Tibetan Zen

Forum for discussion of Tibetan Buddhism. Questions specific to one school are best posted in the appropriate sub-forum.
Anonymous X
Posts: 735
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2017 11:43 am
Location: Bangkok

Re: Tibetan Zen

Post by Anonymous X » Thu Aug 10, 2017 5:25 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Anonymous X wrote: I agree, but I don't agree about your assertion that only through a Dzogchen teacher can someone have this 'intro'. That's a very hard sell, sir.
Though one can find descriptions of the nature of mind in sūtras, the methods of introducing it do not exist in sūtras. One must find a teacher who has the intimate instructions.

Further, introduction to the nature of the mind is not confined to Dzogchen masters, but it is confined to Vajrayāna. Even here, such introductions as they may be found in Vajrayāna empowerments tend to be overly brief, ritualized, cryptic and obscure.

Though you may find methods of introduction described in some books, for example, some lengthy Mahāmudra manuals come to mind, they must be received from a teacher who has realized the meaning of such instructions in themselves because such methods are experiential, not intellectual.

If someone wishes experiential training in the nature of the mind, one should find an old master who has done many years of retreat and who has also guided many students personally. One must do whatever it is he or she might command. In general, one will not be able to receive such teachings from famous teachers, with a very, very, short list of exceptions.

M
I can understand your investment in Dzogchen and your continued beliefs that you will achieve realization of something. It is this very grasping/training that I question deeply. It doesn't seem compatible with what the Buddha and other masters taught about the cessation of self on every level and what I witnessed in my own teacher. As my own teacher would say, this is nothing short of your own death. And, once again, the story of the Buddha preaching the heart sutra, form is emptiness, and emptiness is form, and 500 Arhats dropping dead from heart attacks. There seems to be more than meets the eye here.

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 24519
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Tibetan Zen

Post by Malcolm » Fri Aug 11, 2017 2:36 pm

Anonymous X wrote:[
I can understand your investment in Dzogchen and your continued beliefs that you will achieve realization of something.
You really don't understand what I am talking about.
It is this very grasping/training that I question deeply. It doesn't seem compatible with what the Buddha and other masters taught about the cessation of self on every level and what I witnessed in my own teacher.
There is no self to cease. Nothing ever arose at any time, any where.

In any case, attaining buddhahood has two benefits, one's own and others. Of these two benefits, the benefit of others is more important.
Atikosha
Tibetan Medicine Blog
Sudarsana Mandala, Tibetan Medicine and Herbs
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


Free of hope and fear, relax.
Human life spent in
a state of great spaciousness is enjoyable.


— Kunzang Dechen Lingpa

User avatar
Sherab
Posts: 1042
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am

Re: Tibetan Zen

Post by Sherab » Fri Aug 11, 2017 11:26 pm

Malcolm wrote: There is no self to cease. Nothing ever arose at any time, any where.
This only makes sense if there is an ultimate reality. Why? Because if otherwise, the statement has no basis at all. In other words, even "there is no self to cease" is an illusion. "Nothing ever arose at any time, any where" is also an illusion. It is not possible to say that the statements are true because what the statements point to is an illusion and therefore untrue. This is the result of circular reasoning.
Malcolm wrote:In any case, attaining buddhahood has two benefits, one's own and others. Of these two benefits, the benefit of others is more important.
If even the state of buddhahood is an illusion, attaining the two benefits of buddhahood is also an illusion. Why should any being even bother with the Dharma?

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 24519
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Tibetan Zen

Post by Malcolm » Fri Aug 11, 2017 11:54 pm

Sherab wrote:
Malcolm wrote: There is no self to cease. Nothing ever arose at any time, any where.
This only makes sense if there is an ultimate reality. Why? Because if otherwise, the statement has no basis at all. In other words, even "there is no self to cease" is an illusion. "Nothing ever arose at any time, any where" is also an illusion. It is not possible to say that the statements are true because what the statements point to is an illusion and therefore untrue. This is the result of circular reasoning.
You claim that when statement points to an illusion, if there is no ultimate basis with which to contrast an illusion the statement is rendered false? This is poor reasoning.

Statements are conventions and do not require any ultimate basis in order to accepted conventionally, i.e., nonanalytically. Not does analysis of conventions such as arising require some ultimate basis in order to ascertain they are false. Conventions can be examined and found false without any reference at all to any ultimate basis. To suggest otherwise is fall prey to the kind of pathological, realist substantialism the Buddha's Dharma is meant to cure.

I repeat, conventions require no ultimate basis in order to be conventionally true.

In worldly conventional perception things appear to arise from causes and conditions. MMK 1:1
  • No thing arises at any time, anywhere
    from itself, from other than itself, or without a cause.
When analyzed it is found there are no causes and no conditions — this analysis forms the entire body of the rest of the MMK -- arising from conditions is merely a convention and when investigated no arising can be found at all (and thus no abiding or perishing either).

You must have real difficulties reading Nāgārjuna:
  • Since arising, abiding, and perishing are not established, the conditioned is not established.
    Since the conditioned is never established, how can the unconditioned ever be established?
In light of the above, I think you may wish to retract your hasty and erroneous critique,

M
Atikosha
Tibetan Medicine Blog
Sudarsana Mandala, Tibetan Medicine and Herbs
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


Free of hope and fear, relax.
Human life spent in
a state of great spaciousness is enjoyable.


— Kunzang Dechen Lingpa

User avatar
Sherab
Posts: 1042
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am

Re: Tibetan Zen

Post by Sherab » Sat Aug 12, 2017 12:27 am

Malcolm wrote: Since the conditioned is never established, how can the unconditioned ever be established?[/i][/list]
M
Just because the unconditioned cannot be established does not mean that it is not there. It simply means that the unconditioned can never be established through conventional reasoning. Like I argued before, if the unconditioned is not there, statements like there is no arising and ceasing ultimately makes no sense because the statements will end up being circular. In the end, if even the state of buddhahood is not even real, striving for liberation and omniscience also makes no sense. It is a denial of the validity of Udana 8.3.

krodha
Posts: 2132
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:30 pm

Re: Tibetan Zen

Post by krodha » Sat Aug 12, 2017 12:51 am

Sherab wrote:Just because the unconditioned cannot be established does not mean that it is not there.
The so-called "unconditioned" is the very nature of the allegedly conditioned.

The very non-arising of conditioned dharmas [saṃskṛtadharmas] is the unconditioned [asaṃskṛta] dharmatā. It is an epistemic realization which dispels ignorance by severing the causes and conditions for invalid cognition... not an ontological X that exists on its own (that is what Vedanta teaches).

Recognizing the true nature [satyalakṣhaṇa] of phenomena, as innately unproduced [anutpāda] is to realize that the allegedly conditioned is a misconception of ignorance, and therefore the conditioned has in fact been unconditioned from the very beginning.

Therefore it is not that there is an unconditioned nature which abides apart from conditioned phenomena. The "unconditioned" is merely knowledge of the actual nature of "conditioned" phenomena. Phenomena [dharmins] are themselves, in essence, unconditioned, their unconditioned nature is their dharmatā.

The correct understanding of phenomena, reveals that phenomena (as misperceived via ignorance) have never occurred in the way one's ignorance made them appear. As a result it is seen that there has never been anything which was bound, nor anything which required liberation.

Hence:

  • Outside of the saṃskṛtas [conditioned dharmas], there are no asaṃskṛta [unconditioned dharmas], and the true nature [bhūtalakṣaṇa] of the saṃskṛta is exactly asaṃskṛta. The saṃskṛtas being empty, etc. the asaṃskṛtas themselves are also empty, for the two things are not different. Besides, some people, hearing about the defects of the saṃskṛtadharmas, become attached [abhiniveśante] to the asaṃskṛtadharmas and, as a result of this attachment, develop fetters.
    - Mahāprajñāpāramitāśāstra

User avatar
aflatun
Posts: 102
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 3:21 am
Location: Bay Area, CA

Re: Tibetan Zen

Post by aflatun » Sat Aug 12, 2017 2:19 am

krodha wrote:
Sherab wrote:Just because the unconditioned cannot be established does not mean that it is not there.
The so-called "unconditioned" is the very nature of the allegedly conditioned.

The very non-arising of conditioned dharmas [saṃskṛtadharmas] is the unconditioned [asaṃskṛta] dharmatā. It is an epistemic realization which dispels ignorance by severing the causes and conditions for invalid cognition... not an ontological X that exists on its own (that is what Vedanta teaches).

Recognizing the true nature [satyalakṣhaṇa] of phenomena, as innately unproduced [anutpāda] is to realize that the allegedly conditioned is a misconception of ignorance, and therefore the conditioned has in fact been unconditioned from the very beginning.

Therefore it is not that there is an unconditioned nature which abides apart from conditioned phenomena. The "unconditioned" is merely knowledge of the actual nature of "conditioned" phenomena. Phenomena [dharmins] are themselves, in essence, unconditioned, their unconditioned nature is their dharmatā.

The correct understanding of phenomena, reveals that phenomena (as misperceived via ignorance) have never occurred in the way one's ignorance made them appear. As a result it is seen that there has never been anything which was bound, nor anything which required liberation.

Hence:

  • Outside of the saṃskṛtas [conditioned dharmas], there are no asaṃskṛta [unconditioned dharmas], and the true nature [bhūtalakṣaṇa] of the saṃskṛta is exactly asaṃskṛta. The saṃskṛtas being empty, etc. the asaṃskṛtas themselves are also empty, for the two things are not different. Besides, some people, hearing about the defects of the saṃskṛtadharmas, become attached [abhiniveśante] to the asaṃskṛtadharmas and, as a result of this attachment, develop fetters.
    - Mahāprajñāpāramitāśāstra

:good:

What a beautiful a beautiful post krodha, thank you for that


What is born in dependence is unborn, said the best among knowers of reality.

Yuktiṣaṣṭikākārikā
"People often get too quick to say 'there's no self. There's no self...no self...no self.' There is self, there is focal point, its not yours. That's what not self is."

Ninoslav Ñāṇamoli
Senses and the Thought-1, 42:53

"Those who create constructs about the Buddha,
Who is beyond construction and without exhaustion,
Are thereby damaged by their constructs;
They fail to see the Thus-Gone.

That which is the nature of the Thus-Gone
Is also the nature of this world.
There is no nature of the Thus-Gone.
There is no nature of the world."

Nagarjuna
MMK XXII.15-16

User avatar
CedarTree
Posts: 372
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 10:13 pm

Re: Tibetan Zen

Post by CedarTree » Sat Aug 12, 2017 4:12 am

krodha wrote:
Sherab wrote:Just because the unconditioned cannot be established does not mean that it is not there.
The so-called "unconditioned" is the very nature of the allegedly conditioned.

The very non-arising of conditioned dharmas [saṃskṛtadharmas] is the unconditioned [asaṃskṛta] dharmatā. It is an epistemic realization which dispels ignorance by severing the causes and conditions for invalid cognition... not an ontological X that exists on its own (that is what Vedanta teaches).

Recognizing the true nature [satyalakṣhaṇa] of phenomena, as innately unproduced [anutpāda] is to realize that the allegedly conditioned is a misconception of ignorance, and therefore the conditioned has in fact been unconditioned from the very beginning.

Therefore it is not that there is an unconditioned nature which abides apart from conditioned phenomena. The "unconditioned" is merely knowledge of the actual nature of "conditioned" phenomena. Phenomena [dharmins] are themselves, in essence, unconditioned, their unconditioned nature is their dharmatā.

The correct understanding of phenomena, reveals that phenomena (as misperceived via ignorance) have never occurred in the way one's ignorance made them appear. As a result it is seen that there has never been anything which was bound, nor anything which required liberation.

Hence:

  • Outside of the saṃskṛtas [conditioned dharmas], there are no asaṃskṛta [unconditioned dharmas], and the true nature [bhūtalakṣaṇa] of the saṃskṛta is exactly asaṃskṛta. The saṃskṛtas being empty, etc. the asaṃskṛtas themselves are also empty, for the two things are not different. Besides, some people, hearing about the defects of the saṃskṛtadharmas, become attached [abhiniveśante] to the asaṃskṛtadharmas and, as a result of this attachment, develop fetters.
    - Mahāprajñāpāramitāśāstra
Great post!
Don't hold out on practice!

Gyobutsuji Zen Monastery in America

Ajahn Chah Associated Monasteries

Practice, Practice, Practice

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 24519
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Tibetan Zen

Post by Malcolm » Sat Aug 12, 2017 4:27 am

Sherab wrote:
Malcolm wrote: Since the conditioned is never established, how can the unconditioned ever be established?[/i][/list]
M
Just because the unconditioned cannot be established does not mean that it is not there.
Yes, that is what it means. Otherwise, the consequence is that the conditioned is also there, even though it cannot be established. This is a pervasion you must accept oi you insist on your point of view. Such a point of view is utterly outside Mahāyāna.
It simply means that the unconditioned can never be established through conventional reasoning.
See above, the pervasion of your statement is that conditioned also cannot be established though conventional reasoning.
Like I argued before, if the unconditioned is not there, statements like there is no arising and ceasing ultimately makes no sense because the statements will end up being circular. In the end, if even the state of buddhahood is not even real, striving for liberation and omniscience also makes no sense. It is a denial of the validity of Udana 8.3.
You did not make an argument, you made an unproven assertion. I showed that this assertion is unfounded.

Udana 8.3 merely shows that liberation is also a convention, bound up in the dualism of samsara and nirvana, etc. I imagine you also have quite a bit of difficulty with Nāgārjuna's assertion that nirvana and samsara are not even slightly different.
Atikosha
Tibetan Medicine Blog
Sudarsana Mandala, Tibetan Medicine and Herbs
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


Free of hope and fear, relax.
Human life spent in
a state of great spaciousness is enjoyable.


— Kunzang Dechen Lingpa

User avatar
Sherab
Posts: 1042
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am

Re: Tibetan Zen

Post by Sherab » Sun Aug 13, 2017 12:24 am

What is atemporal, unsupported, unfabricated, unmanifest, ineffable and self-arising, that is the ultimate, the state of buddhahood.

What distinguished a Buddhist ultimate from a non-Buddhist ultimate is freedom from the two extremes of eternalism and annihilation, the two dead zones that I mentioned in an earlier post.

What springs from the ultimate and therefore not separable from the ultimate is the supported, the fabricated, the manifest, the communicable, the causal, i.e., the relative, the realm of both pure and impure phenomena.

The consequence of saying that there is no ultimate is that the relative becomes the ultimate: the atemporal, the unsupported, the unfabricated, unmanifest, ineffable and self-arising. The relative no longer makes any sense.

Extremes are non-functional. It looks like there is a new extreme, a dysfunctional one, namely, the relative is its own ultimate.

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 24519
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Tibetan Zen

Post by Malcolm » Sun Aug 13, 2017 1:21 am

Sherab wrote:What is atemporal, unsupported, unfabricated, unmanifest, ineffable and self-arising, that is the ultimate, the state of buddhahood.
And the difference between this and Brahmin is? As we have seen, this kind of buddhahood is refuted by Nāgārjuna right at the outset.
What distinguished a Buddhist ultimate from a non-Buddhist ultimate is freedom from the two extremes of eternalism and annihilation, the two dead zones that I mentioned in an earlier post.
What springs from the ultimate and therefore not separable from the ultimate is the supported, the fabricated, the manifest, the communicable, the causal, i.e., the relative, the realm of both pure and impure phenomena.
False, a conditioned entity cannot have an unconditioned cause.

The consequence of saying that there is no ultimate is that the relative becomes the ultimate: the atemporal, the unsupported, the unfabricated, unmanifest, ineffable and self-arising. The relative no longer makes any sense.
I did not say there was no ultimate truth — there is an ultimate truth. What I said was that there is no ultimate reality. Two entirely different statements altogether.
Extremes are non-functional. It looks like there is a new extreme, a dysfunctional one, namely, the relative is its own ultimate.
By declaring there is an ultimate, atemporal, unsupported, unfabricated, unmanifest, ineffable and self-arising, you have already slipped off the other side of the horse into eternalism.

Neither the atemporal, unsupported, unfabricated, unmanifest, ineffable and self-arising nor the temporal, supported, fabricated, manifest, effable and arising from another can be established in any way. When one understands that nothing can be established in any of the four extremes in anyway whatsoever outside of conventions, then one has a slight glimpse of the wisdom of the Buddha. As long as one insists there is an atemporal, unsupported, unfabricated, unmanifest, ineffable and self-arising in contrast to the the temporal, supported, fabricated, manifest, effable and arising from another one has not escaped from any extreme at all. One is still trapped in the two extremes of permanence (the atemporal, unsupported, unfabricated, unmanifest, ineffable and self-arising) and annihilation (the temporal, supported, fabricated, manifest, effable and arising from another). I am surprised that do not easily see the flaw in your reasoning.

In short, there is no independent ultimate, or nirvana, etc., other than in the mistaken view of Hinayāna tenets.
Atikosha
Tibetan Medicine Blog
Sudarsana Mandala, Tibetan Medicine and Herbs
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


Free of hope and fear, relax.
Human life spent in
a state of great spaciousness is enjoyable.


— Kunzang Dechen Lingpa

User avatar
aflatun
Posts: 102
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 3:21 am
Location: Bay Area, CA

Re: Tibetan Zen

Post by aflatun » Sun Aug 13, 2017 2:00 am

Malcolm wrote: In short, there is no independent ultimate, or nirvana, etc., other than in the mistaken view of Hinayāna tenets.
Don't be silly, everyone knows that in Hinayana, Nirvana=atheist death :tongue: I wish there wasn't some truth in that actually...

(Are you referring to Vaibhasika, Buddhaghosa, all of the above? The sautrantika were kind of nihilistic as I recall, not really eternalist...)
"People often get too quick to say 'there's no self. There's no self...no self...no self.' There is self, there is focal point, its not yours. That's what not self is."

Ninoslav Ñāṇamoli
Senses and the Thought-1, 42:53

"Those who create constructs about the Buddha,
Who is beyond construction and without exhaustion,
Are thereby damaged by their constructs;
They fail to see the Thus-Gone.

That which is the nature of the Thus-Gone
Is also the nature of this world.
There is no nature of the Thus-Gone.
There is no nature of the world."

Nagarjuna
MMK XXII.15-16

User avatar
CedarTree
Posts: 372
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 10:13 pm

Re: Tibetan Zen

Post by CedarTree » Sun Aug 13, 2017 2:41 am

As someone that has some experience in the Theravada side of things I will say that within modern Theravada circles I don't think many would speak of the conditioned as springing forth from the unconditioned.

On the comments about it having Annihilationism there is some discussion there but I think that misses the point too.

Ajahn Thanissaro has written some excellent works on this.

I am going to post some quotes here for the concept of Nibbana within the Theravada/Pali tradition.

I think Mahayana deepened and expanded the understandings in some ways (If one looks at Mahayana positive) with really delving into Emptiness, Same as it did with Dependent Origination to Non-Arising, Same as it did with many other subjects.

Mahayana is about becoming Buddhas. Theravada is about becoming an Arahant. Nothing wrong with either Lol, though Buddha's are referred to as the Blessed Ones for a reason ;)

Samsara as Nirvana I think can be seen in the Pali Canon it just was never talked about with this language.

The Pali Canon is a systematic text to become awakened. It isn't exploring the "leaves of the forest" or going into subtle language and poetic understandings.

It is literally a systematic text of instructions to become awakened.
Once the Blessed One was staying at Kosambi in the simsapa[1] forest. Then, picking up a few simsapa leaves with his hand, he asked the monks, "What do you think, monks: Which are more numerous, the few simsapa leaves in my hand or those overhead in the simsapa forest?"

"The leaves in the hand of the Blessed One are few in number, lord. Those overhead in the simsapa forest are more numerous."

"In the same way, monks, those things that I have known with direct knowledge but have not taught are far more numerous [than what I have taught]. And why haven't I taught them? Because they are not connected with the goal, do not relate to the rudiments of the holy life, and do not lead to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding. That is why I have not taught them.

"And what have I taught? 'This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress... This is the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress': This is what I have taught. And why have I taught these things? Because they are connected with the goal, relate to the rudiments of the holy life, and lead to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding. This is why I have taught them.

"Therefore your duty is the contemplation, 'This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress.' Your duty is the contemplation, 'This is the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress.'"
"This is peace, this is exquisite — the resolution of all fabrications, the relinquishment of all acquisitions, the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Nibbana."
There's no fire like passion,
no loss like anger,
no pain like the aggregates,
no ease other than peace.

Hunger: the foremost illness.
Fabrications: the foremost pain.
For one knowing this truth
as it actually is,
Unbinding
is the foremost ease.

Freedom from illness: the foremost good fortune.
Contentment: the foremost wealth.
Trust: the foremost kinship.
Unbinding: the foremost ease.
"There is that dimension where there is neither earth, nor water, nor fire, nor wind; neither dimension of the infinitude of space, nor dimension of the infinitude of consciousness, nor dimension of nothingness, nor dimension of neither perception nor non-perception; neither this world, nor the next world, nor sun, nor moon. And there, I say, there is neither coming, nor going, nor stasis; neither passing away nor arising: without stance, without foundation, without support [mental object]. This, just this, is the end of stress."
"There is, monks, an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated. If there were not that unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, there would not be the case that emancipation from the born — become — made — fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, emancipation from the born — become — made — fabricated is discerned."
Where water, earth, fire, & wind have no footing:
There the stars do not shine,
the sun is not visible,
the moon does not appear,
darkness is not found.
And when a sage,
a brahman through sagacity,
has known [this] for himself,
then from form & formless,
from bliss & pain,
he is freed.
"Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world."
Some are born in the human womb,
evildoers in hell,
those on the good course go
to heaven,
while those without effluent:
totally unbound.
Don't hold out on practice!

Gyobutsuji Zen Monastery in America

Ajahn Chah Associated Monasteries

Practice, Practice, Practice

User avatar
CedarTree
Posts: 372
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 10:13 pm

Re: Tibetan Zen

Post by CedarTree » Sun Aug 13, 2017 2:44 am

Theravada has a different language than Mahayana and in a sense sometimes is talking about the same material yet in a different way.

Sometimes Theravada practitioners look at Mahayana topics and without delving into the language, context, frameworks, etc. They say "This is insane, or this is Hinduism, or this is etc. etc."

Mahayana practitioners can do the same unfortunately. It's being knowledgeable enough to understand both traditions in their full context.

And also reading the content, teachings, etc. for what they actually say not what people put on them or interpretations of them outside of their actual context.
Don't hold out on practice!

Gyobutsuji Zen Monastery in America

Ajahn Chah Associated Monasteries

Practice, Practice, Practice

User avatar
aflatun
Posts: 102
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 3:21 am
Location: Bay Area, CA

Re: Tibetan Zen

Post by aflatun » Sun Aug 13, 2017 2:58 am

CedarTree wrote:
On the comments about it having Annihilationism there is some discussion there but I think that misses the point too.
To be clear I was not in any way shape or form referring to the Pali cannon, which I remain 100% on board with. I was referring to a certain tendency you can find in a handful of modern Theravadin circles which understands Nibbana without residue as equivalent to atheist death. With respect, considering these few individuals I have in mind who are hardly on the fringe, its not missing the point at all, its they who miss the point.

Anyway I wasn't trying to rabbit trail, just make a joke and ask Malcolm for some history lessons
"People often get too quick to say 'there's no self. There's no self...no self...no self.' There is self, there is focal point, its not yours. That's what not self is."

Ninoslav Ñāṇamoli
Senses and the Thought-1, 42:53

"Those who create constructs about the Buddha,
Who is beyond construction and without exhaustion,
Are thereby damaged by their constructs;
They fail to see the Thus-Gone.

That which is the nature of the Thus-Gone
Is also the nature of this world.
There is no nature of the Thus-Gone.
There is no nature of the world."

Nagarjuna
MMK XXII.15-16

User avatar
CedarTree
Posts: 372
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 10:13 pm

Re: Tibetan Zen

Post by CedarTree » Sun Aug 13, 2017 3:47 am

aflatun wrote:
CedarTree wrote:
On the comments about it having Annihilationism there is some discussion there but I think that misses the point too.
To be clear I was not in any way shape or form referring to the Pali cannon, which I remain 100% on board with. I was referring to a certain tendency you can find in a handful of modern Theravadin circles which understands Nibbana without residue as equivalent to atheist death. With respect, considering these few individuals I have in mind who are hardly on the fringe, its not missing the point at all, its they who miss the point.

Anyway I wasn't trying to rabbit trail, just make a joke and ask Malcolm for some history lessons
Thanks for clarifying Aflatun :anjali:

I sometimes see on either Dharma Wheel or Dhamma Wheel people that are very well read and have taken the time to understand their "schools" approach/language/Etc and then treat the other one with zero respect, investigation, involvement, or caricature.

I just wanted to make sure the Pali Canon wasn't being misused and or dragged through the dirt Lol I love that thing. One of the most systematic, well written, guides/collection of teachings when it comes to Buddha Dharma. Next to the Heart Sutra of course ;)
Don't hold out on practice!

Gyobutsuji Zen Monastery in America

Ajahn Chah Associated Monasteries

Practice, Practice, Practice

Anonymous X
Posts: 735
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2017 11:43 am
Location: Bangkok

Re: Tibetan Zen

Post by Anonymous X » Sun Aug 13, 2017 8:18 am

Malcolm wrote: By declaring there is an ultimate, atemporal, unsupported, unfabricated, unmanifest, ineffable and self-arising, you have already slipped off the other side of the horse into eternalism.

Neither the atemporal, unsupported, unfabricated, unmanifest, ineffable and self-arising nor the temporal, supported, fabricated, manifest, effable and arising from another can be established in any way. When one understands that nothing can be established in any of the four extremes in anyway whatsoever outside of conventions, then one has a slight glimpse of the wisdom of the Buddha. As long as one insists there is an atemporal, unsupported, unfabricated, unmanifest, ineffable and self-arising in contrast to the the temporal, supported, fabricated, manifest, effable and arising from another one has not escaped from any extreme at all. One is still trapped in the two extremes of permanence (the atemporal, unsupported, unfabricated, unmanifest, ineffable and self-arising) and annihilation (the temporal, supported, fabricated, manifest, effable and arising from another). I am surprised that do not easily see the flaw in your reasoning.

In short, there is no independent ultimate, or nirvana, etc., other than in the mistaken view of Hinayāna tenets.
I think this is an excellent refutation you have made. Many of us are guilty of slipping into one or another extreme at any given moment if we are honest with ourselves.

Bakmoon
Posts: 746
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 12:31 am

Re: Tibetan Zen

Post by Bakmoon » Sun Aug 13, 2017 10:41 am

Sherab wrote:
Malcolm wrote: Since the conditioned is never established, how can the unconditioned ever be established?[/i][/list]
M
Just because the unconditioned cannot be established does not mean that it is not there. It simply means that the unconditioned can never be established through conventional reasoning. Like I argued before, if the unconditioned is not there, statements like there is no arising and ceasing ultimately makes no sense because the statements will end up being circular. In the end, if even the state of buddhahood is not even real, striving for liberation and omniscience also makes no sense. It is a denial of the validity of Udana 8.3.
Any idea of being "there" or "not there" are merely conventional descriptions, but the unconditioned is beyond such conventional descriptions. This isn't just found in Nagarjuna, it is clearly presented in the Pali Suttas as well where the Kotthita Sutta teaches that to say that there is or isn't something in Nibbana is a mistake because it objectifies non-objectification

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 24519
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Tibetan Zen

Post by Malcolm » Sun Aug 13, 2017 12:59 pm

Bakmoon wrote: it is clearly presented in the Pali Suttas as well where the Kotthita Sutta teaches that to say that there is or isn't something in Nibbana is a mistake because it objectifies non-objectification
This does not mean that. It is similar to a suuta in the Sutta Nipata where it is pointed out by the Buddha that one cannot speak of the nonexistence of an arhat who has passed away because there is no existence by which his nonexistence may be described.

Similarly, one cannot speak of the nonexistence of a given thing which has ceased because there is no given thing there to talk about. Fundamentaly, cessation is the absence of a cause, either through insight, or naturally, like a burnt seed. We cannot speak properly of the nonexistence of a shoot from a burnt seed because such a thing never existed from the start. All we can say is "That seed will not germinate." Likewise, of an arhat one can only say, "He or she will not be born."
Atikosha
Tibetan Medicine Blog
Sudarsana Mandala, Tibetan Medicine and Herbs
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


Free of hope and fear, relax.
Human life spent in
a state of great spaciousness is enjoyable.


— Kunzang Dechen Lingpa

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 24519
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Tibetan Zen

Post by Malcolm » Sun Aug 13, 2017 1:02 pm

aflatun wrote:
Malcolm wrote: In short, there is no independent ultimate, or nirvana, etc., other than in the mistaken view of Hinayāna tenets.
Don't be silly, everyone knows that in Hinayana, Nirvana=atheist death :tongue: I wish there wasn't some truth in that actually...

(Are you referring to Vaibhasika, Buddhaghosa, all of the above? The sautrantika were kind of nihilistic as I recall, not really eternalist...)
There is a range, but in general, everything below Sautrantika has a rather eternalist viewpoint of nirvana. Sautrantikas argue that nirvana is simply nonexistence.

All of these views about nirvana are mistaken. Also, one must understand that nirvana is regarded as an undesirable extreme in Mahāyāna.
Atikosha
Tibetan Medicine Blog
Sudarsana Mandala, Tibetan Medicine and Herbs
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


Free of hope and fear, relax.
Human life spent in
a state of great spaciousness is enjoyable.


— Kunzang Dechen Lingpa

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: an_user, Google [Bot], Kunzang Tobgyal, owirj, philji, Powerful bliss, tiagolps and 59 guests