The danger of the snake is a different sort of problem than the question of existence or non-existence.Wayfarer wrote: ↑Wed Aug 29, 2018 10:29 pm'A degree of reality' is the nearest approximation in the current English lexicon. A poisonous snake is actually poisonous, and not knowing that might have fatal consequences - even if, like anything else, the snake is 'ultimately non-existent'. This is why 'The Two Truths' is important.
Question: in the Sanskrit terms 'abhidharma' and 'abhijñā ', what is the meaning of the particle, 'abhi'?
Do Bodhisattvas such as Avalokiteshvara, live in our realm, or do they live outside of samsara?
Re: Do Bodhisattvas such as Avalokiteshvara, live in our realm, or do they live outside of samsara?
There is no suffering to be severed. Ignorance and klesas are indivisible from bodhi. There is no cause of suffering to be abandoned. Since extremes and the false are the Middle and genuine, there is no path to be practiced. Samsara is nirvana. No severance achieved. No suffering nor its cause. No path, no end. There is no transcendent realm; there is only the one true aspect. There is nothing separate from the true aspect.
-Guanding, Perfect and Sudden Contemplation,
-Guanding, Perfect and Sudden Contemplation,
- PadmaVonSamba
- Posts: 9441
- Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am
Re: Do Bodhisattvas such as Avalokiteshvara, live in our realm, or do they live outside of samsara?
Rather than saying that Avalokiteshvara (Manjusri, etc.) exist or don't exist,
which is a hopelessly dualistic way of approaching the whole issue,
Better perhaps, to say, "They are no more real than you are"
because when we ask if something is real or not, to what are we comparing that reality?
Ultimately, asking: "Are they real in the same sense that you and I are real?"
Do they exist? Do you exist?
We can say that outside the mind, they do not exist.
Likewise, outside of the mind, I do not exist.
If you yourself have no intrinsic reality, then what difference does it make regarding them?
But to the degree you think you yourself are real, then that's just how real they are as well.
.
.
.
which is a hopelessly dualistic way of approaching the whole issue,
Better perhaps, to say, "They are no more real than you are"
because when we ask if something is real or not, to what are we comparing that reality?
Ultimately, asking: "Are they real in the same sense that you and I are real?"
Do they exist? Do you exist?
We can say that outside the mind, they do not exist.
Likewise, outside of the mind, I do not exist.
If you yourself have no intrinsic reality, then what difference does it make regarding them?
But to the degree you think you yourself are real, then that's just how real they are as well.
.
.
.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
Re: Do Bodhisattvas such as Avalokiteshvara, live in our realm, or do they live outside of samsara?
I don't think that works unless the person already has a correct view of real/unreal.PadmaVonSamba wrote: ↑Fri Aug 31, 2018 4:07 pm Rather than saying that Avalokiteshvara (Manjusri, etc.) exist or don't exist,
which is a hopelessly dualistic way of approaching the whole issue,
Better perhaps, to say, "They are no more real than you are"
because when we ask if something is real or not, to what are we comparing that reality?
Ultimately, asking: "Are they real in the same sense that you and I are real?"
Do they exist? Do you exist?
We can say that outside the mind, they do not exist.
Likewise, outside of the mind, I do not exist.
If you yourself have no intrinsic reality, then what difference does it make regarding them?
But to the degree you think you yourself are real, then that's just how real they are as well.
.
.
.
There is no suffering to be severed. Ignorance and klesas are indivisible from bodhi. There is no cause of suffering to be abandoned. Since extremes and the false are the Middle and genuine, there is no path to be practiced. Samsara is nirvana. No severance achieved. No suffering nor its cause. No path, no end. There is no transcendent realm; there is only the one true aspect. There is nothing separate from the true aspect.
-Guanding, Perfect and Sudden Contemplation,
-Guanding, Perfect and Sudden Contemplation,
Re: Do Bodhisattvas such as Avalokiteshvara, live in our realm, or do they live outside of samsara?
Dependent existence as defined by Nagarjuna requires the dependent object to be dependent on something ultimately real. I am interpreting the usage of dependent existence by Wayfarer as referring to an object that is dependent on something regardless of whether ultimately there is something real at the end.Norwegian wrote: ↑Wed Aug 29, 2018 7:55 pm"Dependent existents" is refuted as wrong view in Madhyamaka.
To begin with, the Buddha taught the following [all citations below translated by Malcolm some years ago]:
"By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one."
Then, following the above, from Nagarjuna's MMK, with commentary by Buddhapalita:
"Explanation: Do not grasp misguided [views]!
Whoever [follows] a view of self-existence, dependent existence,
existents or non-existents,
they do not see the truth
in the Buddha's doctrine.
Someone like that, who [has a] view of self existence, dependent existence, existents and non-existents, they do not see the truth in the profound [dependent origination] as the supreme teaching of the Buddha. We, in the correct way, see the non existence of the self-existence of things which appear because the sun of dependent origination arose. Therefore since we see the truth, liberation can be accepted only for us. If it is asked what is the reason for this, thus:
Because the Bhagavan, showing existents and non-existents,
also negates
both 'is' and 'is not'
in the Katyayana Oral Instruction.
Why? Because the Bhagavan, knowledgeable in the truth of the ultimate, always demonstrating [what is] existent and non-existent, correctly determines both 'is' and 'is not' in the 'Katyayana Oral Instruction' Sutra. Therefore, whoever follows a view for existence or non-existence in existents, because the truth is not seen by them, also liberation cannot be accepted for them. As we do not grasp to 'it is' [or] 'it is not' as conventionally determined, [liberation] is not unacceptable [for us].
If seeing existents and non-existents is seeing the truth, because the truth would never be seen,
[seeing existents and non-existents] is not [seeing] the truth. Therefor, the non-existence of the
self-existence of things is the truth, by seeing only that, will there be liberation."
Unfortunately the translation of Buddhapalita's commentary* is still not yet published, despite it being planned translated (the site of the commentary translation is now defunct). So I guess we will have to wait some more for that one...
(* See here: viewtopic.php?t=17795)