Tibetan Zen

Forum for discussion of Tibetan Buddhism. Questions specific to one school are best posted in the appropriate sub-forum.
Anonymous X
Posts: 813
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2017 11:43 am
Location: Bangkok

Re: Tibetan Zen

Post by Anonymous X » Tue Aug 22, 2017 6:09 am

Sahajaya wrote: I don't think that you "get the sense of what" I think; but that is an interesting take off. Again it's a semantic confusion that many become caught up with via using words in the process of intellectual conceptions.
One way to avoid such is understanding Atisha's meaning when he suggested that all the paths should be taught under the one roof. Without that context, I think so-called Buddhists will continue to sport in attempting to piece together fragments for a longer time than is necessary; because it is very difficult to se the Great Integrity from its pieces without first getting a glimpse of that Great Integrity (undergoing a subjective initiation experience or introduction).
so, Buddha taught the middle way free from the two extremes. Therefore, he did not teach only absolute truth, but also relative truth and it is in their meeting that the profound awakening mind is activated. Then in Madhyamaka, in short, the Middle Path is presented as the Middle Way, not contradicting the two TRUTHS, but reformulating them. In tantra it becomes the Middle Channel -- a kiss -- direct transmission.

Therefore, in translation to keep it simple and avoid over-elaboration, absolute truth as sunyata and relative truth represented as rupakaya are merely two parts (a differentiated split) serving to wake up those who are lost in dualistic thought forms. Hence dharmic teachings are for the confused and ignorant lost in the illusion of samsara. Buddha taught the end of illusion -- the PATH that clears away all obstructions; but he did not teach that absolute truth was the end (at least not according to Mahayana). Absolute Reality never begun and will never end, but it is not possible to know that from an obstructed state. Hence the inseparable nature of dharmakaya (light) and rupakaya (the pain-free body) integrated in a human body represents the ultimate union of absolute and relative truth for a living and impermanent human being. Buddha dharma is for living, not for dying. In short, ultimate and absolute truth are used here interchangeably, hence their inseparable union with rupa (formations) cannot equal itself exclusively. It's a kiss, deep and touching or light and sweet -- that's my prayer.
:heart:
I think you're right, I have no idea what you're talking about. Talk about lost in the words...............

User avatar
LastLegend
Posts: 2870
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:46 pm
Location: Washington DC

Re: Tibetan Zen

Post by LastLegend » Tue Aug 22, 2017 7:52 am

Stop smoking that good stuff.
NAMO AMITABHA
NAM MO A DI DA PHAT (VIETNAMESE)
NAMO AMITUOFO (CHINESE)

Bodhidharma [my translation]
―I come to the East to transmit this clear knowing mind without constructing any dharma―

User avatar
CedarTree
Posts: 556
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 10:13 pm

Re: Tibetan Zen

Post by CedarTree » Tue Aug 22, 2017 7:54 am

Lol

Practice, Practice, Practice

User avatar
Astus
Former staff member
Posts: 7063
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Budapest

Re: Tibetan Zen

Post by Astus » Tue Aug 22, 2017 10:32 am

Sherab wrote:
Malcolm wrote: There is "no existence in a cessation of which we can describe its nonexistence" (Sutta Nipatta). Thus there is nothing left over, positive or negative.
I could not find your quotation in Sutta Nipata.
The matter of what happens after death to a liberated one is discussed in several suttas:

Yamaka Sutta, Anuradha Sutta, Avyakata-samyutta
1 Myriad dharmas are only mind.
Mind is unobtainable.
What is there to seek?

2 If the Buddha-Nature is seen,
there will be no seeing of a nature in any thing.

3 Neither cultivation nor seated meditation —
this is the pure Chan of Tathagata.

4 With sudden enlightenment to Tathagata Chan,
the six paramitas and myriad means
are complete within that essence.


1 Huangbo, T2012Ap381c1 2 Nirvana Sutra, T374p521b3; tr. Yamamoto 3 Mazu, X1321p3b23; tr. J. Jia 4 Yongjia, T2014p395c14; tr. from "The Sword of Wisdom"

User avatar
Sherab
Posts: 1218
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am

Re: Tibetan Zen

Post by Sherab » Tue Aug 22, 2017 10:23 pm

Astus wrote:
Sherab wrote:
Malcolm wrote: There is "no existence in a cessation of which we can describe its nonexistence" (Sutta Nipatta). Thus there is nothing left over, positive or negative.
I could not find your quotation in Sutta Nipata.
The matter of what happens after death to a liberated one is discussed in several suttas:

Yamaka Sutta, Anuradha Sutta, Avyakata-samyutta
And your point is?

User avatar
Sherab
Posts: 1218
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am

Re: Tibetan Zen

Post by Sherab » Tue Aug 22, 2017 10:24 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Sherab wrote:
Malcolm wrote:

It is in the sutta where someone asks the Buddha what happened to a given arhat who had died.
The closest I could find is this "For when a person is inwardly quiet, there is no where a self can be found; where then could a non-self be found?" Tuvataka Sutta. It is likely that you made a mistake.

No, I did not make a mistake.
I disagree.

User avatar
Sherab
Posts: 1218
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am

Re: Tibetan Zen

Post by Sherab » Tue Aug 22, 2017 10:30 pm

Sahajaya wrote:
Sherab wrote:
Sahajaya wrote:
Absolutely! A severe but common distraction. It is also valuable to *not* avoid *consistencies* and understand the teachings of Buddha within the context of changing times and places. At least this has helped me understand its "evolution" into various pre-existing cultures and more modern times while not losing its deeper meaning.
It would be silly to avoid consistencies. I am not sure what you are getting at.
Simply, to point out inconsistencies and apparent contradictions AND at the same time provide CONTEXT in which the contradictions can be resolved at the same time.You might take that for granted, Sherab, but it is a larger problem in the sangha. Through understanding causes and conditions, as you know, interdependence is exposed. An even larger problem is for Dharma to easily be understood by the modern Westerner, "while not losing its deeper meaning".

As we know there are often culture clashes, based on past insinuations/assumptions, prejudice, and traditions, all being conditioned, while that which is unconditioned, beyond causes and conditions, although omnipresent since beginningless time is chronically ignored by *many* human beings.
Give me an example so that I can understand what you are driving at if you are referring to inconsistencies in doctrines or tenets.

Contradictions with modern science such as cosmology, the elements etc. is not an issue for me as those are the accepted understanding of the world at that time. The mission of the Buddha was turning the wheel of Dharma and not to correct wrong understanding of what was accepted about the world.

User avatar
Astus
Former staff member
Posts: 7063
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Budapest

Re: Tibetan Zen

Post by Astus » Wed Aug 23, 2017 8:06 am

Sherab wrote:And your point is?
It is about what Malcolm mentioned: when there is nothing that ceases, it is not annihilation.
1 Myriad dharmas are only mind.
Mind is unobtainable.
What is there to seek?

2 If the Buddha-Nature is seen,
there will be no seeing of a nature in any thing.

3 Neither cultivation nor seated meditation —
this is the pure Chan of Tathagata.

4 With sudden enlightenment to Tathagata Chan,
the six paramitas and myriad means
are complete within that essence.


1 Huangbo, T2012Ap381c1 2 Nirvana Sutra, T374p521b3; tr. Yamamoto 3 Mazu, X1321p3b23; tr. J. Jia 4 Yongjia, T2014p395c14; tr. from "The Sword of Wisdom"

User avatar
Sahajaya
Posts: 38
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 10:40 pm
Location: Barbary Coast (Down from Broadway and Columbus)

Re: Tibetan Zen

Post by Sahajaya » Wed Aug 23, 2017 8:50 pm

Sherab wrote:
Sahajaya wrote:
Sherab wrote:
It would be silly to avoid consistencies. I am not sure what you are getting at.
Simply, to point out inconsistencies and apparent contradictions AND at the same time provide CONTEXT in which the contradictions can be resolved at the same time.You might take that for granted, Sherab, but it is a larger problem in the sangha. Through understanding causes and conditions, as you know, interdependence is exposed. An even larger problem is for Dharma to easily be understood by the modern Westerner, "while not losing its deeper meaning".

As we know there are often culture clashes, based on past insinuations/assumptions, prejudice, and traditions, all being conditioned, while that which is unconditioned, beyond causes and conditions, although omnipresent since beginningless time is chronically ignored by *many* human beings.
Give me an example so that I can understand what you are driving at if you are referring to inconsistencies in doctrines or tenets.

Contradictions with modern science such as cosmology, the elements etc. is not an issue for me as those are the accepted understanding of the world at that time. The mission of the Buddha was turning the wheel of Dharma and not to correct wrong understanding of what was accepted about the world.
@Sherab, as I assume that you have studied Buddhism and have found contradictions among various schools, if not disputes and polemics. I shouldn't have to give you examples. I'm not addressing assertions regarding the assumption of a physical existential world, but rather Buddhist sectarianism; let alone the unwillingness of one ideologue to put themselves (even for a moment) to understand the contextural framework of another.
Original awareness is ever present. Look for it here in this very instant as your own true nature.

User avatar
Sahajaya
Posts: 38
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 10:40 pm
Location: Barbary Coast (Down from Broadway and Columbus)

Re: Tibetan Zen

Post by Sahajaya » Wed Aug 23, 2017 8:54 pm

Anonymous X wrote:
Sahajaya wrote: I don't think that you "get the sense of what" I think; but that is an interesting take off. Again it's a semantic confusion that many become caught up with via using words in the process of intellectual conceptions.
One way to avoid such is understanding Atisha's meaning when he suggested that all the paths should be taught under the one roof. Without that context, I think so-called Buddhists will continue to sport in attempting to piece together fragments for a longer time than is necessary; because it is very difficult to se the Great Integrity from its pieces without first getting a glimpse of that Great Integrity (undergoing a subjective initiation experience or introduction).
so, Buddha taught the middle way free from the two extremes. Therefore, he did not teach only absolute truth, but also relative truth and it is in their meeting that the profound awakening mind is activated. Then in Madhyamaka, in short, the Middle Path is presented as the Middle Way, not contradicting the two TRUTHS, but reformulating them. In tantra it becomes the Middle Channel -- a kiss -- direct transmission.

Therefore, in translation to keep it simple and avoid over-elaboration, absolute truth as sunyata and relative truth represented as rupakaya are merely two parts (a differentiated split) serving to wake up those who are lost in dualistic thought forms. Hence dharmic teachings are for the confused and ignorant lost in the illusion of samsara. Buddha taught the end of illusion -- the PATH that clears away all obstructions; but he did not teach that absolute truth was the end (at least not according to Mahayana). Absolute Reality never begun and will never end, but it is not possible to know that from an obstructed state. Hence the inseparable nature of dharmakaya (light) and rupakaya (the pain-free body) integrated in a human body represents the ultimate union of absolute and relative truth for a living and impermanent human being. Buddha dharma is for living, not for dying. In short, ultimate and absolute truth are used here interchangeably, hence their inseparable union with rupa (formations) cannot equal itself exclusively. It's a kiss, deep and touching or light and sweet -- that's my prayer.
:heart:
I think you're right, I have no idea what you're talking about. Talk about lost in the words...............
One would have to be able to think outside the box at least.
Original awareness is ever present. Look for it here in this very instant as your own true nature.

User avatar
Sherab
Posts: 1218
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am

Re: Tibetan Zen

Post by Sherab » Wed Aug 23, 2017 11:24 pm

Astus wrote:
Sherab wrote:And your point is?
It is about what Malcolm mentioned: when there is nothing that ceases, it is not annihilation.
With ultimate analysis, there is nothing that can be spoken of. There is no annihilation, there is no gaining of buddhahood, there is no merits, there is no karma. It still does not mean that there is ultimately no natural state of any sort. I was arguing for an ultimate reality which is the source for our illusory relative reality. My argument is not inconsistent with the suttas you highlighted.
Last edited by Sherab on Wed Aug 23, 2017 11:37 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Sherab
Posts: 1218
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am

Re: Tibetan Zen

Post by Sherab » Wed Aug 23, 2017 11:27 pm

Sahajaya wrote:
Sherab wrote:
Sahajaya wrote:
Simply, to point out inconsistencies and apparent contradictions AND at the same time provide CONTEXT in which the contradictions can be resolved at the same time.You might take that for granted, Sherab, but it is a larger problem in the sangha. Through understanding causes and conditions, as you know, interdependence is exposed. An even larger problem is for Dharma to easily be understood by the modern Westerner, "while not losing its deeper meaning".

As we know there are often culture clashes, based on past insinuations/assumptions, prejudice, and traditions, all being conditioned, while that which is unconditioned, beyond causes and conditions, although omnipresent since beginningless time is chronically ignored by *many* human beings.
Give me an example so that I can understand what you are driving at if you are referring to inconsistencies in doctrines or tenets.

Contradictions with modern science such as cosmology, the elements etc. is not an issue for me as those are the accepted understanding of the world at that time. The mission of the Buddha was turning the wheel of Dharma and not to correct wrong understanding of what was accepted about the world.
@Sherab, as I assume that you have studied Buddhism and have found contradictions among various schools, if not disputes and polemics. I shouldn't have to give you examples. I'm not addressing assertions regarding the assumption of a physical existential world, but rather Buddhist sectarianism; let alone the unwillingness of one ideologue to put themselves (even for a moment) to understand the contextural framework of another.
I view these disputes as simply unnecessary when one sees the issues involved from a certain perspective. I don't avoid inconsistencies or consistencies. To me, it is simply silly to avoid issues and not deal with them.

User avatar
Sahajaya
Posts: 38
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 10:40 pm
Location: Barbary Coast (Down from Broadway and Columbus)

Re: Tibetan Zen

Post by Sahajaya » Thu Aug 24, 2017 3:25 am

Sherab wrote:
Sahajaya wrote:
Sherab wrote: Give me an example so that I can understand what you are driving at if you are referring to inconsistencies in doctrines or tenets.

Contradictions with modern science such as cosmology, the elements etc. is not an issue for me as those are the accepted understanding of the world at that time. The mission of the Buddha was turning the wheel of Dharma and not to correct wrong understanding of what was accepted about the world.
@Sherab, as I assume that you have studied Buddhism and have found contradictions among various schools, if not disputes and polemics. I shouldn't have to give you examples. I'm not addressing assertions regarding the assumption of a physical existential world, but rather Buddhist sectarianism; let alone the unwillingness of one ideologue to put themselves (even for a moment) to understand the contextural framework of another.
I view these disputes as simply unnecessary when one sees the issues involved from a certain perspective. I don't avoid inconsistencies or consistencies. To me, it is simply silly to avoid issues and not deal with them.
No one accused you of doing so, or did they? In any case it's a needless distraction, agreed.
Original awareness is ever present. Look for it here in this very instant as your own true nature.

User avatar
Astus
Former staff member
Posts: 7063
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Budapest

Re: Tibetan Zen

Post by Astus » Thu Aug 24, 2017 8:30 am

Sherab wrote:It still does not mean that there is ultimately no natural state of any sort.
That sounds like an argument for an invisible elephant in a room where no elephant is found.
I was arguing for an ultimate reality which is the source for our illusory relative reality.
An ultimate cannot cause a relative thing, first because a cause cannot be ultimate, and second because of different nature (ultimate-relative). There is neither an ultimate basis nor a source in Buddhism, there is only dependent origination.
1 Myriad dharmas are only mind.
Mind is unobtainable.
What is there to seek?

2 If the Buddha-Nature is seen,
there will be no seeing of a nature in any thing.

3 Neither cultivation nor seated meditation —
this is the pure Chan of Tathagata.

4 With sudden enlightenment to Tathagata Chan,
the six paramitas and myriad means
are complete within that essence.


1 Huangbo, T2012Ap381c1 2 Nirvana Sutra, T374p521b3; tr. Yamamoto 3 Mazu, X1321p3b23; tr. J. Jia 4 Yongjia, T2014p395c14; tr. from "The Sword of Wisdom"

User avatar
Sherab
Posts: 1218
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am

Re: Tibetan Zen

Post by Sherab » Thu Aug 24, 2017 10:34 pm

Astus wrote:
Sherab wrote:It still does not mean that there is ultimately no natural state of any sort.
That sounds like an argument for an invisible elephant in a room where no elephant is found.
But I have given arguments/reasons for the argument within this thread.
Astus wrote:
I was arguing for an ultimate reality which is the source for our illusory relative reality.
An ultimate cannot cause a relative thing, first because a cause cannot be ultimate, and second because of different nature (ultimate-relative). There is neither an ultimate basis nor a source in Buddhism, there is only dependent origination.
That is because you have assumed the ultimate as something permanent and unchanging. You have strawman the ultimate as I see it into the dead zone of eternalism. You have also assumed dependent origination as identical to temporal causality.

User avatar
LastLegend
Posts: 2870
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:46 pm
Location: Washington DC

Re: Tibetan Zen

Post by LastLegend » Fri Aug 25, 2017 6:43 am

I watched this Japanese movie:that speaks about number. 0 is boundless, and 1 gives birth to many numbers.
NAMO AMITABHA
NAM MO A DI DA PHAT (VIETNAMESE)
NAMO AMITUOFO (CHINESE)

Bodhidharma [my translation]
―I come to the East to transmit this clear knowing mind without constructing any dharma―

User avatar
Astus
Former staff member
Posts: 7063
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Budapest

Re: Tibetan Zen

Post by Astus » Fri Aug 25, 2017 8:06 am

Sherab wrote:That is because you have assumed the ultimate as something permanent and unchanging.
Something is either permanent or impermanent. If the proposed ultimate is impermanent, why even call it the ultimate? If you may respond that it is not something, then it is necessarily nothing, in which case it does not exist, hence there is no ultimate at all.
1 Myriad dharmas are only mind.
Mind is unobtainable.
What is there to seek?

2 If the Buddha-Nature is seen,
there will be no seeing of a nature in any thing.

3 Neither cultivation nor seated meditation —
this is the pure Chan of Tathagata.

4 With sudden enlightenment to Tathagata Chan,
the six paramitas and myriad means
are complete within that essence.


1 Huangbo, T2012Ap381c1 2 Nirvana Sutra, T374p521b3; tr. Yamamoto 3 Mazu, X1321p3b23; tr. J. Jia 4 Yongjia, T2014p395c14; tr. from "The Sword of Wisdom"

Anonymous X
Posts: 813
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2017 11:43 am
Location: Bangkok

Re: Tibetan Zen

Post by Anonymous X » Fri Aug 25, 2017 8:24 am

Astus wrote:
Sherab wrote:That is because you have assumed the ultimate as something permanent and unchanging.
Something is either permanent or impermanent. If the proposed ultimate is impermanent, why even call it the ultimate? If you may respond that it is not something, then it is necessarily nothing, in which case it does not exist, hence there is no ultimate at all.
It always seems to me that trying to talk about the ultimate is sort of a waste of time. What is the point? There doesn't seem to be anything to really say as anything you ascribe to the ultimate can be taken as holding one of the views. If the point of Nagarjuna is to bring us to the abandonment of all views, is this not the same as the abandonment of discursive thinking? If we abandon both discursive thinking and holding onto to a view, whatever is present is present without a reference, without a self centre, simply appearing with no obstruction. There can never be any grasping of the ultimate. Whatever that living principle might be, it can not be separated out from anything. I hope this makes some sense to those interested in the subject.

User avatar
Astus
Former staff member
Posts: 7063
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Budapest

Re: Tibetan Zen

Post by Astus » Fri Aug 25, 2017 8:44 am

Anonymous X wrote:It always seems to me that trying to talk about the ultimate is sort of a waste of time. What is the point?
The ultimate is what one wants to achieve, to understand, to become. An ultimate existence is the false belief in a self, and as such it needs to be clarified and seen through in order to be free from it. The ultimate truth is what liberates from all suffering, and as such it is the final goal of the path. So there are good reasons to talk about the ultimate.
If the point of Nagarjuna is to bring us to the abandonment of all views, is this not the same as the abandonment of discursive thinking?
The aim is never a blank, wordless state, but wisdom and clarity. If it were the case that thoughts and concepts are bad and their absence is good, then one could gain liberation just by losing consciousness. But the point is to recognise the nature of thoughts as insubstantial, as empty, thus end attachment and identification.
1 Myriad dharmas are only mind.
Mind is unobtainable.
What is there to seek?

2 If the Buddha-Nature is seen,
there will be no seeing of a nature in any thing.

3 Neither cultivation nor seated meditation —
this is the pure Chan of Tathagata.

4 With sudden enlightenment to Tathagata Chan,
the six paramitas and myriad means
are complete within that essence.


1 Huangbo, T2012Ap381c1 2 Nirvana Sutra, T374p521b3; tr. Yamamoto 3 Mazu, X1321p3b23; tr. J. Jia 4 Yongjia, T2014p395c14; tr. from "The Sword of Wisdom"

Anonymous X
Posts: 813
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2017 11:43 am
Location: Bangkok

Re: Tibetan Zen

Post by Anonymous X » Fri Aug 25, 2017 9:31 am

Astus wrote:
Anonymous X wrote:It always seems to me that trying to talk about the ultimate is sort of a waste of time. What is the point?
The ultimate is what one wants to achieve, to understand, to become. An ultimate existence is the false belief in a self, and as such it needs to be clarified and seen through in order to be free from it. The ultimate truth is what liberates from all suffering, and as such it is the final goal of the path. So there are good reasons to talk about the ultimate.
If the point of Nagarjuna is to bring us to the abandonment of all views, is this not the same as the abandonment of discursive thinking?
The aim is never a blank, wordless state, but wisdom and clarity. If it were the case that thoughts and concepts are bad and their absence is good, then one could gain liberation just by losing consciousness. But the point is to recognise the nature of thoughts as insubstantial, as empty, thus end attachment and identification.
You seem to equate an absence of view as a blank, wordless state. Now I see where you get this image from. I can tell you that it is not a blank, wordless state. It is alive with a presence and clarity that is quite different than what you are imagining. Wisdom begins to function without the obstruction of discursive mind. It is not that thoughts are bad. It is that they cannot comprehend what is. Attachment and identification are absent when you let go of your view, that is if you don't reify another view. I'm surprised that you don't see this.

Post Reply

Return to “Tibetan Buddhism”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bluegaruda, Josef, namoh, Nosta, PeterC, smcj and 79 guests