Can’t do much now. But it is called, “self-empty, affirming negation”.
“Affirming” being the critical term.
Can’t do much now. But it is called, “self-empty, affirming negation”.
You're new here. I've had this same discussion with these same people multiple times, minus the Situ R. book referenced in this thread. It's getting really old.
I don't think being argumentative is inevitable. Being argumentative is a choice/attitude. Disagreeing with people may be inevitable. Whether that turns into an argument or not is another thing, but it may without any of the people necessarily being argumentative.
Ideally, not really in practice.Virgo wrote: ↑Tue Jun 26, 2018 1:56 amI don't think being argumentative is inevitable. Being argumentative is a choice/attitude. Disagreeing with people may be inevitable. Whether that turns into an argument or not is another thing, but it may without any of the people necessarily being argumentative.
Kevin...
Situ R wrote:Now going to Shentong Ma-yin-gag, what does it
says about Buddha nature? I’m using the same subject
because then we can a get grip on it. If I use different
subjects for each one then we will get lost. So using the
same subject, Buddha nature, it is permanent and
unchangeable and not created by anybody, it is not
created with anything, it has no limitation, it is limitless.
That is Buddha nature’s quality. For example, the quality
of fire is hot. The quality of space is empty. The quality
of sun is bright. Just like that, the quality of Buddha
nature is limitless, incorruptible, and absolutely forever.
That is Shentong Ma-yin-gag. Of course Shentong Mayin-gag,
when in debate, for the purpose of philosophical
debate, can describe Rangtong Ma-gag as nihilist, and
Rangtong Ma-gag, for the sake of debating, can call
Shentong Ma-yin-gag as eternalist. But if you ask me,
what is my philosophy, I am Shentong Ma-yin-gag. For
me Buddha nature is beyond nothing. Buddha nature’s
quality is non-dualistic, free of limitation, limitless,
perfect, incorruptible, primordial, that is the essence of
everyone and everything.
I'm not sure I'd say "marginal" although it is primarily an East Asian teaching. There are in fact references to it in Tibetan Buddhism but they are usually indirect.Marc wrote: ↑Mon Jun 25, 2018 4:15 pm "Interconnectedness" thought as some kind of "interpenetration", where "everything is connected with everything else, at every single point in time and space" is a central theme of the Huayan school of Chinese Buddhism, but, as far as I can tell, this view is rather marginal if you take Buddhism as a whole.
Indeed Simon.
Hi Kirt,
And what about Metta? Is metta not used to "establish a connection"?Astus wrote: ↑Mon Jun 25, 2018 3:29 pmContemplating that samsara has no beginning (SN 15.14) is meant to raise the sense of renunciation, while considering other people's kindness is to develop gratitude (AN 2.31). Neither are about establishing the concept that there is an invisible connection. And the reason for that is that all beings are responsible for their own actions and reap the fruits of their own deeds (MN 135).
One develops kindness in order to attain the 11 benefits (see: AN 11.16), and possibly even liberation (MN 52). Even the four means of attraction (samgrahavastu / 四攝法) are about liberating beings.
Yet we can still use the word 'connection' conventionally in the sense that a Bodhisattvas realization and activity is connected or interdependent with the conventional occurrence of sentient beings.
I'm not talking of any ultimate level, more like "middle level" (conventional analytical/philosophical), that I think the OP is asking about. Of course, connections do make sense on the ordinary conventional level, but that does not require much Buddhist explanation.
.If we believe in the continuity of mind, then love inconspicuously connects us to the ones we love with continuous positive energy, so that even tangible separations between people who love each other do not reduce the intangible power of love.
Well said. I think it's easier to understand that shunyata, Emptiness, means nothing has a separate "self" - this doesn't imply that there is a Oneness that has a separate "Self", because nothing does. This goes to the core, anatta, the non-existence of self, anywhere, for anything. TNH's take is that upon seeing deeply every "self" is entirely made up of "non-self" elements. Either way, what's to be taken away from this is that our delusion is in seeing a "Self" where none exists, that our world is made up on many "selves" which if you happen to look at it without self-view, you can't see any of it. Nothing is either self nor non-self. And then who is seeing it? And how do you define "it" ?Simon E. wrote: ↑Mon Jun 25, 2018 5:04 pmI mean no criticism of Thich Nhat Hahn when I say that a misunderstanding of his teaching on 'Interbeing' has sewn much confusion..on the surface he appears to be supporting the ideas of Advaita.Marc wrote: ↑Mon Jun 25, 2018 4:15 pm Hi everyone !
May be is it worth pointing that Pratītyasamutpāda does not mean "interconnectedness" but "dependent origination", to chose one translation amongst many.
"Interconnectedness" thought as some kind of "interpenetration", where "everything is connected with everything else, at every single point in time and space" is a central theme of the Huayan school of Chinese Buddhism, but, as far as I can tell, this view is rather marginal if you take Buddhism as a whole.
And some do not venture below the surface.
These are basically oral teachings although sometimes they crop up in print.