Early Buddhism and Mahayana

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.
Son of Buddha
Posts: 1123
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:48 pm

Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana

Post by Son of Buddha » Sun Sep 22, 2013 2:30 pm

To Malcolm
could you link me to english translations of these Sutras if they even exist(your the only person I know who might be able to find one of these Translations)
Thank you for your time sorry to be :offtopic: now :focus:


Arya-dharanish-vararaja Sutra [also known as the Tathagata-maha-karuna-nidesha Sutra]

Anguli-malya Sutra

Jnana-loka-lamkara Sutra

Anuna-trapur-natva-nirdesha-parivarta Sutra

Mahab-jeri Sutra

Avi-kalpa-prave-sha-dharani Sutra

Malcolm
Posts: 30807
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: A Note on "Substance"

Post by Malcolm » Sun Sep 22, 2013 4:04 pm

cloudburst wrote: In clear words, Chandrakirti speaks of the difference in the views of ucchedavadins and Madhyamakas:
Clear Words wrote: Qualm: Even so, their views are similar in one way, becasue nihilists consider the absence of an essence in things to be non-existence.
Reply:This is not so. They are not similar because Madhyamikas assert that things without essence exist conventionally; these nihilists do not assert them at all.
You may reflect on how this quotation also neatly puts paid to your assertions that 1) madhaymikas do not make assertions, and 2) the Gelug view is that ultimate truth is a non-existent, as Je Tsongkhapa follows Chadrakirti precisely on this point and Chadrakirti here rejects that explicit assertion.
The rendering you are using is a somewhat inaccurate gloss.

The text says:
saṁvṛtyā mādhyamikairastitvenābhyupagamānna tulyatā
དབུ་མ་པ་དག་གིས་ནི་ཀུན་རྫོབ་ཏུ་ཡོད་པར་ཁས་བླངས་པའི་ཕྱིར

"Because Mādhyamikas agree to existence in the relative..."

The text does not say they "assert" ['dod pa], or established [sgrub pa], etc. It says ābhyupagamā, which means assent, agree, etc.

The Tibetan recension contains an extra passage: དེ་དག་གིས་ཁས་མ་བླངས་པའི་ཕྱིར་མི་མཚུངས་པ་ཉིད་དོ།

"and because they [atheists] do not agree [to existence in the relative], [mādhyamikas and atheists] are not the same.

However, this passage is a clarification about what exists relatively, not ultimately. The set up for your citation is:
  • Here, someone contends "Mādhyamikas are no different than atheists [nāstikas, literally "deniers"]. For what reason? They claim virtuous and non-virtuous actions, agents, results and all worlds are empty of inherent existence., and also atheists also claim those things do not exist. Therefore, mādhyamikas are no different than atheists."

    That is not so. Mādhyamikas are proponents of dependent origination. Because of production in connection with conditions this world and all other worlds beyond are proposed to be empty of inherent existence because they are produced in connection with conditions. Other worlds and so on are not conceived as non-existent through emptiness of inherent existence because of production in connection with conditions.

    Now then, if it is asked why, they [atheists] reject other things similar to the things perceived in this world based upon the inherent perception of things of this world, having not perceived coming into this world from another world and going into another world from this world. [a complex way of saying atheists only believe what they can see]

    If it is said, "In that case, because they conceive the absence of existence in the intrinsic nature of things as non-existence there is a similarity through this view." It is not so. Because Mādhyamikas agree to existence in the relative and because they [atheists] do not agree [to existence in the relative], [mādhyamikas and atheists] are not the same.
The context of the language goes back to the idea that those who deny the Vedas are "nastikas", deniers or atheists [better word than nihilist, in my opinion]. Buddhists are considered nastikas by Hindus. Here Candra is rejecting the claim by pointing out cleverly that since Madhyamakas agree to [rather than assert or establish] such thing as karma, agents, results, this world, future worlds, etc., relatively speaking, even though they do not agree to essences, they agree to the moral structure of Indian religious discourse which in general is based on the idea of future lives, karma, etc.

But I don't think we can consider these so called atheists necessarily Carvakas or Lokayatis, etc., people who for example assert existence by virtue of svābhava. The classic example representing the Carvaka view is that things exist through their nature just like the colors in a peacocks feather. No one created it, it just happens that way. Unfortunately, we do not have any actual Carvaka texts, just parodies of their views here and there in Buddhist and Hindu texts and plays. These so called atheists may very well be just those who do not subscribe to a siddhaṇta, whether buddhist nor non-buddhist.

Finally, this passage does not defend your assertion that Tsongkhapa does not himself assert the ultimate is a non-existence, since we have already seen that you admit he does assert a non-existence as ultimate i.e. the non-existence of inherent existence in the ultimate.

Malcolm
Posts: 30807
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana

Post by Malcolm » Sun Sep 22, 2013 4:26 pm

I don't think these have been translated.

Son of Buddha wrote:To Malcolm
could you link me to english translations of these Sutras if they even exist(your the only person I know who might be able to find one of these Translations)
Thank you for your time sorry to be :offtopic: now :focus:


Arya-dharanish-vararaja Sutra [also known as the Tathagata-maha-karuna-nidesha Sutra]

Anguli-malya Sutra

Jnana-loka-lamkara Sutra

Anuna-trapur-natva-nirdesha-parivarta Sutra

Mahab-jeri Sutra

Avi-kalpa-prave-sha-dharani Sutra

smcj
Posts: 6947
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am

Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana

Post by smcj » Sun Sep 22, 2013 4:59 pm

No, not exactly. But if you are interested in Dzogchen teachings [which I doubt], basically the point being underscored is that matter and intelligence are non-dual. For example, it is a special tenet of Dzogchen that even the formless realms are material, i.e., that basically, wherever there is matter, there is consciousness, wherever there is consciousness, there is matter. You can either say that matter is intrinsically conscious or that consciousness is intrinsically embodied. Either way it amounts to the same thing. "Sentient" and "non-sentient" are merely conventional designations based on appearances generated by ignorance.
Fwiw, my teacher was heard to say, "Not an atom in the universe vibrates that isn't powered by love."
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)

Malcolm
Posts: 30807
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana

Post by Malcolm » Sun Sep 22, 2013 5:14 pm

smcj wrote:"Not an atom in the universe vibrates that isn't powered by love."
Correct, the aspect of the basis called compassion is the energy of the display of the universe and all its beings.

smcj
Posts: 6947
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am

Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana

Post by smcj » Sun Sep 22, 2013 5:30 pm

Malcolm wrote:
smcj wrote:"Not an atom in the universe vibrates that isn't powered by love."
Correct, the aspect of the basis called compassion is the energy of the display of the universe and all its beings.
Wow. I thought that one wasn't going to find acceptance. He didn't say it to me, so I can't say this is an exact quote, but he continued, something along the lines of,

"Even hate is love; derailed by fear and ignorance, and then perverted by self-cherishing, but it is still love in its genesis."

I always assumed that was more of a Vajrayana-esque "pure view" perspective rather than a Dzogchen perspective, but he did practice Dzogchen too. Pearls before swine, I have not a clue. :shrug:
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)

Malcolm
Posts: 30807
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana

Post by Malcolm » Sun Sep 22, 2013 5:40 pm

smcj wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
smcj wrote:"Not an atom in the universe vibrates that isn't powered by love."
Correct, the aspect of the basis called compassion is the energy of the display of the universe and all its beings.
Wow. I thought that one wasn't going to find acceptance. He didn't say it to me, so I can't say this is an exact quote, but he continued, something along the lines of,

"Even hate is love; derailed by fear and ignorance, and then perverted by self-cherishing, but it is still love in its genesis."

I always assumed that was more of a Vajrayana-esque "pure view" perspective rather than a Dzogchen perspective, but he did practice Dzogchen too. Pearls before swine, I have not a clue. :shrug:
Real "pure" view means seeing universe and beings arising as the basis. The "pure" view in Vajrayāna is merely a conceptual construction which itself needs to be remedied with the completion stage. Dzogchen skips the two stages.

User avatar
dzogchungpa
Posts: 6333
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 10:50 pm

Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana

Post by dzogchungpa » Sun Sep 22, 2013 6:20 pm

Malcolm, 'basis' here means 'basis of an individual'?
There is not only nothingness because there is always, and always can manifest. - Thinley Norbu Rinpoche

Malcolm
Posts: 30807
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana

Post by Malcolm » Sun Sep 22, 2013 6:57 pm

dzogchungpa wrote:Malcolm, 'basis' here means 'basis of an individual'?

Both.

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

Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana

Post by Simon E. » Sun Sep 22, 2013 7:13 pm

Malcolm wrote:
smcj wrote:"Not an atom in the universe vibrates that isn't powered by love."
Correct, the aspect of the basis called compassion is the energy of the display of the universe and all its beings.

Amazing... :namaste:
“The difference between us and Tara is that she knows she doesn’t exist”.

User avatar
dzogchungpa
Posts: 6333
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 10:50 pm

Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana

Post by dzogchungpa » Sun Sep 22, 2013 7:26 pm

Malcolm wrote:
dzogchungpa wrote:Malcolm, 'basis' here means 'basis of an individual'?

Both.
What is the other one?
There is not only nothingness because there is always, and always can manifest. - Thinley Norbu Rinpoche

Malcolm
Posts: 30807
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana

Post by Malcolm » Sun Sep 22, 2013 7:35 pm

dzogchungpa wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
dzogchungpa wrote:Malcolm, 'basis' here means 'basis of an individual'?

Both.
What is the other one?

There are two bases, the original general basis and the basis of the person.

smcj
Posts: 6947
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am

Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana

Post by smcj » Sun Sep 22, 2013 9:43 pm

:popcorn:
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
Su DongPo
Posts: 183
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 12:20 pm
Location: Central Taiwan

Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana

Post by Su DongPo » Mon Sep 23, 2013 3:15 am

Malcolm wrote:I don't think these have been translated.

Son of Buddha wrote:To Malcolm
could you link me to english translations of these Sutras if they even exist(your the only person I know who might be able to find one of these Translations)
Thank you for your time sorry to be :offtopic: now :focus:


Arya-dharanish-vararaja Sutra [also known as the Tathagata-maha-karuna-nidesha Sutra]

Anguli-malya Sutra

Jnana-loka-lamkara Sutra

Anuna-trapur-natva-nirdesha-parivarta Sutra

Mahab-jeri Sutra

Avi-kalpa-prave-sha-dharani Sutra

Mahayana Angulimaliya Sutra translation link --

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.ph ... 78#p184878

User avatar
Koji
Posts: 122
Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2013 1:26 am

Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana

Post by Koji » Mon Sep 23, 2013 6:56 am

Malcolm, earlier you spoke about an "eternalist vision of nirvana" ( Wed Sep 18, 2013 6:31 am). I am just wondering what an eternalist vision of nirvana is, exactly. Would it be outside of the realm of existence and non-existence?

Malcolm
Posts: 30807
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana

Post by Malcolm » Mon Sep 23, 2013 12:26 pm

Koji wrote:Malcolm, earlier you spoke about an "eternalist vision of nirvana" ( Wed Sep 18, 2013 6:31 am). I am just wondering what an eternalist vision of nirvana is, exactly. Would it be outside of the realm of existence and non-existence?

The eternalist vision of nirvana that nirvana is as an unconditioned state to be realized, like brahman.

The non-eternalist view of nirvana (erroneously considered annihilationist in some quarters) is that nirvana is the permanent cessation of afflictions which lead to rebirth in samsara, leading to cessation of birth in samsara.

User avatar
Vidyaraja
Posts: 163
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2013 3:48 am

Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana

Post by Vidyaraja » Mon Sep 23, 2013 5:41 pm

Malcolm wrote:The eternalist vision of nirvana that nirvana is as an unconditioned state to be realized, like brahman.
So how do we relate this to what the Buddha said here:
There is, monks, an unborn, unbecome, unmade, unconditioned.
If, monks there were not that unborn, unbecome,
unmade, unconditioned, you could not know an escape here
from the born, become, made, and conditioned.

But because there is an unborn, unbecome,
unmade, unconditioned, therefore you do know an escape
from the born, become, made, and conditioned.
Malcolm wrote:The non-eternalist view of nirvana (erroneously considered annihilationist in some quarters) is that nirvana is the permanent cessation of afflictions which lead to rebirth in samsara, leading to cessation of birth in samsara.
What is the difference between attaining the unconditioned state of nirvana and cessation of birth in samsara? If we deny the former, what is left or what are we led to in the latter? Who or what has ceased being born in samsara and what is the resultant state from such a cessation? In what way is it not eternal? If annica is impermanence and related to dukkha, how is the conquest of samsara not eternal or permanent? If it is not eternal or permanent, why bother?

Malcolm
Posts: 30807
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana

Post by Malcolm » Mon Sep 23, 2013 6:01 pm

Vidyaraja wrote:
Malcolm wrote:The eternalist vision of nirvana that nirvana is as an unconditioned state to be realized, like brahman.
So how do we relate this to what the Buddha said here:
It's a pep talk, not to be taken literally as ontological commitment, IMO.

Malcolm wrote:The non-eternalist view of nirvana (erroneously considered annihilationist in some quarters) is that nirvana is the permanent cessation of afflictions which lead to rebirth in samsara, leading to cessation of birth in samsara.
What is the difference between attaining the unconditioned state of nirvana and cessation of birth in samsara?
Cessations are not praptis, obtainments.

No one attains an unconditioned state of nirvana. There are no aggregates in nirvana and therefore, no person can be designated upon those aggregates. Nirvana is simply the cessation of the series of aggregates. Mind you, not the immediate cessation of aggregates, but rather the cessation of the afflictions that cause action which lead to rebirth. Another way to put it is that prajñā burns the afflictions. Once the afflictions are burnt, have no more effect, there is also no need for that prajñā so it too ceases.
If we deny the former, what is left or what are we led to in the latter? Who or what has ceased being born in samsara and what is the resultant state from such a cessation? In what way is it not eternal? If annica is impermanence and related to dukkha, how is the conquest of samsara not eternal or permanent? If it is not eternal or permanent, why bother?
Nirvana is a permanent state of cessation of birth in samsara. It is an extreme. That is why Mahāyāna conceived of the idea of so called non-abiding nirvana (in contrast with the Nikāya "abiding" nirvana), i.e., being in samsara but not of samsara. In general, the nirvana aspired to in Mahāyāna is the non-abiding nirvana.

Basically, if the word emptiness raises the hair on your neck, it is sign that in the past you were a Mahāyāna practitioner. As for me, as soon as I heard the word "emptiness" I knew I was home, and have been a adherent of the Prajñāpāramitā ever since.

M

Admin_PC
Former staff member
Posts: 4860
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2012 11:17 pm

Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana

Post by Admin_PC » Mon Sep 23, 2013 6:09 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Vidyaraja wrote:
Malcolm wrote:The eternalist vision of nirvana that nirvana is as an unconditioned state to be realized, like brahman.
So how do we relate this to what the Buddha said here:
It's a pep talk, not to be taken literally as ontological commitment, IMO.
I thought it was the 3rd Noble Truth...

Malcolm
Posts: 30807
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana

Post by Malcolm » Mon Sep 23, 2013 6:12 pm

PorkChop wrote: I thought it was the 3rd Noble Truth...

Cessation is the third truth of āryas.

Post Reply

Return to “Mahāyāna Buddhism”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Matt J and 69 guests