcolm wrote:
Fri Jan 11, 2019 6:07 pm
... it is very clearly stated by Maitreyanatha that the three turnings are actually simultaneous, they happen together. .....
This makes a lot of sense to me. It would mean that depending on the person the teachings in the small vehicle, the great vehicle and the vajra vehicle can be seen in one or more forms as represented by the three wheels. It would also mean that a person could actually be practising a form that is different from the form of the teaching. For example, a self-proclaimed Mahayanist could actually be practising like a Hinayanist and so on. It would also mean that you should be able to reach Buddhahood in any of the vehicle.

PeterC
Posts: 688
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 12:38 pm

Re: Does Mahayana lose its entire validity...

Post by PeterC » Sat Jan 12, 2019 5:21 am

Queequeg wrote:
Fri Jan 11, 2019 6:14 pm
Wayfarer and Astus are working within a view that supposes linear course of development. You're responding with particular teachings about the instantanousness of the teachings. Your response is not actually responding except to implicitly assert that your view is correct and considering Dharma as unconnected to history. Its the same disagreement you guys have been going back and forth over for the last few pages.
It’s odd that these things need to be said on a forum, but still. We know that there were Mahayana teachings among the 18 schools. We don’t know that the current theravedan canon was taught in that form by any of the 18 schools. The most plausible historical model is of various different teachings circulating around the same time and being incorporated and interpreted in different schools at different times.

But what does all the study in this field keep reverting to? The supposed linear model that has the Buddha saying the core of the Pali canon then everything else being obviously less important.

It’s a pointless debate for at least three reasons:
1. It’s disingenuous, for the reasons we’re all familiar with
2. The paucity is the evidence makes it impossible to resolve conclusively
3. The answer doesn’t really matter

I’ve concentrated on 3 in this thread. Unless you subscribe to the most minimalist, most limited modern theravedan view of the Dharma, it is not limited to the words of one Buddha spoken to one entourage at one point in time. And if you do subscribe to that, good luck establishing the provenance of those words...

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 29044
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Does Mahayana lose its entire validity...

Post by Malcolm » Sat Jan 12, 2019 6:53 am

Wayfarer wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 12:22 am
Malcolm wrote:
Fri Jan 11, 2019 10:25 pm
Wayfarer wrote:
Fri Jan 11, 2019 10:19 pm
in which sūtra are they precisely defined thus?
There is, monks, an unborn[1] — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated. If there were not that unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, there would not be the case that escape from the born — become — made — fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, escape from the born — become — made — fabricated is discerned
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

And aren't we on the slippery slope to nihilism in saying that?
Not in the slightest.

That nothing is real whatever?
If you can show me something real, then you can show me something that is not empty. Since there is nothing that is not empty, how could you ever show me anything that is real? It is all just dependent designation.
Yes, I am very familiar with that verse - "there is, monks...", which I take to mean, 'there is an unborn, unconditioned'. I don't take that to mean something which is only real as a matter of definition. Can I 'show it to you'? Well, that's a different question; the Buddha says 'the dharmas of which I speak are deep, profound, difficult to fathom, perceivable only by the wise;' that too I take to be a reference to reals, not to verbal distinctions.

With respect to the 'two extreme views' of eternalism and nihilism, what do you take 'nihilism' to mean?
Annihilationism iis the claim that something which now exists becomes nothing.
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


[A]nything at all that is well spoken is the word of the Buddha.

-- Ārya-adhyāśaya-sañcodana-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

-- Samadhirāja Sūtra

Seeker12
Posts: 219
Joined: Mon May 08, 2017 5:54 pm

Re: Does Mahayana lose its entire validity...

Post by Seeker12 » Sat Jan 12, 2019 2:10 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 6:53 am
Wayfarer wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 12:22 am
Malcolm wrote:
Fri Jan 11, 2019 10:25 pm

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

Not in the slightest.

If you can show me something real, then you can show me something that is not empty. Since there is nothing that is not empty, how could you ever show me anything that is real? It is all just dependent designation.
Yes, I am very familiar with that verse - "there is, monks...", which I take to mean, 'there is an unborn, unconditioned'. I don't take that to mean something which is only real as a matter of definition. Can I 'show it to you'? Well, that's a different question; the Buddha says 'the dharmas of which I speak are deep, profound, difficult to fathom, perceivable only by the wise;' that too I take to be a reference to reals, not to verbal distinctions.

With respect to the 'two extreme views' of eternalism and nihilism, what do you take 'nihilism' to mean?
Annihilationism iis the claim that something which now exists becomes nothing.
From Nagarjuna:

The naive imagine cessation
As the annihilation of an originated being;
While the wise understood it
As like the ceasing of a magical illusion.

And

The naive are attached to forms;
The mediocre are detached from them.
Those with the highest intelligence understand
The nature of forms, and thus are freed.
Therein is nothing to remove
And thereto not the slightest thing to add.
The perfect truth viewed perfectly
And perfectly beheld is liberation.

Uttaratantra

Post Reply

Return to “Mahāyāna Buddhism”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 61 guests