Page 5 of 5

Re: Lotus Vs wisdom Vs flower garland sutra worldview?

Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2018 8:22 am
by Malcolm
Queequeg wrote: Fri Nov 16, 2018 3:05 am Pratitya samutpada.
??? Is this an analysis in support of your thesis? How?

Re: Lotus Vs wisdom Vs flower garland sutra worldview?

Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2018 12:25 pm
by rory
Malcolm wrote: Fri Nov 16, 2018 8:22 am
Queequeg wrote: Fri Nov 16, 2018 3:05 am Pratitya samutpada.
??? Is this an analysis in support of your thesis? How?
No, it's a correction to the copy/paste from the JJRS pdf.
gassho
Rory

Re: Lotus Vs wisdom Vs flower garland sutra worldview?

Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2018 3:59 pm
by Queequeg
When this is, that is.
From the arising of this comes the arising of that.
When this isn't, that isn't.
From the cessation of this comes the cessation of that.
Basic. Critical. Profound? :shrug:

Re: Lotus Vs wisdom Vs flower garland sutra worldview?

Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2018 4:22 pm
by Malcolm
Queequeg wrote: Fri Nov 16, 2018 3:59 pm
When this is, that is.
From the arising of this comes the arising of that.
When this isn't, that isn't.
From the cessation of this comes the cessation of that.
Basic. Critical. Profound? :shrug:
Are you using this as a proof, or are you asking me a question?

Re: Lotus Vs wisdom Vs flower garland sutra worldview?

Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2018 4:51 pm
by Queequeg
Malcolm wrote: Fri Nov 16, 2018 4:22 pm
Queequeg wrote: Fri Nov 16, 2018 3:59 pm
When this is, that is.
From the arising of this comes the arising of that.
When this isn't, that isn't.
From the cessation of this comes the cessation of that.
Basic. Critical. Profound? :shrug:
Are you using this as a proof, or are you asking me a question?
My comments are rhetorical. My answer to your question is this basic teaching on dependent origination. Each particular dharma is, because all other dharmas (collectively, dharmadhatu) are.

Re: Lotus Vs wisdom Vs flower garland sutra worldview?

Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2018 7:51 pm
by rory
Zhanran the great 6th Tiantai patriarch:
"The debates between the Faxiang [Yogacarya] school and the Tiantai school concerning the notion of universal Buddhahood were particularly heated, with the Faxiang school asserting that different beings had different natures and therefore would reach different states of enlightenment, while the Tiantai school argued in favor of the Lotus Sutra teaching of Buddhahood for all beings.[4] Zhanran's view of Buddha nature was expanded in his Jingangpi or "Diamond Scalpel," which is the 'locus classicus' of the doctrine of "the Buddha-nature of Insentient Beings." According to Shuman Chen, Zhanran:
provides his rationale primarily from the perspective of the all-pervasive quality of Buddha-nature, which he considers synonymous with suchness. This rationale indicates that external tangible objects like water, buildings, and flora, formless sounds and smells, and internal thoughts or ideas all possess Buddha-nature. This is because Sakyamuni Buddha and any other Buddha’s meritorious qualities in their practice leading to enlightenment and in the resultant realization do not reject anything, instead embracing all. In the Tiantai terminology, the Buddha and all beings mutually include, inter-pervade, and are identical to each other.
[14]"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiantai#Zhanran

And the wonderful 17th Tiantai Patriarch Zhili:
Zhili's major criticisms included attacking Chan's failure to understand the necessity of the use of words and scriptural study as part of practice as well as criticizing Zongmi's view of a pure mind as the buddha-nature, arguing instead that the "three truths" as taught by Zhiyi are the ultimate reality. For Zhili, mind or consciousness has no special status relative to other types of dharmas, such as physical matter.[19]
[Ziporyn]

gassho
Rory

Re: Lotus Vs wisdom Vs flower garland sutra worldview?

Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2018 8:12 pm
by Malcolm
Queequeg wrote: Fri Nov 16, 2018 4:51 pm
Malcolm wrote: Fri Nov 16, 2018 4:22 pm
Queequeg wrote: Fri Nov 16, 2018 3:59 pm

Basic. Critical. Profound? :shrug:
Are you using this as a proof, or are you asking me a question?
My comments are rhetorical. My answer to your question is this basic teaching on dependent origination. Each particular dharma is, because all other dharmas (collectively, dharmadhatu) are.
The dharmadhātu is not a collection of all dharmas. The dharmadhātu is the nature of all dharmas.

Re: Lotus Vs wisdom Vs flower garland sutra worldview?

Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2018 8:44 pm
by Queequeg
Malcolm wrote: Fri Nov 16, 2018 8:12 pm
Queequeg wrote: Fri Nov 16, 2018 4:51 pm
Malcolm wrote: Fri Nov 16, 2018 4:22 pm

Are you using this as a proof, or are you asking me a question?
My comments are rhetorical. My answer to your question is this basic teaching on dependent origination. Each particular dharma is, because all other dharmas (collectively, dharmadhatu) are.
The dharmadhātu is not a collection of all dharmas. The dharmadhātu is the nature of all dharmas.
LOL, yes, that's all that term means.

Come on.

Re: Lotus Vs wisdom Vs flower garland sutra worldview?

Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2018 11:16 pm
by Malcolm
Queequeg wrote: Fri Nov 16, 2018 8:44 pm
Malcolm wrote: Fri Nov 16, 2018 8:12 pm
Queequeg wrote: Fri Nov 16, 2018 4:51 pm

My comments are rhetorical. My answer to your question is this basic teaching on dependent origination. Each particular dharma is, because all other dharmas (collectively, dharmadhatu) are.
The dharmadhātu is not a collection of all dharmas. The dharmadhātu is the nature of all dharmas.
LOL, yes, that's all that term means.

Come on.

In one place you claim a given particular dharma is the dharmadhātu (x=y); in the next place you claim that any given dharma exists because all dharmas exist (because x—> y), which you define collectively as the "dharmadhātu, which definition is incorrect; and finally, you assent to the point that "dharmadhātu" describes the nature of all dharmas (as emptiness, suchness, the limit of reality, and so on). This is incoherent.

Moreover, your reasoning that dependent origination covers your identity proposition is also incorrect. Dependent origination only covers conditioned phenomena. Any given dependently produced dharma is compounded. The dharmadhātu is uncompounded. It is completely incoherent to claim that any compounded entity is identical with an uncompounded entity. There is no analysis that one can conduct to demonstrate this point. It would be like saying that upon analysis, earth is space.

Re: Lotus Vs wisdom Vs flower garland sutra worldview?

Posted: Sat Nov 17, 2018 5:11 pm
by Queequeg
Malcolm wrote: Fri Nov 16, 2018 11:16 pm
Queequeg wrote: Fri Nov 16, 2018 8:44 pm
Malcolm wrote: Fri Nov 16, 2018 8:12 pm

The dharmadhātu is not a collection of all dharmas. The dharmadhātu is the nature of all dharmas.
LOL, yes, that's all that term means.

Come on.

In one place you claim a given particular dharma is the dharmadhātu (x=y); in the next place you claim that any given dharma exists because all dharmas exist (because x—> y), which you define collectively as the "dharmadhātu, which definition is incorrect; and finally, you assent to the point that "dharmadhātu" describes the nature of all dharmas (as emptiness, suchness, the limit of reality, and so on). This is incoherent.

Moreover, your reasoning that dependent origination covers your identity proposition is also incorrect. Dependent origination only covers conditioned phenomena. Any given dependently produced dharma is compounded. The dharmadhātu is uncompounded. It is completely incoherent to claim that any compounded entity is identical with an uncompounded entity. There is no analysis that one can conduct to demonstrate this point. It would be like saying that upon analysis, earth is space.
sigh. I didn't assent. I was laughing at your reductive definition.

From the Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism -

"In Sanskrit, "dharma-realm," viz., "realm of reality," or "dharma element"; a term that has two primary denotations... [Abhidharma definition omitted] In the MAHAYANA, dharmadhatu is used primarily to mean "sphere of dharma," which denotes the infinite domain in which the activity of all dharmas takes place - i.e., the universe..."

ie. "all other dharmas (collectively, dharmadhatu)".

You're trying to limit this discussion to Abhidharma. This subject is not limited by that sub-category of Buddhist teachings.

I think my explanation above amply explains the point I am making. Reducing what is written to the limitations and interpretation you want to impose... well, then, take is easy, M.

Re: Lotus Vs wisdom Vs flower garland sutra worldview?

Posted: Sat Nov 17, 2018 7:26 pm
by Malcolm
Queequeg wrote: Sat Nov 17, 2018 5:11 pm

From the Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism -

"In Sanskrit, "dharma-realm," viz., "realm of reality," or "dharma element"; a term that has two primary denotations... [Abhidharma definition omitted] In the MAHAYANA, dharmadhatu is used primarily to mean "sphere of dharma," which denotes the infinite domain in which the activity of all dharmas takes place - i.e., the universe..."

ie. "all other dharmas (collectively, dharmadhatu)".
The inference you have made, based on the definition as you understand it, is incorrect. The dharmadhātu is uncompounded. Since your definition is incorrect, your argument is flawed.

The basic statement you first made was, "a given particular compounded dharma is the dharmadhātu (an uncompounded dharma)." This is incoherent.

You then changed your tune to "because a given particular compounded dharma exists, all compounded dharmas exist." This is just the Sarvastivādin generative cause, kāraṇahetu, that is, all phenomena are generative causes of all other phenomena with the exception of themselves. This is classical Abhidharma. See page 254, Abdhidharmakośabhaṣyaṃ, Pruden. But this is not even at the level of dependent origination yet. The six causes and the four conditions are explained prior to dependent origination; which only has to do with afflictive causes that generate samsaric existence, not causes and conditions in general. The gatha you quoted by the Buddha was actually spoken by him in response to the question of who this or that monk had been in a past life. His intention, in that statement, was to point out from affliction and action arise suffering, and with the absence of affliction and action, suffering ceases.

Also, your error in the latter statement is equating all dharmas with the dharmadhātu.

As I said above, the dharmadhātu is uncompounded. For example, Vasubandhu explains in his commentary on the Mahāyānasūtra-alaṃkāra, "The dharmadhātu is uncompounded because it does not arise and it does not perish." Maitreyanātha explains in the Distinguishing the the Middle from Extremes, "When emptiness is summarized, it is called suchness, absence of characteristics, the limit of the real (bhūtakoṭi), and the dharmadhātu." Etc., there are many other places where this is explained in sūtras and saśtras.
You're trying to limit this discussion to Abhidharma. This subject is not limited by that sub-category of Buddhist teachings.
No, actually, I am pointing out that in the Mahāyāna, dharmadhātu is a synonym of emptiness, suchness, the reality-limit (bhūta-koṭi), etc. As such, it cannot be construed the way the way you are trying to construe it.

Re: Lotus Vs wisdom Vs flower garland sutra worldview?

Posted: Sun Nov 18, 2018 3:39 pm
by Queequeg
Malcolm wrote: Sat Nov 17, 2018 7:26 pm
Queequeg wrote: Sat Nov 17, 2018 5:11 pm

From the Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism -

"In Sanskrit, "dharma-realm," viz., "realm of reality," or "dharma element"; a term that has two primary denotations... [Abhidharma definition omitted] In the MAHAYANA, dharmadhatu is used primarily to mean "sphere of dharma," which denotes the infinite domain in which the activity of all dharmas takes place - i.e., the universe..."

ie. "all other dharmas (collectively, dharmadhatu)".
The inference you have made, based on the definition as you understand it, is incorrect. The dharmadhātu is uncompounded. Since your definition is incorrect, your argument is flawed.

The basic statement you first made was, "a given particular compounded dharma is the dharmadhātu (an uncompounded dharma)." This is incoherent.

You then changed your tune to "because a given particular compounded dharma exists, all compounded dharmas exist." This is just the Sarvastivādin generative cause, kāraṇahetu, that is, all phenomena are generative causes of all other phenomena with the exception of themselves. This is classical Abhidharma. See page 254, Abdhidharmakośabhaṣyaṃ, Pruden. But this is not even at the level of dependent origination yet. The six causes and the four conditions are explained prior to dependent origination; which only has to do with afflictive causes that generate samsaric existence, not causes and conditions in general. The gatha you quoted by the Buddha was actually spoken by him in response to the question of who this or that monk had been in a past life. His intention, in that statement, was to point out from affliction and action arise suffering, and with the absence of affliction and action, suffering ceases.

Also, your error in the latter statement is equating all dharmas with the dharmadhātu.

As I said above, the dharmadhātu is uncompounded. For example, Vasubandhu explains in his commentary on the Mahāyānasūtra-alaṃkāra, "The dharmadhātu is uncompounded because it does not arise and it does not perish." Maitreyanātha explains in the Distinguishing the the Middle from Extremes, "When emptiness is summarized, it is called suchness, absence of characteristics, the limit of the real (bhūtakoṭi), and the dharmadhātu." Etc., there are many other places where this is explained in sūtras and saśtras.
You're trying to limit this discussion to Abhidharma. This subject is not limited by that sub-category of Buddhist teachings.
No, actually, I am pointing out that in the Mahāyāna, dharmadhātu is a synonym of emptiness, suchness, the reality-limit (bhūta-koṭi), etc. As such, it cannot be construed the way the way you are trying to construe it.
I'll have to get back to you. I need to understand what you have written. Might take a while.

Re: Lotus Vs wisdom Vs flower garland sutra worldview?

Posted: Sun Nov 18, 2018 4:27 pm
by Malcolm
Queequeg wrote: Sun Nov 18, 2018 3:39 pm
Malcolm wrote: Sat Nov 17, 2018 7:26 pm
Queequeg wrote: Sat Nov 17, 2018 5:11 pm

From the Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism -

"In Sanskrit, "dharma-realm," viz., "realm of reality," or "dharma element"; a term that has two primary denotations... [Abhidharma definition omitted] In the MAHAYANA, dharmadhatu is used primarily to mean "sphere of dharma," which denotes the infinite domain in which the activity of all dharmas takes place - i.e., the universe..."

ie. "all other dharmas (collectively, dharmadhatu)".
The inference you have made, based on the definition as you understand it, is incorrect. The dharmadhātu is uncompounded. Since your definition is incorrect, your argument is flawed.

The basic statement you first made was, "a given particular compounded dharma is the dharmadhātu (an uncompounded dharma)." This is incoherent.

You then changed your tune to "because a given particular compounded dharma exists, all compounded dharmas exist." This is just the Sarvastivādin generative cause, kāraṇahetu, that is, all phenomena are generative causes of all other phenomena with the exception of themselves. This is classical Abhidharma. See page 254, Abdhidharmakośabhaṣyaṃ, Pruden. But this is not even at the level of dependent origination yet. The six causes and the four conditions are explained prior to dependent origination; which only has to do with afflictive causes that generate samsaric existence, not causes and conditions in general. The gatha you quoted by the Buddha was actually spoken by him in response to the question of who this or that monk had been in a past life. His intention, in that statement, was to point out from affliction and action arise suffering, and with the absence of affliction and action, suffering ceases.

Also, your error in the latter statement is equating all dharmas with the dharmadhātu.

As I said above, the dharmadhātu is uncompounded. For example, Vasubandhu explains in his commentary on the Mahāyānasūtra-alaṃkāra, "The dharmadhātu is uncompounded because it does not arise and it does not perish." Maitreyanātha explains in the Distinguishing the the Middle from Extremes, "When emptiness is summarized, it is called suchness, absence of characteristics, the limit of the real (bhūtakoṭi), and the dharmadhātu." Etc., there are many other places where this is explained in sūtras and saśtras.
You're trying to limit this discussion to Abhidharma. This subject is not limited by that sub-category of Buddhist teachings.
No, actually, I am pointing out that in the Mahāyāna, dharmadhātu is a synonym of emptiness, suchness, the reality-limit (bhūta-koṭi), etc. As such, it cannot be construed the way the way you are trying to construe it.
I'll have to get back to you. I need to understand what you have written. Might take a while.
Feel free to take your time. I am in no hurry.

Re: Lotus Vs wisdom Vs flower garland sutra worldview?

Posted: Sun Nov 18, 2018 11:58 pm
by Queequeg
:cheers:

Re: Lotus Vs wisdom Vs flower garland sutra worldview?

Posted: Mon Nov 19, 2018 3:39 pm
by DGA
Malcolm wrote: Wed Nov 14, 2018 4:06 am
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.

You can only translate things like that within the context of the text, referring also to the contemporary commentaries and the common usage of the terms at the time. Which perhaps brings us back to the question of why/how to study ancient texts: slowly, from multiple angles, and with an understanding of the technical terms used and the choices made in interpreting them. Otherwise you risk thinking something expresses 'truth' because it sounds nice, when in fact all it expresses is confusion.
Having read the paper to which Garfield, et al, are responding, all I can say is that BZ”s apparent knowledge of Indian Buddhism is at best, superficial.
Apropos of this discussion on Ziporyn:

You can find some echoes of his thinking in this 2013 lecture by a current Tendai teacher, Ryoei Tyler:

viewtopic.php?f=64&t=29928