Page 11 of 36

Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana

Posted: Thu Sep 19, 2013 11:18 pm
by Malcolm
cloudburst wrote: All four traditions of Tibetan Buddhism, when correctly understood, reject substance dualism. The Gelugpas, at least, also present the teachings in such a way as to allow someone prone to substance dualism to benefit from it a provisional stance. I suspect the other traditions do as well. Each tradition is very rich.
Well, it is true that because the five schools [we must include Bon] are tantric, they have a better shot at it. But really, honestly, only in Dzogchen teachings is the substance dualism that is a prime feature of Buddhist thought from abhidharma right up the the lower tantras truly overcome in an explicit fashion.

Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana

Posted: Thu Sep 19, 2013 11:24 pm
by Vidyaraja
Malcolm wrote:Which emptiness? Which tradition? Whose interpretation?
How about your interpretation? Who or what is aware of emptiness in your view?

Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana

Posted: Thu Sep 19, 2013 11:47 pm
by Son of Buddha
"Son of Buddha"
so this means you don't know first hand how many times Dharma Dhatu is actually mentioned in the Tathagatagarbha Sutras,your information is based upon the search engine you are using and is only as good as the search engine that is being used.......with that said your search results are flawed.
"Malcolm"The Tathāgatagarbha sūtra does not use the word dharmadhātu even once. It simply is not used in that sūtra as it is present in the bka' gyur
this is a misunderstanding,I didnt says the Tathagatagarbha sutra mentioned Dharma Dhatu.........I said Dharmakaya was mentioned in Tathagatagarbha sutraS that was meant as "plural" as to say it is taught in the genre itself.

sorry to create a misunderstanding what I was trying to say is "Dharma Dhatu is actually mentioned in the Buddha Nature sutra(S)"
Yup,you are correct, in terms of the Nirvana sūtra, the search engine I used was flawed it will not return searches in texts that span two volumes.
So, I checked via other means and In the Tibetan recension of the two volumes of the Nirvana sutra the term "chos kyi dbyings" i.e. dharmadhātu occurs exactly total of sixteen times. It does not suffer this problem for shorter sutras that do not span volumes. Since the other tathāgatagarbha sūtras are quite short, I have no fear that my search was flawed. Here it is, BTW:
http://www.istb.univie.ac.at/kanjur/xml3/xml/
depends on the translator and the version
Faxian is essentially the one I use (that would be the first 17 chapters of the Dharmakeshema version)

Dharmakeshema is another version and the longest by far (WAY longer than the other versions)

the Hlaydawa Tibetan version that Dolpopa quoted from(earliest) if im not mistaken is more based off the Faxian but is actually shorter

I think other Tibetan versions are more based off chinese Dharmakeshema(correct me if I am wrong, i'm not an expert on that subject)

Here is another interesting quote from the Nirvana sutra:
  • Son of a good family, all phenomena are false, where they cease, that is called "true", "a true perception", "dharmadhātu", "wisdom of perfection", "ultimate" and "ultimate emptiness".
What version are you using?
what is the Chapter its under?
I am using the CORE text known as Faxian
also the Nirvana sutra as stated before states 11 different types of Emptiness........The Emptiness that is championed throughout out the text is the Emptiness of all 25 existences but NOT Empty like the inside of a Bamboo, empty of the Flame but NOT Empty of the Lamp holder.
(this quote is in relation to the phenomena post)
[Nirvana sutra] Chapter Three: On Grief
"the Tathagata teaches and says no-self. This is to adjust beings and because he is aware of the occasion. Such non-self is, as occasion arises, spoken of, and it is [also] said that there is the Self. This is as in the case of the learned Doctor, who knows well the medicinal and non-medicinal qualities of milk. It is not as with common mortals, who might measure the size of their own self. Common mortals and the ignorant may measure the size of their own self and say, 'It is like the size of a thumb, like a mustard seed, or like the size of a mote.' When the Tathagata speaks of Self, in no case are things thus. That is why he says: 'All things have no Self.'
V135. Even though he has said that all phenomena [dharmas] are devoid of the Self, it is not that they are completely/ truly devoid of the Self. What is this Self? Any phenomenon [dharma] that is true [satya], real [tattva], eternal [nitya], sovereign/ autonomous/ self-governing [aisvarya], and whose ground/ foundation is unchanging [asraya-aviparinama], is termed 'the Self' [atman]. This is as in the case of the great Doctor who well understands the milk medicine. The same is the case with the Tathagata. For the sake of beings, he says "there is the Self in all things" O you the four classes! Learn Dharma thus!"

(these are based on emptiness)
"If we say empty, there can be no Eternity, Bliss, Self, and Purity. If not-empty, who is the one blessed with Eternity, Bliss, Self, and Purity? Thus, we should say neither empty nor not-empty. Empty will entail [the notion] that the 25 existences, all illusions, suffering, the phases of life, and all actual actions do not exist. When there is no cream in the pot, we may say empty. Not-empty points to Truth, to whatever is Good, Eternal, Bliss, Self, Pure, Immovable and Unchanging."

(this quote is in support of the quote above it,where is speaks out against the Empty-Empty views)
"We say "truth of the extinction of suffering". If a person practises many things [teachings] and the way of nothingness, this is non-good. Why so? Because this annuls all laws and breaks the true storehouse of the Tathagata. Any practice of this category is the practising of nothingness. One who practises the extinction of suffering acts against what all tirthikas do. If the practice of nothingness is the truth of extinction, there are tirthikas who also practise the teaching of nothingness; we must say that they too possess the truth of extinction. A person says: "There is the Tathagatagarbha [Buddha-Womb - the pristine mind under cover of illusion]. One cannot see this. But if one does away with all illusions, one may indeed enter." It is thus. By the raising of such a mind [i.e. by cultivating such an attitude of mind], one gains freedom in all things. If a person practises the Way of the hidden storehouse, selflessness, and emptiness, such a person repeats birth and death for innumerable ages to come and suffers from sorrow. A person who does not do such practices may certainly, even though he might have illusion, soon do away with it. Why so? Because he well knows the undisclosed [secret, hidden] storehouse of the Tathagata. This is the noble truth of the extinction of suffering. Any person who practises extinction in such a way is my disciple. A person not practising the Way thus is one who practises emptiness. This is not the noble truth of extinction.

Now I have already quoted the Queen Srimala Sutra which teachs how emptiness is to be viewed concerning the Tathagatgarbha so instead of reposting it you can reference it in my other post.(it is quite clear on how emptiness is suppoed to be viewed in our Genre)

ME
Now Malcolm the Teachings of Emptiness is of the Tathagatagarbha/Dharamakaya is actually taught in the Buddha Nature Sutras in extreme detail.the Emptiness that is taught is "other Emptiness" i.e Shentong
Malcolm
This is highly debatable.
That it is.....But my queen Srimala Sutra quote was pretty clear on the subject.
It's neglected, since a proper and thorough examination of the term dharmadhātu revealed that it occurs exactly 16 times in the Nirvana sūtra's Tibetan recension. There is no Sanskrit original, so you would have to consult the Chinese in order to cross check this. I listed the other mentions. My point still stands the same.
your search engine is off.I can find it more times than that just in the Faxian Version
the Dharmkeshema version also contains Dhamakaya verses in it also.
now I use the Core text which is Faxian and can be found in the first 17 chapters of the Dharmakeshema version(for cross reference)
what version are you using and doing your web search on????

with that said I respectfully disagree.....But at the same time to refute you I would have to literally reread and note every single time the phrase Dharmakaya is mentioned counting them all up........ also I would have to note where the phrase is used AND the context that surrounds (meaning the phrase could be used once but the entire page is a discussion based around the one phrase)

for instance we find in Chapter 39 of the Dharmakeshema version ""O good man! The eternal of the Tathagata is the Self. The Dharmakaya of the Tathagata is unboundedness, unobstructedness, birthlessness, undyingness, and the eight unmolestedness, this is the Self.

as you already know the faxian says exactly the same so the Dharmakaya is explained in this sutra as "The Self" and also as "Eternal"
and chapter 5 goes into deep detail on other aspects of the topic also.

peace and love

Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana

Posted: Thu Sep 19, 2013 11:53 pm
by Son of Buddha
"Malcolm"
He is talking about vidyā. If you understand the context of the Dzogchen tradition from which this is derived, you will understand that non-buddhists are thought to misidentify vidyā and make incorrect imputations upon it.
Otherwise, you will observe that the list is in ascending order, from non-Buddhists to common Dzogchen terms:
vehicles of non-Buddhists = atman
sravakas = anatman
to be short and not go into 2 pages of quotes on the subject....the Tathagatagarbha Genre has a different view on this subject.(actually the very opposite)

Nirvana Sutra Chapter 3
These are called perversions/ inversions. Because of these perversions/ inversions, mundane people know the letters but not the meaning [referents]. What is the meaning/referent? Non-Self is Samsara, the Self is the Tathagata; impermanence is the sravakas and pratyekabuddhas, the Eternal is the Tathagata's Dharmakaya; suffering is all tirthikas, Bliss is Nirvana; the impure is all compounded [samskrta] dharmas , the Pure is the true Dharma that the Buddha and Bodhisattvas have. This is called non-perversion/ non-inversion. By not being inverted [in one's views], one will know [both] the letter and the meaning. If one desires to be freed from the four perverse/ inverted [views - catur-viparita-drsti], one should know the Eternal, Blissful, the Self and the Pure in this manner."

Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana

Posted: Fri Sep 20, 2013 12:21 am
by Malcolm
Son of Buddha wrote: your search engine is off.
I did not use a search engine, I performed a manual search of the digital file of the two volume version present in the bka' 'gyur.

with that said I respectfully disagree.....But at the same time to refute you I would have to literally reread and note every single time the phrase Dharmakaya
We are not discussing the term dharmakāya, rather we are discussing the term dharmadhātu.

Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana

Posted: Fri Sep 20, 2013 12:31 am
by Malcolm
Vidyaraja wrote:
Malcolm wrote:Which emptiness? Which tradition? Whose interpretation?
How about your interpretation? Who or what is aware of emptiness in your view?
The non-categorizable emptiness has no characteristics so it cannot be a direct object of a conventional mind. As Shantideva states, "the ultimate is not within the experiential range of the mind".

Obviuously, categorizable emptiness can be conceived by a conventional mind since that kind of emptiness is also a convention, designated on the discovery of a non-existence such as this seed is empty of inherent existence because it is a product. Whatever inherently exists cannot be a product.

Conventionally speaking however, a non-conceptual wisdom "apprehends" emptiness.

Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana

Posted: Fri Sep 20, 2013 1:11 am
by Son of Buddha
Malcolm wrote:
Son of Buddha wrote: your search engine is off.
I did not use a search engine, I performed a manual search of the digital file of the two volume version present in the bka' 'gyur.

with that said I respectfully disagree.....But at the same time to refute you I would have to literally reread and note every single time the phrase Dharmakaya
We are not discussing the term dharmakāya, rather we are discussing the term dharmadhātu.
yea I know same thing...............(Dhamata and Dharmakaya are not seperated in the Sutra)
"Basing oneself upon Dharma means basing oneself upon “Dharmata”; not basing oneself on man refers to the sravaka. “Dharmata” is the Tathagata, and the sravaka is the created. The Tathagata is Eternal, but the sravaka is non-eternal.

The Buddha said: "Being based on Dharma means nothing other than basing oneself on the Mahaparinirvana of the Tathagata. All Buddhist teachings are none but “Dharmata” [essence of Dharma, essence of Reality]. This “Dharmata” is the Tathagata. Hence, the Tathagata is Eternal and Unchanging. Any person who says that the Tathagata is non-eternal does not know “Dharmata”. Such a person is not one to base oneself upon. All the four persons mentioned above appear in the world, protect, realise and become a refuge [for all beings]. Why? Because they thoroughly understand the deepest points of what the Tathagata says and know that the Tathagata is Eternal and Unchanging. It is not good to say that the Tathagata is non-eternal and that he changes.

That is why I speak about these four things and say that they are the things to be depended upon. "Dharma" is “Dharmata”; "meaning" is saying that the Tathagata is Eternal and Unchanging; "Wisdom" is knowing that all beings have Buddha-Nature [“Buddhata”]; "grasping the meaning" means being well versed in all Mahayana sutras."

"Kasyapa said further: "Why is it that the Tathagata resorts to two kinds of parables?" The Buddha siad: "O good man! For example, there is a person here who holds a sword in his hand and with an angry mind means to harm the Tathagata. But the Tathagata is glad, and has no angry face. Can this man harm the Tathagata and actualise the deadly sin?" "No, O World-Honoured One! Why not? Because the body of the Tathagata cannot be destroyed. Why not? Because it is not anything of the compounded carnal body. What there is is "Dharmata" [Dharma-Nature]. The principle of "Dharmata" is indestructible. How can this man hope to break the Buddha-Body? Because of his evil thought, this person falls into Avichi Hell. Thus we can make use of parables and come to know of Wonderful Dharma."

we can seperate the 2 terms but I will just quote further proof to connect them back together. :mrgreen:

Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana

Posted: Fri Sep 20, 2013 1:14 am
by Wayfarer
Malcolm wrote:
jeeprs wrote: So the modern rejection of the idea of 'eternal round' on the basis that it is not really a part of the original meaning of the teaching, completely changes its context. Without the prospect of being bound to the wheel of samsara for life after life, 'nirvana' then becomes simply a state of being 'stress free' and Buddhism more like a psycho-therapeutic discipline than a sadhana.
It all really depends on how interested you are in forcing people to follow a "religion".
Not in the least. I have no power to coerce anyone nor any interest in doing so. It is simply a matter of respect for the teaching. Secular interpretations may be fine, but they are derivative, not definitive, which is what many people are trying to make them.

Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana

Posted: Fri Sep 20, 2013 1:25 am
by Malcolm
jeeprs wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
jeeprs wrote: So the modern rejection of the idea of 'eternal round' on the basis that it is not really a part of the original meaning of the teaching, completely changes its context. Without the prospect of being bound to the wheel of samsara for life after life, 'nirvana' then becomes simply a state of being 'stress free' and Buddhism more like a psycho-therapeutic discipline than a sadhana.
It all really depends on how interested you are in forcing people to follow a "religion".
Not in the least. I have no power to coerce anyone nor any interest in doing so. It is simply a matter of respect for the teaching. Secular interpretations may be fine, but they are derivative, not definitive, which is what many people are trying to make them.

As we have seen throughout this thread, one's persons definitive is another person's provisional.

Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana

Posted: Fri Sep 20, 2013 1:30 am
by Malcolm
Son of Buddha wrote:
we can seperate the 2 terms but I will just quote further proof to connect them back together.
it's not necessary. The fact is that the term dharmadhātu has a limited usage in these sutras. The term dharmadhātu is synonymous with emptiness, which is what you asked me to show. I have shown that. Nothing you can cite will can show the opposite.

Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana

Posted: Fri Sep 20, 2013 1:41 am
by Son of Buddha
Malcolm wrote:
Son of Buddha wrote:
we can seperate the 2 terms but I will just quote further proof to connect them back together.
it's not necessary. The fact is that the term dharmadhātu has a limited usage in these sutras. The term dharmadhātu is synonymous with emptiness, which is what you asked me to show. I have shown that. Nothing you can cite will can show the opposite.

No now I must only show what The Tathagatagarbha view of Emptiness is,as you say Dharma Dhatu is synonymous with Emptiness.....so the question now is what is our view of Emptiness.

Queen Srimala Sutra
Chapter IX
The Underlying Truth:
The Meaning of Emptiness

“O Lord, the wisdom of the tathāgatagarbha is the Tathāgata’s wisdom of
emptiness (śūnyatā).
O Lord, the tathāgatagarbha has not been seen nor attained
originally by all the arhats, pratyekabuddhas, and powerful bodhisattvas.

“O Lord, there are two kinds of wisdom of emptiness with reference to
the tathāgatagarbha.
The tathāgatagarbha that is empty is separate from,
free from, and different from the stores of all defile ments.

And the tathāgatagarbha
that is not empty is not separate from, not free from, and not different
from the inconceivable Buddha-Dharmas more numerous than the
sands of the Ganges River.


“O Lord, the various great disciples can believe in the Tathā gata with
reference to the two wisdoms of emptiness.

All arhats and pratyekabuddhas
revolve in the realm of the four contrary views because of their knowledge
of emptiness. Thus, arhats and pratyekabuddhas do not originally see nor
attain [the wisdom of the tathāgatagarbha].

The extinction of all suffering
is only realized by the buddhas who destroy the stores of all defilements and
practice the path that extinguishes all suffering.”


so our view of dharmadhātu is essentially NOT-empty empty
Dolpopa covered this way more than i ever could I could see if i can Scan some of his teachings on the subject and post them.

peace and love nice chatting with you,I will be back on 2morro

Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana

Posted: Fri Sep 20, 2013 4:54 am
by Sherab
Here's how I look at it:

Emptiness - the essence of all there is - avoids the extreme of existence and the extreme of non-existence. Therefore those who claim the ultimate exist cannot be correct. Similarly, those who claim the ultimate does not exist cannot be correct as well.

But emptiness has a dynamic nature. There is an "inner" dynamism and there is an "outer" dynamism. Therefore those who claim that the ultimate transcend the relative cannot be correct. Similarly, those who claim that the ultimate does not transcend the relative cannot be correct as well.

Therefore Buddha's patched robe rules!

Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana

Posted: Fri Sep 20, 2013 5:45 am
by Wayfarer
Emptiness - the essence of all there is
Regrettably, that is a big no-no in Buddhist philosophy. Emptiness is exactly the absence of essence. In fact the one thing that everything has in common is absence of essence.

Sorry I won't keep butting into this thread any more but I couldn't let that one go by.....

Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana

Posted: Fri Sep 20, 2013 5:56 am
by smcj
jeeprs wrote:
Emptiness - the essence of all there is
Regrettably, that is a big no-no in Buddhist philosophy. Emptiness is exactly the absence of essence. In fact the one thing that everything has in common is absence of essence.
Self-emptiness; everybody accepts it.

Other emptiness; a very big no-no to some people.

These days both are well established philosophical views.
As we have seen throughout this thread, one's persons definitive is another person's provisional.
Everyone agrees the absolute is ineffable, therefore all teachings are provisional.

Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana

Posted: Fri Sep 20, 2013 6:32 am
by oushi
LastLegend wrote:
oushi wrote:
LastLegend wrote:Not to deny or negate emptiness. But I remember something like this, "what exists now, what makes it stop to exist then?"
What does it mean that something exists, or stops to exist? Our knowledge starts and stops on perception. If something is invisible underwater and suddenly appears and then disappears, it does not mean it was created and destroyed. Even if we could go underwater and see its creation and destruction, we cannot tell that there is no deeper lever of this process. This creates infinite regress, thus infinite doubt. But no matter on what level of inquiry we are, "don't know" it always the source, the ground.
You are here because of conditions. What makes you no longer appear again?
I may try to answer, but I asked a similar question before your post, and there was no answer.
It looks like there is greater value from grasping, becoming then from remaining in bliss. Appearing gives hope for becoming omniscient, which surpasses everything. Now, to stop becoming and appearing, those two must be combined by discovering emptiness as absolute, which is bliss. Otherwise mind will not give up its power to predict circumstances, and his hope to know them all some day. No matter what bliss you encounter on the path, you will give it up and continue grasping.

Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana

Posted: Fri Sep 20, 2013 7:23 am
by Su DongPo
Malcolm wrote:
Son of Buddha wrote:.
It's neglected, since a proper and thorough examination of the term dharmadhātu revealed that it occurs exactly 16 times in the Nirvana sūtra's Tibetan recension. There is no Sanskrit original, so you would have to consult the Chinese in order to cross check this. I listed the other mentions. My point still stands the same.
I just did a full-text manual check of the Chinese and Japanese (Sino-Chinese) files for this Sutra and found the term "Dharmadhatu" (fa-jie) appears a total of 19 times.

Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana

Posted: Fri Sep 20, 2013 7:43 am
by Su DongPo
Malcolm wrote:
Koji wrote:
Just curious, are there differing standards of what Buddhadharma is or just one standard? If just one standard in which tradition or texts can we find it? I think beginners would like to know so we could say something like, "That isn't Buddhism."
In my opinion basic standards which would indicate a person or a school is Buddhist in orientation are:

A dharma theory based on skandhas, dhatus and āyatanas.

A theory of suffering based on of affliction and dependent origination.

A path theory based on śamatha and vipaśyāna.

Acceptance of the four seals.

A concept of refuge.

I think that this basic framework provides a wide latitude for differences of opinion, including for example eternalist interpretations of the tathāgatagarbha sutras or the austere doctrine of emptiness taught in Madhyamaka and Prajñāpāramitā. It even has room for "heretics" like Batchelor and Zenmar.
This is a generous view.

Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana

Posted: Fri Sep 20, 2013 8:19 am
by plwk

Just curious, are there differing standards of what Buddhadharma is or just one standard? If just one standard in which tradition or texts can we find it? I think beginners would like to know so we could say something like, "That isn't Buddhism."
In my opinion basic standards which would indicate a person or a school is Buddhist in orientation are:

A dharma theory based on skandhas, dhatus and āyatanas.

A theory of suffering based on of affliction and dependent origination.

A path theory based on śamatha and vipaśyāna.

Acceptance of the four seals.

A concept of refuge.

I think that this basic framework provides a wide latitude for differences of opinion, including for example eternalist interpretations of the tathāgatagarbha sutras or the austere doctrine of emptiness taught in Madhyamaka and Prajñāpāramitā. It even has room for "heretics" like Batchelor and Zenmar.
This is a generous view. I do not understand your use of "dhatus". I google and found it associated with Ayurveda. Are you saying a fully Buddhist view need to include a theory of healing?
Me thinks M may have had this in mind...

Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana

Posted: Fri Sep 20, 2013 8:21 am
by Su DongPo
yes, my stupidity. I edited the post while you would posting this response

Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana

Posted: Fri Sep 20, 2013 2:17 pm
by Malcolm
Son of Buddha wrote: “O Lord, there are two kinds of wisdom of emptiness with reference to
the tathāgatagarbha.
The tathāgatagarbha that is empty is separate from,
free from, and different from the stores of all defile ments.

And the tathāgatagarbha
that is not empty is not separate from, not free from, and not different
from the inconceivable Buddha-Dharmas more numerous than the
sands of the Ganges River.
Well, the question becomes what buddha-dharmas means in this context.

But all of this is really wide of the mark of the main conversation I was having with Vidyārāja, the essence of which "what constitutes a criteria for calling someone Buddhist or non-Buddhist", spurred by my remark that so called "Early Buddhism" is a pedantic reconstruction.