The role of truth in Buddhism?

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: 10117
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: The role of truth in Buddhism?

Post by Queequeg » Thu Mar 12, 2020 9:57 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Thu Mar 12, 2020 9:52 pm
Queequeg wrote:
Thu Mar 12, 2020 9:37 pm

I will readily agree with you - there is no middle.
Then there is no third truth.
Within the limits that you impose on the discussion, the way you mean that statement, I emphatically agree.
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
LastLegend
Posts: 4137
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:46 pm
Location: Washington DC

Re: The role of truth in Buddhism?

Post by LastLegend » Thu Mar 12, 2020 10:32 pm

Queequeg wrote:
Thu Mar 12, 2020 9:55 pm
In Vimalakirti's silence? :meditate:
It’s the same mind everyone has, but whatever Buddhas tell us, we get stuck.
Make personal vows.

Malcolm
Posts: 31174
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: The role of truth in Buddhism?

Post by Malcolm » Thu Mar 12, 2020 11:02 pm

Queequeg wrote:
Thu Mar 12, 2020 9:32 pm
Malcolm wrote:
Thu Mar 12, 2020 7:09 pm
Queequeg wrote:
Thu Mar 12, 2020 6:49 pm
Sure. The Two Truths teaching doesn't address it either, and we agree that's not the purpose of the teaching.
Not so, the two truths do address it. To put another way: the basis is the two truths; the path is method and wisdom (upāya and prājña); the result is the two kāyas.
Now you're moving goal posts. You're referring to creative extrapolation. smh
No, not at all. For example, The Perfection of Wisdom Sūtra in 18,000 Lines states:

Śariputra, though the bodhisattva mahasattva dwells in the two truths and teaches the dharma to sentient beings, Śariputra, within the two truths, no sentient being is perceived and no sentient is designated; on the other hand, the bodhisattva mahasattva engages in the perfection of wisdom through skillful means and teaches sentient beings. Also, they do not perceive those sentient beings as selves in this lifetime, what need mention what is attained and who attains it? Śariputra, the bodhisattva mahasattva who practices the perfection of wisdom teaches the dharma to sentient beings with skillful means.

Here, for example, one can see the relationship between the two truths and the pair of method and wisdom laid out quite clearly.

Or take for example The Discourse of Vimalakīrti Sūtra:

The mother of bodhsattvas
is the perfection of wisdom,
their father is skillful means—
the guides born from those.

Their wives are the joy in dharma,
their daughters are love and compassion,
their sons are the dharma and the two truths,
and the meaning of emptiness is the house of the mind.


smh.
You might get a crick in your neck with so much shaking.

User avatar
WesleyP
Posts: 148
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:20 am

Re: The role of truth in Buddhism?

Post by WesleyP » Thu Mar 12, 2020 11:07 pm

Queequeg wrote:
Tue Mar 10, 2020 10:15 pm
And what is there to say about that? :shrug:
Some colleges use the true/false example when taking a test.

User avatar
Queequeg
Global Moderator
Posts: 10117
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: The role of truth in Buddhism?

Post by Queequeg » Thu Mar 12, 2020 11:12 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Thu Mar 12, 2020 11:02 pm
No, not at all. For example...
How's this?

:shrug:

That's wonderful. Really.

Still smh.
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: 31174
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: The role of truth in Buddhism?

Post by Malcolm » Thu Mar 12, 2020 11:45 pm

Queequeg wrote:
Thu Mar 12, 2020 11:12 pm
Malcolm wrote:
Thu Mar 12, 2020 11:02 pm
No, not at all. For example...
How's this?

:shrug:

That's wonderful. Really.

Still smh.
well, its pretty simple.

haha
Posts: 418
Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 3:30 pm

Re: The role of truth in Buddhism?

Post by haha » Fri Mar 13, 2020 4:41 am

Malcolm wrote:
Thu Mar 12, 2020 5:08 pm
haha wrote:
Thu Mar 12, 2020 2:21 pm

In other words, T’ien-t’ai explains that the situation in which nothing is reflected in the mirror is the mirror’s natural or potential state
(kutai), while the image of all that is reflected in the mirror represents temporal existence (ketai), and the mirror itself possesses both potential and temporal existence, which represents the entity of the Middle Path (chutai).
This is all within the domain of relative truth.
No, it is not.

Its intended meaning is beyond the relative scope. First, one should understand what the intended meaning of the middle way is (in this context). It is the correct wisdom and understanding; it is the middle of any kinds of two extremes.

There is the extreme of asceticism (suffering) and over-sense-indulgence (pleasure). The middle path is the correct wisdom.
There is the extreme of Existence and Non-Existence. The middle path is the correct wisdom.
There is the extreme of four (i.e. eight negations). The middle path is the correct wisdom.

What we are talking about here is the middle path of The Lotus Sutra (i.e. Zhiyi’s unique understanding and presentation). There is the extreme of kutai and ketai. Chutai represents the entity of the Middle Path.
In other words, T’ien-t’ai explains that the situation in which nothing is reflected in the mirror is the mirror’s natural or potential state (kutai), while the image of all that is reflected in the mirror represents temporal existence (ketai), and the mirror itself possesses both potential and temporal existence, which represents the entity of the Middle Path (chutai).

Source: Middle Path
Last edited by haha on Fri Mar 13, 2020 4:46 am, edited 1 time in total.

haha
Posts: 418
Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 3:30 pm

Re: The role of truth in Buddhism?

Post by haha » Fri Mar 13, 2020 4:42 am

Caoimhghín wrote:
Thu Mar 12, 2020 8:26 pm
haha wrote:
Thu Mar 12, 2020 2:21 pm
Threefold Truth has nothing to do with Indian model of two truths. It has its own meaning and intention; it shows Zhiyi's deeper understanding of the Dharma.
What if I told you there was 75 truths? That would logically make me greater than either venerables Zhiyi or Nichiren.
Base on this statement, one believes that the greater is come from the race of number (i.e. Venerable Zhiyi has 3 and now our Venerable Caoimhghín has 75). By the way, Theravadin have 82, Yogacarin have 100 and so on.

Let’s suppose you have 75 truths. Then, what is the purpose of proclaiming 75 truths by our Venerable? Venerable Zhiyi has proclaimed 3 truths to understand middle from extreme with the help of the Lotus Sutra. But our Venerable Caoimhghín has proclaimed 75 truths to show his superiority. So, it is from being inspired by atma-mana (i.e. influenced by 7th mind). In this case, Venerable Zhiyi is greater.

User avatar
LastLegend
Posts: 4137
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:46 pm
Location: Washington DC

Re: The role of truth in Buddhism?

Post by LastLegend » Fri Mar 13, 2020 4:53 am

Haha😄
In other words, T’ien-t’ai explains that the situation in which nothing is reflected in the mirror is the mirror’s natural or potential state (kutai), while the image of all that is reflected in the mirror represents temporal existence (ketai), and the mirror itself possesses both potential and temporal existence, which represents the entity of the Middle Path (chutai).
Interesting and clear!

But I think this is where I differentiate between understanding and manifestation.
Make personal vows.

User avatar
Caoimhghín
Posts: 2503
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
Location: Whitby, Ontario

Re: The role of truth in Buddhism?

Post by Caoimhghín » Fri Mar 13, 2020 7:18 am

Oh, haha, you don't know how well I play along with games like the one you are playing now.
haha wrote:
Fri Mar 13, 2020 4:42 am
now our Venerable Caoimhghín has 75
And based on your logic, that means I'm greater than venerables Zhiyi, Nichiren, Nāgārjuna, and the Buddha. Is it you who sings my laudations and acclaimations, not me. It is you who blows the conch and lays the oblations on the horns of the buffalo for the homa in my honour, not me. I am no one. How can I applaud a void of self-nature?
haha wrote:
Fri Mar 13, 2020 4:42 am
But our Venerable Caoimhghín has proclaimed 75 truths to show his superiority. So, it is from being inspired by atma-mana (i.e. influenced by 7th mind). In this case, Venerable Zhiyi is greater.
It's actually going to be Venerable Śramaṇakuṭṭāka, if you want to give me a title. (That's a really funny joke, by the way. I might change my username to Śramaṇakuṭṭāka. You can find out what it means at Pli Tv Bu Vb Pj 3, the 3rd Pārājikakaṇḍa in the Mahāvibhaṅga, but it will be in Pāli, not Sanskrit.) I think I might insist on this title for the duration of your game.

Levity aside, technically speaking, your comment is missing some cogency. If I'm going to be painted by you as an ascetic lookalike like Migalaṇḍika, my Migalaṇḍika will proclaim the 75 truths for the understanding of the conventional, which is identical to the ultimate. Since my Migalaṇḍika proclaims the world in 75 base constituents, and since my Migalaṇḍika teaches that the phenomenal world is identical to the ultimate, my Migalaṇḍika proclaims the ultimate by proclaiming the conventional, and further proclaims the ultimate by way of the 75 parts. Being 75, they are not 75. Being one, they are not one. Neither combined nor separated, neither uncombined nor unseparated. Neither same nor different, yet same and different. The 75 are not 75, and yet they are 75.

There, go play with that sock puppet.
歸命本覺心法身常住妙法心蓮臺本來莊嚴三身徳三十七尊住心
城遠離因果法然具普門塵數諸三昧無邊徳海本圓滿還我頂禮心諸佛

In reverence for the root gnosis of the heart, the dharmakāya,
for the ever present good law of the heart, the lotus terrace,
for the inborn adornment of the trikāya, the thirty-seven sages dwelling in the heart,
for that which is removed from seed and fruit, the upright key to the universal gate,
for all boundless concentrations, the sea of virtue, the root perfection,
I prostrate, bowing to the hearts of all Buddhas.

胎藏金剛菩提心義略問答鈔, Treatise on the teaching of the gnostic heart of the womb and the diamond, T2397.1.470c5-8

haha
Posts: 418
Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 3:30 pm

Re: The role of truth in Buddhism?

Post by haha » Fri Mar 13, 2020 8:14 am

Caoimhghín wrote:
Fri Mar 13, 2020 7:18 am
Oh, haha, you don't know how well I play along with games like the one you are playing now.
haha wrote:
Fri Mar 13, 2020 4:42 am
now our Venerable Caoimhghín has 75
And based on your logic, that means I'm greater than venerables Zhiyi, Nichiren, Nāgārjuna, and the Buddha. Is it you who sings my laudations and acclaimations, not me. It is you who blows the conch and lays the oblations on the horns of the buffalo for the homa in my honour, not me. I am no one. How can I applaud a void of self-nature?
haha wrote:
Fri Mar 13, 2020 4:42 am
But our Venerable Caoimhghín has proclaimed 75 truths to show his superiority. So, it is from being inspired by atma-mana (i.e. influenced by 7th mind). In this case, Venerable Zhiyi is greater.
It's actually going to be Venerable Śramaṇakuṭṭāka, if you want to give me a title. (That's a really funny joke, by the way. I might change my username to Śramaṇakuṭṭāka. You can find out what it means at Pli Tv Bu Vb Pj 3, the 3rd Pārājikakaṇḍa in the Mahāvibhaṅga, but it will be in Pāli, not Sanskrit.) I think I might insist on this title for the duration of your game.

Levity aside, technically speaking, your comment is missing some cogency. If I'm going to be painted by you as an ascetic lookalike like Migalaṇḍika, my Migalaṇḍika will proclaim the 75 truths for the understanding of the conventional, which is identical to the ultimate. Since my Migalaṇḍika proclaims the world in 75 base constituents, and since my Migalaṇḍika teaches that the phenomenal world is identical to the ultimate, my Migalaṇḍika proclaims the ultimate by proclaiming the conventional, and further proclaims the ultimate by way of the 75 parts. Being 75, they are not 75. Being one, they are not one. Neither combined nor separated, neither uncombined nor unseparated. Neither same nor different, yet same and different. The 75 are not 75, and yet they are 75.

There, go play with that sock puppet.
That is the case, and then it is clear that I did not understand (i.e. 75 truths).

But what I understood.
Caoimhghín wrote:
Thu Mar 12, 2020 8:26 pm
haha wrote:
Thu Mar 12, 2020 2:21 pm
Threefold Truth has nothing to do with Indian model of two truths. It has its own meaning and intention; it shows Zhiyi's deeper understanding of the Dharma.
What if I told you there was 75 truths? That would logically make me greater than either venerables Zhiyi or Nichiren.
“Telling there were 75 truths” would logically make me greater than either venerables Zhiyi or Nichiren. That is in the context of quoting threefold truth of Zhiyi.

For that statement, I wrote sarcastic way with some logic. What I understood by the 75 truths, I gave another counter version 82 truths.

Now I am sorry for that.

User avatar
Caoimhghín
Posts: 2503
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
Location: Whitby, Ontario

Re: The role of truth in Buddhism?

Post by Caoimhghín » Fri Mar 13, 2020 8:18 am

Venerable Śramaṇakuṭṭāka was getting excited to expound his dharma for the betterment of sentient beings on DharmaWheel :toilet: . Oh well.

I think you aren't the only one who has been sarcastic in this thread. 82, 75, 3, 2, 1. All numbers anyways. I'll accept your apology and offer one of my own.
歸命本覺心法身常住妙法心蓮臺本來莊嚴三身徳三十七尊住心
城遠離因果法然具普門塵數諸三昧無邊徳海本圓滿還我頂禮心諸佛

In reverence for the root gnosis of the heart, the dharmakāya,
for the ever present good law of the heart, the lotus terrace,
for the inborn adornment of the trikāya, the thirty-seven sages dwelling in the heart,
for that which is removed from seed and fruit, the upright key to the universal gate,
for all boundless concentrations, the sea of virtue, the root perfection,
I prostrate, bowing to the hearts of all Buddhas.

胎藏金剛菩提心義略問答鈔, Treatise on the teaching of the gnostic heart of the womb and the diamond, T2397.1.470c5-8

User avatar
PeterC
Posts: 1841
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 12:38 pm

Re: The role of truth in Buddhism?

Post by PeterC » Fri Mar 13, 2020 9:30 am

Simon E. wrote:
Thu Mar 12, 2020 8:44 pm
My knowledge of Chinese Buddhist schools is virtually nil. But is seems clear that the division between it and Indo-Tibetan Buddhism is great. More than I thought. Although I have never seen evidence for the existence of a Pan-Buddhism.
It seems to me that rather than dwell on that fact or attempt some kind of triumphalism it would be better to recognise the difference while maintaining respect.
If you're looking for a Pan-Buddhism, you won't get any substantive disagreement on the four noble truths, eightfold path, shunyata, dependent origination, and so forth. Coexistence is not a problem. I would argue that the intention isn't different, but the problem is that they are in dialog with very different sets of texts. In the case of sutras, there are several sutras that are extremely important in the Chinese / East Asian traditions which simply aren't in Indo-Tibetan Buddhism. But the real divergence is around the secondary literature, where an entire system of explanations arose in China which didn't match the Indo-Tibetan system. You can debate whether parts of it are right, wrong, upaya or whatever, but the simple fact is that you can't stitch the systems together into a coherent whole. I tend to the explanation that the ultimate meaning is the same, it's just expressed in different forms of path language. But that's essentially a polite avoidance of the issue.

Simon E.
Posts: 7447
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 11:09 am

Re: The role of truth in Buddhism?

Post by Simon E. » Fri Mar 13, 2020 10:47 am

I think maybe a polite avoidance of the issue is the skillful way to go.
The only alternative is a never resolved war of attrition.
It cuts both ways it seems to me.
Non -triumphalism concerning particular views, upayas, and Sutras needs to be enshrined more clearly in the TOS.
“You don’t know it. You just know about it. That is not the same thing.”

Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche to me.

tkp67
Posts: 1391
Joined: Sun May 12, 2019 5:42 am

Re: The role of truth in Buddhism?

Post by tkp67 » Fri Mar 13, 2020 1:22 pm

PeterC wrote:
Fri Mar 13, 2020 9:30 am
Simon E. wrote:
Thu Mar 12, 2020 8:44 pm
My knowledge of Chinese Buddhist schools is virtually nil. But is seems clear that the division between it and Indo-Tibetan Buddhism is great. More than I thought. Although I have never seen evidence for the existence of a Pan-Buddhism.
It seems to me that rather than dwell on that fact or attempt some kind of triumphalism it would be better to recognise the difference while maintaining respect.
If you're looking for a Pan-Buddhism, you won't get any substantive disagreement on the four noble truths, eightfold path, shunyata, dependent origination, and so forth. Coexistence is not a problem. I would argue that the intention isn't different, but the problem is that they are in dialog with very different sets of texts. In the case of sutras, there are several sutras that are extremely important in the Chinese / East Asian traditions which simply aren't in Indo-Tibetan Buddhism. But the real divergence is around the secondary literature, where an entire system of explanations arose in China which didn't match the Indo-Tibetan system. You can debate whether parts of it are right, wrong, upaya or whatever, but the simple fact is that you can't stitch the systems together into a coherent whole. I tend to the explanation that the ultimate meaning is the same, it's just expressed in different forms of path language. But that's essentially a polite avoidance of the issue.
I have been doing some reading around some of the differences and came upon some interesting commentary regarding the difference between the two. This commentary has led me to believe they are far more similar than appears and very much agree with your second to last sentence.

I am not informed enough regarding history of buddhism so I am at a loss to the accuracy of the statement but it seemed valid and I figured I would present it. I am sure there are others who can correct anything glaring. It was posted as a generalization. I would be curious to any other differences omitted that seem appropriate for understanding.

I hope this finds everyone well this morning.
I’m going to make very wide generalisation here but Tibettan Buddhist imported Indian Buddhism enmass in one short period so they have quite complete collection from that period of Indian Buddhism. Chinese Buddhism, due to distance from India, imported Indian Buddhism in piecemeal fashion over a long period of time. While Chinese Buddhism occasionally possess early version of sutra not found in Tibet, overall, its collection of sutra are disorganised and many of sutra provance being uncertain. In Chinese Buddhist theology, it is legitimate topic to debate if certain sutra is a forgery.

This create two distinct approach to theology. In Tibettan Buddhism, all available sutra are deemed authentic. Therefore, their theological approach is to synthesise these collection (like Gelug). In Chinese Buddhism, their approach is to sort and rank sutra in term of “essence” of Buddhism. That is why Oriental Buddhist are characterised by focus on certain practice (Zen, pureland or vinaya) or theology.

Tantien/Tendai school is based on the founder’s theology which is to split Shyakamuni buddha’s life into 5 period, and his teaching into 8. I’m not expert to get into detail but basically, immediately after obtaining the enlightenment, Buddah taught his pure teaching (Avataṃsaka/Kegon sutra) to his students. However, he realised that his students are not being able to comprehend some higher aspect of enlightenment so, Buddha taught easy beginner’s version (Agama/Agon sutra) in early period while he taught supreme version in later period (Lotus/Hokke sutra), and also just before he dies and enter nirvana (Nirvana/Nehan sutra).

Tantaric Buddhis emerged quite later in Indian Buddhism and consequently, it was brought into China as something of newly discovered Buddhism. Therefore, there is a great debate in China about its authenticity, while in Tibet, its authenticity is presumed from outset.

Malcolm
Posts: 31174
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: The role of truth in Buddhism?

Post by Malcolm » Fri Mar 13, 2020 2:51 pm

tkp67 wrote:
Fri Mar 13, 2020 1:22 pm


I hope this finds everyone well this morning.
Thanks, just fine so far.
I’m going to make very wide generalisation here but Tibettan Buddhist imported Indian Buddhism enmass in one short period so they have quite complete collection from that period of Indian Buddhism.
False. Buddhism first entered Tibet during the Mid-7th century, where it briefly flourished among the aristocracy. During the eight century, Me Agtsom (704-755) was married a Chinese princess, Jincheng (?-739), and she brought Chinese Buddhism with her in 710. She died in a smallpox epidemic, and that epidemic prompted an anti-Buddhist reprisal.

Next, the son of another wife of Me Agtsom assumed the throne in 755, Trisong Detsen (742-794). He was pro-Buddhist, and during the decade of 760, he invited teachers from both China and India, and the project of translating Buddhist texts began during his reign. Shortly before his death in 794, he chose Indian Buddhism as the de facto standard, and invited the Chinese Buddhist monks to leave Tibet. He passed in 794, and his sons took up the task of continuing the sponsorship of translation, etc.

During this period, in general, it was prohibited to translate any esoteric Buddhist texts apart from what we term "lower tantra," identical for the most part with the texts that support the esoteric Buddhism of Shingon and Tientai. To do so required royal permission. Some of these texts were translated, but their practice was restricted.

In 844, the Tibetan Empire collapsed with the assassination of King Langdarma, ostensibly due to his suppression of Buddhist monasteries, but more likely over the novel idea that they should be subject to taxation. This marked the end of the early translation period.

During the 970's, after the remnants of the Tibetan empire regrouped in West Tibet, the Buddhist Sangha was revived from remnants that had survived in Eastern Tibet, and once again, missions were sent forth to gather Buddhist teachings. This period of collecting and translating Buddhist texts lasted until the middle of the 15th century. However, the main lines of Tibetan Buddhist schools were firmly drawn in the 12th century. So, this opinion above is not accurate. It took the Tibetan 5 centuries+ to consolidate their canon.
Chinese Buddhism, due to distance from India, imported Indian Buddhism in piecemeal fashion over a long period of time.
See above, this the same as in Tibet.
While Chinese Buddhism occasionally possess early version of sutra not found in Tibet, overall, its collection of sutra are disorganised and many of sutra provance being uncertain. In Chinese Buddhist theology, it is legitimate topic to debate if certain sutra is a forgery.
There are many debates in Tibet over which texts collected in the canon were forgeries and which were authentic. These debates continue to this day.
This create two distinct approach to theology. In Tibettan Buddhism, all available sutra are deemed authentic. Therefore, their theological approach is to synthesise these collection (like Gelug).
Not so. However, the fundamental criteria is whether or not a sūtra, tantra, or a treatise had a Sanskrit original.
Tantien/Tendai school is based on the founder’s theology which is to split Shyakamuni buddha’s life into 5 period, and his teaching into 8. I’m not expert to get into detail but basically, immediately after obtaining the enlightenment, Buddah taught his pure teaching (Avataṃsaka/Kegon sutra) to his students. However, he realised that his students are not being able to comprehend some higher aspect of enlightenment so, Buddha taught easy beginner’s version (Agama/Agon sutra) in early period while he taught supreme version in later period (Lotus/Hokke sutra), and also just before he dies and enter nirvana (Nirvana/Nehan sutra).
This scheme never entered Tibet, as far as I can tell, nor were Zhiyi's texts ever studied widely in Tibet, if at all. Ironically, following the Korean Yogacāra scholar Wongchuk, a direct disciple of Hsuan Tsang, Tibetans follow the scheme of the three turnings of the wheel.
Tantaric Buddhis emerged quite later in Indian Buddhism and consequently, it was brought into China as something of newly discovered Buddhism. Therefore, there is a great debate in China about its authenticity, while in Tibet, its authenticity is presumed from outset.

While it is true that the Tibetans did not question that authenticity of what is known in Tibet as yoga tantra (i.e. more or less the same texts that Shingon and Tendai use), there were many controversies about the interpretation of some of the texts that were translated into Tibetan during the early period, which we now know as highest yoga tantra, and these controversies became particularly pointed during the later translation period.

Malcolm
Posts: 31174
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: The role of truth in Buddhism?

Post by Malcolm » Fri Mar 13, 2020 2:56 pm

haha wrote:
Fri Mar 13, 2020 4:41 am
Malcolm wrote:
Thu Mar 12, 2020 5:08 pm
haha wrote:
Thu Mar 12, 2020 2:21 pm

In other words, T’ien-t’ai explains that the situation in which nothing is reflected in the mirror is the mirror’s natural or potential state
(kutai), while the image of all that is reflected in the mirror represents temporal existence (ketai), and the mirror itself possesses both potential and temporal existence, which represents the entity of the Middle Path (chutai).
This is all within the domain of relative truth.
No, it is not.
Yes, it is:

The Pratyutpannebuddhasaṃmukhāvasthitasamādhi Sūtra states:
Bhadrapāla, not perceiving, conceiving, establishing, thinking of, or engaging in either of these two extremes, peace and absence of peace, is explained in mundane relative truth as as 'the middle way' as an enumeration, but these extremes and middle are not perceived in the ultimate.

haha
Posts: 418
Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 3:30 pm

Re: The role of truth in Buddhism?

Post by haha » Fri Mar 13, 2020 4:27 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Fri Mar 13, 2020 2:56 pm

The Pratyutpannebuddhasaṃmukhāvasthitasamādhi Sūtra states:
Bhadrapāla, not perceiving, conceiving, establishing, thinking of, or engaging in either of these two extremes, peace and absence of peace, is explained in mundane relative truth as as 'the middle way' as an enumeration, but these extremes and middle are not perceived in the ultimate.
Ok, that is excellent; it is exactly the point. However, it is according to that sutra.

Here is another presentation of truth.
Three essential natures—the permanently non-existent,
The existent but not exclusively,
And the essential nature of existence and non-existence.
Thus, the essential nature is held to be threefold. [III.3]

From Middle beyond extremes: Maitreya’s Madhyantavibhanga with commentaries by Khenpo Shenga and Ju Mipham p 70


svabhāvastrividho'sacca nityaṃ saccā'pyatattvataḥ|
sadasattattvataśceti svabhāvatrayamiṣyate||3||

From dsbcproject

Malcolm
Posts: 31174
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: The role of truth in Buddhism?

Post by Malcolm » Fri Mar 13, 2020 4:47 pm

haha wrote:
Fri Mar 13, 2020 4:27 pm
Here is another presentation of truth.
The three natures in the Yogacāra Sūtras and treatises are clearly not the same in intent as the Tien Tai presentation. I've already addressed this.

Post Reply

Return to “Mahāyāna Buddhism”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: GrapeLover and 42 guests