"Near-vana"....?

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
Supramundane
Posts: 226
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 11:38 am
Location: Jakarta, Indonesia

Re: "Near-vana"....?

Post by Supramundane » Tue Jun 13, 2017 3:12 pm

Strange how in some sutras, such as Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, there are very few references to the mind: buddhadhatu is mentioned but the idea of seeking an Original Mind or purifying the mind is not mentioned. If the mind is the key and we know all we know from the mind, shouldn't the mind be the focus of any discussion of nirvana? What am i missing?

User avatar
Astus
Former staff member
Posts: 7093
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Budapest

Re: "Near-vana"....?

Post by Astus » Tue Jun 13, 2017 3:33 pm

Malcolm wrote:all that remains is the idea that I owe you some money.
What holds the idea of a karmic debt then?
With the example of milk and butter.
Could you please be more specific about the location of that section?
Yes, like a debt collector calling in a note.
What/Who is karma's debt collector?
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: 28735
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: "Near-vana"....?

Post by Malcolm » Tue Jun 13, 2017 3:57 pm

Astus wrote:
Malcolm wrote:all that remains is the idea that I owe you some money.
What holds the idea of a karmic debt then?
With the example of milk and butter.
Could you please be more specific about the location of that section?
Yes, like a debt collector calling in a note.
What/Who is karma's debt collector?

Astus, don't be silly, if you consider karma a convention, it does not really matter which convention you choose to use as long as it is rational, and functions conventionally. If we call karma a debt, it is just fine.

MIlk and curd location is MMK 13:6

The only rational way to understand this section is to understand that causes and their effects are neither the same nor are they different. It is more fully explained by Buddhapalita than Candrakīrti.
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
dzogchungpa
Posts: 6333
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 10:50 pm

Re: "Near-vana"....?

Post by dzogchungpa » Tue Jun 13, 2017 4:03 pm

Astus wrote:What holds the idea of a karmic debt then?
...
What/Who is karma's debt collector?
God, maybe? :smile:
There is not only nothingness because there is always, and always can manifest. - Thinley Norbu Rinpoche

User avatar
Astus
Former staff member
Posts: 7093
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Budapest

Re: "Near-vana"....?

Post by Astus » Tue Jun 13, 2017 5:10 pm

Malcolm wrote:if you consider karma a convention, it does not really matter which convention you choose to use as long as it is rational, and functions conventionally. If we call karma a debt, it is just fine.
I do not disagree with that. The only contention that there was was about whether using the debt metaphor and the unperishing dharma as a Madhyamaka version should be acceptable. Otherwise, as long as the basic functions of karma remain intact, any explanation can work, just as you say.
MIlk and curd location is MMK 13:6
The only rational way to understand this section is to understand that causes and their effects are neither the same nor are they different. It is more fully explained by Buddhapalita than Candrakīrti.
"Therefore, neither a thing itself nor another thing can alter. Because neither a thing nor another thing can alter, there is consequently no "alteration"."
(Buddhapalita: MMK-vrtti 13.6, tr Saito, p 184)

I'm not sure if this is the right example for "causes are neither the same as nor different than their effects, taking care of both the identity and difference issues with one stone, and avoiding the issue of temporal simultaneity and discontinuity". Rather, as it says in the commentary, the idea of something becoming another thing is mistaken, because there is no thing in the first place.

As for causes and effects:

"Since things devoid of intrinsic nature are not existent,
“This existing, that comes to be” can never hold."

(MMK 1.10, tr Siderits)

"Since origination, duration, and cessation are not established, there is nothing that is conditioned.
And in the absence of the establishment of the conditioned, what unconditioned thing will be established?
Like an illusion, like a dream, like the city of the gandharvas,
so origination, duration, and cessation are declared to be."

(MMK 7.33-34, tr Siderits)

"Effect and cause, as well as the characterized and the characteristic,
feeling and that which feels, and whatever other things there are,
Not only is there no prior part of saṃsāra,
there is as well no prior part of any existents."

(MMK 11.7-8, tr Siderits)

So about karma:

"Defilements, actions, and bodies, agents, and fruits,
are similar to the city of the gandharvas; they are like a mirage, a dream."

(MMK 17.33, tr Siderits)
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: 28735
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: "Near-vana"....?

Post by Malcolm » Tue Jun 13, 2017 5:18 pm

Astus wrote: I'm not sure if this is the right example for "causes are neither the same as nor different than their effects, taking care of both the identity and difference issues with one stone, and avoiding the issue of temporal simultaneity and discontinuity". Rather, as it says in the commentary, the idea of something becoming another thing is mistaken, because there is no thing in the first place.
No, it clearly states that milk does not become butter, but there can be no butter in absence of milk: enforcing two things, homogeneity of causes and effects (i.e., butter will not come from water) and avoiding the identity issue I mentioned above.

Madhyamaka is not just a simple refutation of entities, as you seem to think.
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
Astus
Former staff member
Posts: 7093
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Budapest

Re: "Near-vana"....?

Post by Astus » Tue Jun 13, 2017 5:59 pm

Malcolm wrote:No, it clearly states that milk does not become butter, but there can be no butter in absence of milk: enforcing two things, homogeneity of causes and effects (i.e., butter will not come from water) and avoiding the identity issue I mentioned above.
Yes, milk cannot become curd, nor can there be curd from something other than curd.

"If alteration pertained to it, then milk itself would be curds.
On the alternative, what else but milk would come to have the nature of curds?"

(MMK 13.6, tr Siderits)

So, according to Buddhapalita (tr Saito, p 183, 184), the two options mean that

1. "If a thing itself were thought to alter, in that case, according to you, milk itself would necessarily be curd."
2. "If you do not say that because "curd" belongs to milk, milk itself is curd, what other than milk can be "curd"? Do you say that curd itself can be "curd" and is curd itself, or do you say that water can be "curd" and water is curd? Therefore, neither a thing itself nor another thing can alter. Because neither a thing nor another thing can alter, there is consequently no "alteration"."

Since curd cannot come from milk, nor from something else, alteration is impossible. It does not give a third option of how there can be curd.

Mabja Changchub comments:

"Change is something that, without analysis, is merely apparent to what the opponent accepts as being direct perception. When the reality of the situation is investigated, however, change is seen to be impossible."
...
"Similarly, if the earlier situation were itself what changed, it would mean that milk could become yogurt while still remaining milk. On the other hand, if it were something other than the initial situation that undergoes change, it would be something other than milk, such as water, that turns into yoghurt. This, however, is impossible. Discussing this point, the Noble Sūtra of the Source of Jewels states:
No phenomenon arises or disintegrates;
There is no death, no transference, and no aging.
This is what the Lion of Men has taught,
And in this he has established hundreds of beings."

Madhyamaka is not just a simple refutation of entities, as you seem to think.
What more is there to it?
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: 28735
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: "Near-vana"....?

Post by Malcolm » Tue Jun 13, 2017 6:02 pm

Astus wrote:
Madhyamaka is not just a simple refutation of entities, as you seem to think.
What more is there to it?
It enforces rationality with respect to conventional truth through the negation of essences.
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
Astus
Former staff member
Posts: 7093
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Budapest

Re: "Near-vana"....?

Post by Astus » Tue Jun 13, 2017 8:55 pm

Malcolm wrote:It enforces rationality with respect to conventional truth through the negation of essences.
That is a very good point. :twothumbsup:

On the other hand, every Buddhist tradition seems to attempt to build a rational system, beginning with Abhidharma. And compared to others, Madhyamaka does not build much, but rather relies on what others have already set up.
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: 28735
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: "Near-vana"....?

Post by Malcolm » Tue Jun 13, 2017 8:57 pm

Astus wrote:
Malcolm wrote:It enforces rationality with respect to conventional truth through the negation of essences.
That is a very good point. :twothumbsup:

On the other hand, every Buddhist tradition seems to attempt to build a rational system, beginning with Abhidharma. And compared to others, Madhyamaka does not build much, but rather relies on what others have already set up.
Madhyamaka is charged with making sure it all makes sense.
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

DGA
Former staff member
Posts: 9423
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: "Near-vana"....?

Post by DGA » Tue Jun 13, 2017 10:22 pm

Anonymous X wrote:
DGA wrote:
Anonymous X wrote:I do not think that Zongmi is saying that emptiness is the self nature of phenomenon. He says emptiness is a characteristic of phenomenon. How can phenomenon be Knowing? It is only when Thusness is combined with Alaya that the nature of everything is seen as Tathagatagarbha.
Zongmi:
"The mind of voidness and calm is a spiritual Knowing that never darkens. It is precisely this Knowing of voidness and calm that is your true nature. No matter whether you are deluded or awakened, mind from the outset is spontaneously Knowing. [Knowing] is not produced by conditions, nor does it arise in dependence on any sense object. The one word “Knowing” is the gate of all excellence."

Now, why would he say the one word Knowing is the gate? Why didn't he say Voidness is the gate of all excellence. If the nature of True Mind is immutable, it is already a reality before there is any phenomenon arisen. Don't you think voidness is only applicable to phenomenon? Knowing doesn't discriminate, it is not a view.

Zongmi reconciles Madhyamaka view in the 'Knowing-Seeing' as the substance of Tathagatgarbha, not pure emptiness as its substance.

Maybe I'm nitpicking. At this level, I cannot speak from personal experience, just surmise what is put forth by teachers like Zongmi, Nagarjuna, etc. If I'm mistaken, I can accept that.
What is Thusness, and how does one combine it with Alaya?

Are you claiming that the nature of everything is always already Tathagathagarbha?
This seems to be what is pointed to by teachers like Zongmi, Padmasambhava, etc.
You made a claim on a combination of thusness and alaya. How is that combination made? What do masters such as Zongmi and Padmasambhava have to say about such an admixture?

I'd like to reserve the question of Tathagatagarbha for later, if that's OK with you.

User avatar
Astus
Former staff member
Posts: 7093
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Budapest

Re: "Near-vana"....?

Post by Astus » Tue Jun 13, 2017 11:20 pm

Malcolm wrote:Madhyamaka is charged with making sure it all makes sense.
How so? Madhyamaka is a complete teaching as it is, so are others as well. Even in a several vehicles setting, as in Tibetan Buddhism, Madhyamaka is used separately, not as a correction. So, I'm not sure what you're referring to here.
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
PuerAzaelis
Posts: 958
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 1:37 pm

Re: "Near-vana"....?

Post by PuerAzaelis » Wed Jun 14, 2017 12:44 am

Malcolm wrote:... sense.
Not the first word that springs to mind when reading MMK and MV. Lol.
Generally, enjoyment of speech is the gateway to poor [results]. So it becomes the foundation for generating all negative emotional states. Jampel Pawo, The Certainty of the Diamond Mind

For posts from this user, see Karma Dondrup Tashi account.

Anonymous X
Posts: 813
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2017 11:43 am
Location: Bangkok

Re: "Near-vana"....?

Post by Anonymous X » Wed Jun 14, 2017 4:59 am

DGA wrote:
Anonymous X wrote:
DGA wrote:
What is Thusness, and how does one combine it with Alaya?

Are you claiming that the nature of everything is always already Tathagathagarbha?
This seems to be what is pointed to by teachers like Zongmi, Padmasambhava, etc.
You made a claim on a combination of thusness and alaya. How is that combination made? What do masters such as Zongmi and Padmasambhava have to say about such an admixture?

I'd like to reserve the question of Tathagatagarbha for later, if that's OK with you.
If this is really something that interests you, I would suggest your read:
Zongmi On Chan, by Jeffrey Broughton
Self Liberation Through Seeing With Naked Awareness, by John Myrdhin Reynolds

Better to get this from the horse's mouth, then you will be more familiar with the topic at hand.

Anonymous X
Posts: 813
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2017 11:43 am
Location: Bangkok

Re: "Near-vana"....?

Post by Anonymous X » Wed Jun 14, 2017 5:31 am

Astus wrote:
Malcolm wrote:Madhyamaka is charged with making sure it all makes sense.
How so? Madhyamaka is a complete teaching as it is, so are others as well. Even in a several vehicles setting, as in Tibetan Buddhism, Madhyamaka is used separately, not as a correction. So, I'm not sure what you're referring to here.
From what I have gleaned from Zongmi and studying Dzogchen teachings, both don't look at Madhyamaka as a direct teaching revealing reality. Zongmi categorizes it as the voidness axiom, a teaching of 'cryptic meaning' as opposed to the nature axiom which forgets the words and recognizes substance, that is, points to Knowing. Zongmi says the same about Yogacara teachings, they are not direct. He doesn't say they are not true, but they don't express reality as it really is. They would fall into his step by step category. I'm not sure if you see the difference here.

muni
Posts: 4532
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:59 am

Re: "Near-vana"....?

Post by muni » Wed Jun 14, 2017 8:31 am

Supramundane wrote:Strange how in some sutras, such as Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, there are very few references to the mind: buddhadhatu is mentioned but the idea of seeking an Original Mind or purifying the mind is not mentioned. If the mind is the key and we know all we know from the mind, shouldn't the mind be the focus of any discussion of nirvana? What am i missing?
I am so wondering how to describe the mind without perception or view?
:meditate:

User avatar
Supramundane
Posts: 226
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 11:38 am
Location: Jakarta, Indonesia

Re: "Near-vana"....?

Post by Supramundane » Thu Jun 15, 2017 3:58 am

muni wrote:
Supramundane wrote:Strange how in some sutras, such as Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, there are very few references to the mind: buddhadhatu is mentioned but the idea of seeking an Original Mind or purifying the mind is not mentioned. If the mind is the key and we know all we know from the mind, shouldn't the mind be the focus of any discussion of nirvana? What am i missing?
I am so wondering how to describe the mind without perception or view?
is that a question or a koan, M?
:?:

muni
Posts: 4532
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:59 am

Re: "Near-vana"....?

Post by muni » Thu Jun 15, 2017 8:25 am

Supramundane wrote:
muni wrote:
Supramundane wrote:Strange how in some sutras, such as Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, there are very few references to the mind: buddhadhatu is mentioned but the idea of seeking an Original Mind or purifying the mind is not mentioned. If the mind is the key and we know all we know from the mind, shouldn't the mind be the focus of any discussion of nirvana? What am i missing?
I am so wondering how to describe the mind without perception or view?
is that a question or a koan, M?
:?:
Hello Supra,

Guess what.
I know actually not much about Zen, only by friends and few Zen examples once given. It is wonderful, anyway.

When there is no perceiver defining perception, only perceiving, then assertions and negations are impossible, then what to define? Or when all is not exactly mind but not different at all. Then no "thing" to define neither. Possibly that is why there is not much about “mind” in such sutras?

But I do not say, 'purification' or curing from misperception is useless to help in accordance with the great variety of confusions. Otherways Buddha guidance would be useless, and investigations would be useless, 'we' would remain in samsara's selfmade cocoon, clinging from there to what is perceived, in a way to protect that cocoon.


o o
:meditate:

Anonymous X
Posts: 813
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2017 11:43 am
Location: Bangkok

Re: "Near-vana"....?

Post by Anonymous X » Thu Jun 15, 2017 10:31 am

muni wrote:
Supramundane wrote:
muni wrote:
I am so wondering how to describe the mind without perception or view?
is that a question or a koan, M?
:?:
Hello Supra,

Guess what.
I know actually not much about Zen, only by friends and few Zen examples once given. It is wonderful, anyway.

When there is no perceiver defining perception, only perceiving, then assertions and negations are impossible, then what to define? Or when all is not exactly mind but not different at all. Then no "thing" to define neither. Possibly that is why there is not much about “mind” in such sutras?

But I do not say, 'purification' or curing from misperception is useless to help in accordance with the great variety of confusions. Otherways Buddha guidance would be useless, and investigations would be useless, 'we' would remain in samsara's selfmade cocoon, clinging from there to what is perceived, in a way to protect that cocoon.


o o
It's important to get past the words.

ItsRaining
Posts: 238
Joined: Fri May 12, 2017 7:45 am

Re: "Near-vana"....?

Post by ItsRaining » Thu Jun 15, 2017 12:00 pm

Anonymous X wrote:
Astus wrote:
Malcolm wrote:Madhyamaka is charged with making sure it all makes sense.
How so? Madhyamaka is a complete teaching as it is, so are others as well. Even in a several vehicles setting, as in Tibetan Buddhism, Madhyamaka is used separately, not as a correction. So, I'm not sure what you're referring to here.
From what I have gleaned from Zongmi and studying Dzogchen teachings, both don't look at Madhyamaka as a direct teaching revealing reality. Zongmi categorizes it as the voidness axiom, a teaching of 'cryptic meaning' as opposed to the nature axiom which forgets the words and recognizes substance, that is, points to Knowing. Zongmi says the same about Yogacara teachings, they are not direct. He doesn't say they are not true, but they don't express reality as it really is. They would fall into his step by step category. I'm not sure if you see the difference here.
Hi! Where do the quotes of ZongMi come from? I'm quite interested in reading more of his stuff. Is it in the commentary of the Complete Enlightenment Sutra?

Post Reply

Return to “Mahāyāna Buddhism”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 57 guests