Lotus Vs wisdom Vs flower garland sutra worldview?

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
Queequeg
Global Moderator
Posts: 11022
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: Lotus Vs wisdom Vs flower garland sutra worldview?

Post by Queequeg »

Malcolm wrote: Wed Nov 14, 2018 9:02 pm
Queequeg wrote: Wed Nov 14, 2018 8:58 pm
Malcolm wrote: Wed Nov 14, 2018 2:03 am

No, he should eliminate this statement: "The Absolute, the whole of reality, is one and eternal, always the same and omnipresent."

This is a completely nonbuddhist POV. There is no "absolute," "no whole of reality," no "one," and there is nothing that is eternal.

"...each of these three—sense organ, object, this moment of consciousness—is itself the Absolute."

This statement is also faulty, for obvious reasons that I should not have to explain.

The "Buddhism" of this Ziporyn fellow is totally wrong view, 100%.
That statement is qualified immediately after the sentence you selectively quoted.
Yeah, his qualification does not hold. His thinking is absolutely sloppy and incoherent. He should really lay off the Taoism.
Duly noted.
Those who, even with distracted minds,
Entered a stupa compound
And chanted but once, “Namo Buddhaya!”
Have certainly attained the path of the buddhas.

-Lotus Sutra, Expedient Means Chapter

There are beings with little dust in their eyes who are falling away because they do not hear the Dhamma. There will be those who will understand the Dhamma.
-Ayacana Sutta
Malcolm
Posts: 32624
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Lotus Vs wisdom Vs flower garland sutra worldview?

Post by Malcolm »

Queequeg wrote: Wed Nov 14, 2018 9:03 pm
PeterC wrote: Wed Nov 14, 2018 3:23 am
Admin_PC wrote: Wed Nov 14, 2018 2:22 am I'm no Chinese translator, but i'm not even sure how they get that translation from 法界對法界起法界
If I were to take a stab at it: the Dharma realm facing the Dharma realm awakens to the Dharma realm.
Agree, it's selective quotation + poetic license = nonsense. But what really annoys me is that he doesn't provide a reference so that I can read the original in context. You would expect better from a Stanford professor.
U. Chicago.

It is a quote from on online Philosophy resource. Often those articles are limited by guidelines from the editors. In the spirit of readability and wide appeal, the editors likely proscribed extensive citations. We'd need to see the guidelines to determine who's at fault for not providing a citation.
The more one digs down into Ziporyn's writing, the more incoherent one finds the basic foundation of his thinking to be. Of course he is not a stupid person, in fact, his main fault is likely being too smart.
User avatar
Queequeg
Global Moderator
Posts: 11022
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: Lotus Vs wisdom Vs flower garland sutra worldview?

Post by Queequeg »

Malcolm wrote: Wed Nov 14, 2018 9:08 pm
Queequeg wrote: Wed Nov 14, 2018 9:03 pm
PeterC wrote: Wed Nov 14, 2018 3:23 am

Agree, it's selective quotation + poetic license = nonsense. But what really annoys me is that he doesn't provide a reference so that I can read the original in context. You would expect better from a Stanford professor.
U. Chicago.

It is a quote from on online Philosophy resource. Often those articles are limited by guidelines from the editors. In the spirit of readability and wide appeal, the editors likely proscribed extensive citations. We'd need to see the guidelines to determine who's at fault for not providing a citation.
The more one digs down into Ziporyn's writing, the more incoherent one finds the basic foundation of his thinking to be. Of course he is not a stupid person, in fact, his main fault is likely being too smart.
Anything else you'd like to add? You do seem intent on telling me something. Noted. Thank you.

What does this have to do with the annoyance of lack of citations?
Those who, even with distracted minds,
Entered a stupa compound
And chanted but once, “Namo Buddhaya!”
Have certainly attained the path of the buddhas.

-Lotus Sutra, Expedient Means Chapter

There are beings with little dust in their eyes who are falling away because they do not hear the Dhamma. There will be those who will understand the Dhamma.
-Ayacana Sutta
User avatar
Queequeg
Global Moderator
Posts: 11022
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: Lotus Vs wisdom Vs flower garland sutra worldview?

Post by Queequeg »

Malcolm wrote: Wed Nov 14, 2018 9:01 pm
Queequeg wrote: Wed Nov 14, 2018 8:42 pm
Note where that passage is quoted from. Its a Western oriented philosophy reference. What significance would dharmadhatu have to a Western philosopher?

I can see the shortcomings in "absolute". What would be a simple way to translate dharmadhatu for non-Buddhist specialist?
Literally the term means "source of phenomena."
How would you explain that to a non-specialist, though? If you said that, I think that's misleading.
Those who, even with distracted minds,
Entered a stupa compound
And chanted but once, “Namo Buddhaya!”
Have certainly attained the path of the buddhas.

-Lotus Sutra, Expedient Means Chapter

There are beings with little dust in their eyes who are falling away because they do not hear the Dhamma. There will be those who will understand the Dhamma.
-Ayacana Sutta
Admin_PC
Former staff member
Posts: 4860
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2012 11:17 pm

Re: Lotus Vs wisdom Vs flower garland sutra worldview?

Post by Admin_PC »

Queequeg wrote: Wed Nov 14, 2018 8:42 pmI can see the shortcomings in "absolute". What would be a simple way to translate dharmadhatu for non-Buddhist specialist?
Just me, but I would probably stick with something simple like "the realm of experience" (or what Malcolm suggested) rather than fabricating the concept of The Absolute. I mean Buddhism has ultimate truth in the 2 truths doctrine (which is sometimes referred to as "absolute truth"), but "The Absolute" reads a lot more like "the One" of Neoplatonism or "the Tao" of Taoism than what's found in Buddhism.

That Swanson translation is infinitely better and covers the whole sentence.
DGA
Former staff member
Posts: 9423
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Lotus Vs wisdom Vs flower garland sutra worldview?

Post by DGA »

Malcolm wrote: Wed Nov 14, 2018 9:08 pm
The more one digs down into Ziporyn's writing, the more incoherent one finds the basic foundation of his thinking to be. Of course he is not a stupid person, in fact, his main fault is likely being too smart.
His book Being and Ambiguity is highly entertaining if you have the right sensibility for philosophy jokes. I liked it.
Malcolm
Posts: 32624
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Lotus Vs wisdom Vs flower garland sutra worldview?

Post by Malcolm »

Queequeg wrote: Wed Nov 14, 2018 9:20 pm
Malcolm wrote: Wed Nov 14, 2018 9:01 pm
Queequeg wrote: Wed Nov 14, 2018 8:42 pm
Note where that passage is quoted from. Its a Western oriented philosophy reference. What significance would dharmadhatu have to a Western philosopher?

I can see the shortcomings in "absolute". What would be a simple way to translate dharmadhatu for non-Buddhist specialist?
Literally the term means "source of phenomena."
How would you explain that to a non-specialist, though? If you said that, I think that's misleading.

In usage given in the citation, the term seems to be more consistent with the eighteen dhatus of Abhidharma, taken as a trio: the six dhātus of sense organs; the six dhātus of sense consciousnesses; and the six dhātus of sense objects. In other words, the sense organ element; the sense object element; and sense consciousness element for a given sense perception. The usage you note from Swanson has nothing at all do with the dharmadhātu as defined in Mahāyāna as a generic term for emptiness. It has to do with describing the process of cognition. You do not find the term dharmadhātu used in Mahāyāna texts in this way unless it is explicitly denoted as part of the eighteen dhātus. Calling any three of these dhātus "the absolute" is just wrong. It shows that BZ has no understanding of basic Buddhism. The usage of "dharma" here seems generic, in the sense that the eighteen dhatus are all dharmas, and the use of the term dharmadhātu here is generic because the sense organ, object, and consciousness are not being determined.
Malcolm
Posts: 32624
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Lotus Vs wisdom Vs flower garland sutra worldview?

Post by Malcolm »

DGA wrote: Wed Nov 14, 2018 9:30 pm
Malcolm wrote: Wed Nov 14, 2018 9:08 pm
The more one digs down into Ziporyn's writing, the more incoherent one finds the basic foundation of his thinking to be. Of course he is not a stupid person, in fact, his main fault is likely being too smart.
His book Being and Ambiguity is highly entertaining if you have the right sensibility for philosophy jokes. I liked it.
Too busy reading Dharma books to waste time on philosophy jokes.
User avatar
Queequeg
Global Moderator
Posts: 11022
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: Lotus Vs wisdom Vs flower garland sutra worldview?

Post by Queequeg »

Admin_PC wrote: Wed Nov 14, 2018 9:22 pm
Queequeg wrote: Wed Nov 14, 2018 8:42 pmI can see the shortcomings in "absolute". What would be a simple way to translate dharmadhatu for non-Buddhist specialist?
Just me, but I would probably stick with something simple like "the realm of experience" (or what Malcolm suggested) rather than fabricating the concept of The Absolute. I mean Buddhism has ultimate truth in the 2 truths doctrine (which is sometimes referred to as "absolute truth"), but "The Absolute" reads a lot more like "the One" of Neoplatonism or "the Tao" of Taoism than what's found in Buddhism.

That Swanson translation is infinitely better and covers the whole sentence.
I don't know if there is an easy way to translate that for a non-specialist.

Can Realm of Experience fit where its a reference to sense objects? I need to think that through a little bit.

Source of phenomena, is awkward, too.

As I went to post, I noted that Malcolm posted above - and I think this addresses the issue he raises.

What needs to be taken into account in the Tiantai context particularly is that any particular dharma is understood to be the dharmadhatu, organized, so to speak around the particular. I think this is a uniquely Tiantai point - from the ordinary Mahayana perspective this meaning will not be apparent. As such, it is the dharmadhatu encountering a sense object, which is by the same analysis the totality of the dharmadhatu. The encounter gives rise to a consciousness of the totality of the dharmadhatu.
Those who, even with distracted minds,
Entered a stupa compound
And chanted but once, “Namo Buddhaya!”
Have certainly attained the path of the buddhas.

-Lotus Sutra, Expedient Means Chapter

There are beings with little dust in their eyes who are falling away because they do not hear the Dhamma. There will be those who will understand the Dhamma.
-Ayacana Sutta
User avatar
rory
Posts: 1574
Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 8:08 am
Location: SouthEast USA

Re: Lotus Vs wisdom Vs flower garland sutra worldview?

Post by rory »

Queequeg wrote: Wed Nov 14, 2018 9:15 pm


U. Chicago.

It is a quote from on online Philosophy resource. Often those articles are limited by guidelines from the editors. In the spirit of readability and wide appeal, the editors likely proscribed extensive citations. We'd need to see the guidelines to determine who's at fault for not providing a citation.
The citation comes from Ziporyn Emptiness and Omnipresence p. 292 Footnote 6
6. Literally, “When we understand it like this, we see that whenever sense organ and sense object come into contact, giving rise to a single moment of experience, the sense organ is a treasury of all [shall we say] 84,000 phenomena and the sense object is likewise a treasury of all 84,000 phenomena—and when that one moment of experience arises, it too is the treasury of all 84,000 phenomena. [For example,] the Dharmadhātu of Buddhahood faces the Dharmadhātu and thus gives rise to the Dharmadhātu, so all are alike aspects of Buddhahood.” 若得此解. 根塵一念心起. 根即八萬四千法藏. 塵亦爾. 一念心起. 亦八萬四千法藏. 佛法界對法界起法界無非佛法. T46.9a. Dharmadhātu means something like “The Total Field of All Phenomena,” so we could render this, “The Total Field of All Phenomena faces the Total Field of All Phenomena and thus gives rise to the Total Field of All Phenomena.” See also Zhanran’s paraphrase and discussion, leaving out the “of Buddhahood,” in Zhiguanyili, T46.541.b.
gassho
Rory
Namu Kanzeon Bosatsu
Chih-I:
The Tai-ching states "the women in the realms of Mara, Sakra and Brahma all neither abandoned ( their old) bodies nor received (new) bodies. They all received buddhahood with their current bodies (genshin)" Thus these verses state that the dharma nature is like a great ocean. No right or wrong is preached (within it) Ordinary people and sages are equal, without superiority or inferiority
Paul, Groner "The Lotus Sutra in Japanese Culture"eds. Tanabe p. 58
https://www.tendai-usa.org/
User avatar
Caoimhghín
Posts: 2815
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
Location: Whitby, Ontario

Re: Lotus Vs wisdom Vs flower garland sutra worldview?

Post by Caoimhghín »

Admin_PC wrote: Wed Nov 14, 2018 9:22 pm
Queequeg wrote: Wed Nov 14, 2018 8:42 pmI can see the shortcomings in "absolute". What would be a simple way to translate dharmadhatu for non-Buddhist specialist?
Just me, but I would probably stick with something simple like "the realm of experience" (or what Malcolm suggested) rather than fabricating the concept of The Absolute. I mean Buddhism has ultimate truth in the 2 truths doctrine (which is sometimes referred to as "absolute truth"), but "The Absolute" reads a lot more like "the One" of Neoplatonism or "the Tao" of Taoism than what's found in Buddhism.

That Swanson translation is infinitely better and covers the whole sentence.
Or one could just say "the set of all dharmas".
savi saghara aṇica di, savi saghara dukha di, savi dhama aṇatva di:
yada paśadi cakhkṣuma tada nivinadi dukha eṣo mago viśodhia.

"All formations are inconstant," he said.
"All formations are stressful," he said.
"All phenomena are selfless," he said.
When one sees this, one becomes adverse to stress, and this is the path of purity.

(Gāndhārī Dharmapada fragments)
Malcolm
Posts: 32624
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Lotus Vs wisdom Vs flower garland sutra worldview?

Post by Malcolm »

Queequeg wrote: Wed Nov 14, 2018 10:02 pm What needs to be taken into account in the Tiantai context particularly is that any particular dharma is understood to be the dharmadhatu, organized, so to speak around the particular. I think this is a uniquely Tiantai point - from the ordinary Mahayana perspective this meaning will not be apparent. As such, it is the dharmadhatu encountering a sense object, which is by the same analysis the totality of the dharmadhatu. The encounter gives rise to a consciousness of the totality of the dharmadhatu.
It is well understood in Mahāyāna in general that there are no phenomena not included in the dharmadhātu.

The question here is not the general Mahāyāna understanding. Of course, if one is making this kind of argument that you proposed, if everything is the dharmadhātu, all cognitive processes and their parts are included within the dharmadhātu. This is trivial. The point you alluded to is covered explicitly on pp. 762-767 in vol. 2 of CSQI.

As Aryadeva points out, by realizing the emptiness of one thing (dharmatā), one realizes the emptiness of all things (dharmdhātu). So I don't think this point is unique to Chih-I. But it is not controversial point, it's middle-period, standard Mahāyāna— empty sense consciousnesses arise from the meeting of empty sense organs with empty sense objects. Everything arises from emptiness, and everything disappears into emptiness. And even emptiness itself is not established as anything real. It is all illusory all the way down.

BTW Swanson rightly abandons "realm of reality" as a gloss for dharmadhātu in CSQI.
Malcolm
Posts: 32624
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Lotus Vs wisdom Vs flower garland sutra worldview?

Post by Malcolm »

Coëmgenu wrote: Wed Nov 14, 2018 11:48 pm
Admin_PC wrote: Wed Nov 14, 2018 9:22 pm
Queequeg wrote: Wed Nov 14, 2018 8:42 pmI can see the shortcomings in "absolute". What would be a simple way to translate dharmadhatu for non-Buddhist specialist?
Just me, but I would probably stick with something simple like "the realm of experience" (or what Malcolm suggested) rather than fabricating the concept of The Absolute. I mean Buddhism has ultimate truth in the 2 truths doctrine (which is sometimes referred to as "absolute truth"), but "The Absolute" reads a lot more like "the One" of Neoplatonism or "the Tao" of Taoism than what's found in Buddhism.

That Swanson translation is infinitely better and covers the whole sentence.
Or one could just say "the set of all dharmas".
No, dhātu means either source or element. Not set.
User avatar
Queequeg
Global Moderator
Posts: 11022
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: Lotus Vs wisdom Vs flower garland sutra worldview?

Post by Queequeg »

Malcolm wrote: Thu Nov 15, 2018 12:03 am
Queequeg wrote: Wed Nov 14, 2018 10:02 pm What needs to be taken into account in the Tiantai context particularly is that any particular dharma is understood to be the dharmadhatu, organized, so to speak around the particular. I think this is a uniquely Tiantai point - from the ordinary Mahayana perspective this meaning will not be apparent. As such, it is the dharmadhatu encountering a sense object, which is by the same analysis the totality of the dharmadhatu. The encounter gives rise to a consciousness of the totality of the dharmadhatu.
It is well understood in Mahāyāna in general that there are no phenomena not included in the dharmadhātu.

The question here is not the general Mahāyāna understanding. Of course, if one is making this kind of argument that you proposed, if everything is the dharmadhātu, all cognitive processes and their parts are included within the dharmadhātu. This is trivial. The point you alluded to is covered explicitly on pp. 762-767 in vol. 2 of CSQI.

As Aryadeva points out, by realizing the emptiness of one thing (dharmatā), one realizes the emptiness of all things (dharmdhātu). So I don't think this point is unique to Chih-I. But it is not controversial point, it's middle-period, standard Mahāyāna— empty sense consciousnesses arise from the meeting of empty sense organs with empty sense objects. Everything arises from emptiness, and everything disappears into emptiness. And even emptiness itself is not established as anything real. It is all illusory all the way down.

BTW Swanson rightly abandons "realm of reality" as a gloss for dharmadhātu in CSQI.
It's not a trivial statement to point out that a particular dharma is the dharmadhatu. And it's not the implication you assume. This is a soteriologically critical teaching which explains the universality of Buddha nature, the reason we are even able to interact with Buddha's, and why each thought moment is ripe with awakening.
Those who, even with distracted minds,
Entered a stupa compound
And chanted but once, “Namo Buddhaya!”
Have certainly attained the path of the buddhas.

-Lotus Sutra, Expedient Means Chapter

There are beings with little dust in their eyes who are falling away because they do not hear the Dhamma. There will be those who will understand the Dhamma.
-Ayacana Sutta
User avatar
Caoimhghín
Posts: 2815
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
Location: Whitby, Ontario

Re: Lotus Vs wisdom Vs flower garland sutra worldview?

Post by Caoimhghín »

Malcolm wrote: Thu Nov 15, 2018 12:49 am
Coëmgenu wrote: Wed Nov 14, 2018 11:48 pm
Admin_PC wrote: Wed Nov 14, 2018 9:22 pm Just me, but I would probably stick with something simple like "the realm of experience" (or what Malcolm suggested) rather than fabricating the concept of The Absolute. I mean Buddhism has ultimate truth in the 2 truths doctrine (which is sometimes referred to as "absolute truth"), but "The Absolute" reads a lot more like "the One" of Neoplatonism or "the Tao" of Taoism than what's found in Buddhism.

That Swanson translation is infinitely better and covers the whole sentence.
Or one could just say "the set of all dharmas".
No, dhātu means either source or element. Not set.
Functionally, the dharma-element is the set of all dharmāḥ. The set of all dharmāḥ is the dharma-element, or the dharma-constituent, or even the dharma-piece, that rhetorical "piece" or "bit" or "element" or "constituent" or even "quality" which makes dharmāḥ to be called dharmāḥ. A rhetorical "bit", which has no existence of its own.

Also, "source" may be an esoteric meaning or etymology for "dhātu", but that is not what it means usually.
savi saghara aṇica di, savi saghara dukha di, savi dhama aṇatva di:
yada paśadi cakhkṣuma tada nivinadi dukha eṣo mago viśodhia.

"All formations are inconstant," he said.
"All formations are stressful," he said.
"All phenomena are selfless," he said.
When one sees this, one becomes adverse to stress, and this is the path of purity.

(Gāndhārī Dharmapada fragments)
Malcolm
Posts: 32624
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Lotus Vs wisdom Vs flower garland sutra worldview?

Post by Malcolm »

Queequeg wrote: Thu Nov 15, 2018 1:17 am
Malcolm wrote: Thu Nov 15, 2018 12:03 am
Queequeg wrote: Wed Nov 14, 2018 10:02 pm What needs to be taken into account in the Tiantai context particularly is that any particular dharma is understood to be the dharmadhatu, organized, so to speak around the particular. I think this is a uniquely Tiantai point - from the ordinary Mahayana perspective this meaning will not be apparent. As such, it is the dharmadhatu encountering a sense object, which is by the same analysis the totality of the dharmadhatu. The encounter gives rise to a consciousness of the totality of the dharmadhatu.
It is well understood in Mahāyāna in general that there are no phenomena not included in the dharmadhātu.

The question here is not the general Mahāyāna understanding. Of course, if one is making this kind of argument that you proposed, if everything is the dharmadhātu, all cognitive processes and their parts are included within the dharmadhātu. This is trivial. The point you alluded to is covered explicitly on pp. 762-767 in vol. 2 of CSQI.

As Aryadeva points out, by realizing the emptiness of one thing (dharmatā), one realizes the emptiness of all things (dharmdhātu). So I don't think this point is unique to Chih-I. But it is not controversial point, it's middle-period, standard Mahāyāna— empty sense consciousnesses arise from the meeting of empty sense organs with empty sense objects. Everything arises from emptiness, and everything disappears into emptiness. And even emptiness itself is not established as anything real. It is all illusory all the way down.
Om
BTW Swanson rightly abandons "realm of reality" as a gloss for dharmadhātu in CSQI.
It's not a trivial statement to point out that a particular dharma is the dharmadhatu. And it's not the implication you assume. This is a soteriologically critical teaching which explains the universality of Buddha nature, the reason we are even able to interact with Buddha's, and why each thought moment is ripe with awakening.
It is trivial, and already explicitly mentioned by Nagarjun, to paraphrase, the the nature of the Tathagata is the nature of everything, as the Tathagata has no nature, nothing has a nature. And, for those whom emptiness is possible, everything is possible.

As for every moment of mind being ripe with awakening, I don’t know what you mean by awakening.
User avatar
Queequeg
Global Moderator
Posts: 11022
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: Lotus Vs wisdom Vs flower garland sutra worldview?

Post by Queequeg »

Malcolm wrote: Thu Nov 15, 2018 6:26 am It is trivial, and already explicitly mentioned by Nagarjun, to paraphrase, the the nature of the Tathagata is the nature of everything, as the Tathagata has no nature, nothing has a nature. And, for those whom emptiness is possible, everything is possible.

As for every moment of mind being ripe with awakening, I don’t know what you mean by awakening.
Very well, Malcolm. Let's not bother you with triviality. No matter that you still miss the point. Once again, thanks for your opinion. Noted.

When you can reduce everything to something you already know, it can rightly be said you know everything, right? Talk about trivial.
Those who, even with distracted minds,
Entered a stupa compound
And chanted but once, “Namo Buddhaya!”
Have certainly attained the path of the buddhas.

-Lotus Sutra, Expedient Means Chapter

There are beings with little dust in their eyes who are falling away because they do not hear the Dhamma. There will be those who will understand the Dhamma.
-Ayacana Sutta
User avatar
PeterC
Posts: 2611
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 12:38 pm

Re: Lotus Vs wisdom Vs flower garland sutra worldview?

Post by PeterC »

Queequeg wrote: Wed Nov 14, 2018 8:56 pm The encounter of the dharma realm of the Buddha [= sense organs] and the dharma realm [= sense objects] gives rise to the dharma realm [of the mind: consciousness]; there is nothing that is not the Buddha Dharma.

This makes a lot more sense of the phrase though I can't speak to the usage of 佛法界 in this class of text. Cutting off the "...无非佛法" turns it into something completely different (even if that was Ziporyn quoting a quotation of this in another text)
User avatar
Wayfarer
Former staff member
Posts: 5150
Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 8:31 am
Location: AU

Re: Lotus Vs wisdom Vs flower garland sutra worldview?

Post by Wayfarer »

One example I give is the difference between fake medicine and real medicine (leaving aside the placebo effect). If you had been poisoned and were then offered two bottles, one of which contained an antidote, and one of which did not, then which one you choose has life-or-death consequences. And this is notwithstanding that in ‘the ultimate analysis’, neither of those bottles has ‘own-being’. Pragmatically speaking - speaking on the level of conventional truth - it makes a real difference, even if ‘in the ultimate analysis’ it makes no difference.
'Only practice with no gaining idea' ~ Suzuki Roshi
User avatar
Wayfarer
Former staff member
Posts: 5150
Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 8:31 am
Location: AU

Re: Lotus Vs wisdom Vs flower garland sutra worldview?

Post by Wayfarer »

But I also agree that talk of the ‘eternal absolute’ is not the Buddhist way of teaching. Perhaps ambiguity and reification creeps in, in the translation across cultures and languages.
'Only practice with no gaining idea' ~ Suzuki Roshi
Post Reply

Return to “Mahāyāna Buddhism”