I think you're right, I have no idea what you're talking about. Talk about lost in the words...............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.
Tibetan Zen
-
- Posts: 813
- Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2017 11:43 am
- Location: Bangkok
Re: Tibetan Zen
- LastLegend
- Posts: 5408
- Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:46 pm
- Location: Northern Virginia
Re: Tibetan Zen
The matter of what happens after death to a liberated one is discussed in several suttas:Sherab wrote:I could not find your quotation in Sutta Nipata.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.
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"
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"
Re: Tibetan Zen
And your point is?Astus wrote:The matter of what happens after death to a liberated one is discussed in several suttas:Sherab wrote:I could not find your quotation in Sutta Nipata.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.
Yamaka Sutta, Anuradha Sutta, Avyakata-samyutta
Re: Tibetan Zen
I disagree.Malcolm wrote:Sherab wrote: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.Malcolm wrote:
It is in the sutta where someone asks the Buddha what happened to a given arhat who had died.
No, I did not make a mistake.
Re: Tibetan Zen
Give me an example so that I can understand what you are driving at if you are referring to inconsistencies in doctrines or tenets.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".Sherab wrote:It would be silly to avoid consistencies. I am not sure what you are getting at.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.
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.
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.
Re: Tibetan Zen
It is about what Malcolm mentioned: when there is nothing that ceases, it is not annihilation.Sherab wrote:And your point is?
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"
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"
- Sahajaya
- Posts: 38
- Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 10:40 pm
- Location: Barbary Coast (Down from Broadway and Columbus)
- Contact:
Re: Tibetan Zen
@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.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.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".Sherab wrote:
It would be silly to avoid consistencies. I am not sure what you are getting at.
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.
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.
Original awareness is ever present. Look for it here in this very instant as your own true nature.
- Sahajaya
- Posts: 38
- Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 10:40 pm
- Location: Barbary Coast (Down from Broadway and Columbus)
- Contact:
Re: Tibetan Zen
One would have to be able to think outside the box at least.Anonymous X wrote:I think you're right, I have no idea what you're talking about. Talk about lost in the words...............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.
Original awareness is ever present. Look for it here in this very instant as your own true nature.
Re: Tibetan Zen
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.Astus wrote:It is about what Malcolm mentioned: when there is nothing that ceases, it is not annihilation.Sherab wrote:And your point is?
Last edited by Sherab on Wed Aug 23, 2017 11:37 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Re: Tibetan Zen
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.Sahajaya wrote:@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.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.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.
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.
- Sahajaya
- Posts: 38
- Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 10:40 pm
- Location: Barbary Coast (Down from Broadway and Columbus)
- Contact:
Re: Tibetan Zen
No one accused you of doing so, or did they? In any case it's a needless distraction, agreed.Sherab wrote: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.Sahajaya wrote:@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.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.
Original awareness is ever present. Look for it here in this very instant as your own true nature.
Re: Tibetan Zen
That sounds like an argument for an invisible elephant in a room where no elephant is found.Sherab wrote:It still does not mean that there is ultimately no natural state of any sort.
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.I was arguing for an ultimate reality which is the source for our illusory relative reality.
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"
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"
Re: Tibetan Zen
But I have given arguments/reasons for the argument within this thread.Astus wrote:That sounds like an argument for an invisible elephant in a room where no elephant is found.Sherab wrote:It still does not mean that there is ultimately no natural state of any sort.
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.Astus wrote: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.I was arguing for an ultimate reality which is the source for our illusory relative reality.
- LastLegend
- Posts: 5408
- Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:46 pm
- Location: Northern Virginia
Re: Tibetan Zen
I watched this Japanese movie:that speaks about number. 0 is boundless, and 1 gives birth to many numbers.
It’s eye blinking.
Re: Tibetan Zen
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.Sherab wrote:That is because you have assumed the ultimate as something permanent and unchanging.
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"
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"
-
- Posts: 813
- Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2017 11:43 am
- Location: Bangkok
Re: Tibetan Zen
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.Astus wrote: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.Sherab wrote:That is because you have assumed the ultimate as something permanent and unchanging.
Re: Tibetan Zen
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.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 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.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?
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"
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"
-
- Posts: 813
- Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2017 11:43 am
- Location: Bangkok
Re: Tibetan Zen
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.Astus wrote: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.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 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.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?