Rabbit's Horns

Forum for discussion of Tibetan Buddhism. Questions specific to one school are best posted in the appropriate sub-forum.
krodha
Posts: 2416
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:30 pm

Re: Rabbit's Horns

Post by krodha » Thu Nov 16, 2017 11:35 pm

Grigoris wrote:
Thu Nov 16, 2017 10:00 pm
krodha wrote:
Thu Nov 16, 2017 5:44 pm
Yes it would be correct to say it [nirvana] does not exist.
Not according to Madhyamaka.
Overall, nirvāṇa is a cessation and cessations are not existent entities, so I would argue the fact that nirvāṇa lacks existence goes without saying. Then there is also the undeniable point that only conditioned entities exist, and if you assert that nirvāṇa exists, you are by default stating it is conditioned, which contradicts the teachings given that we both know nirvāṇa is unconditioned. But to unpack this further for the purposes of discussion, here is Nāgārjuna offering insight into the position Madhyamaka takes on the matter:

  • This pair, saṃsāra and nirvāṇa, does not exist.
    Thorough knowledge of saṃsāra is said to be nirvāṇa.

and Candrakīrti:

  • At the level of the unborn, there is no distinction of attaining nirvāṇa or not attaining nirvāṇa.
    The unborn nature itself is also not there, because there is no thing which is unborn.

Madhyamaka dialectics are quite clear that an unconditioned nature is not established at all due to the fact that the alleged ultimate nature, is truly nothing more than the non-arising of the so-called "relative", and therefore is nothing in and of itself. That is the meaning of the emptiness of essence [prakṛtisūnyatā] and naturelessness [niḥsvabhāva], which are synonymous principles that that Madhyamaka undoubtedly champions.

Again from Nāgārjuna:

  • Since arising, abiding and perishing are not established,
    the conditioned is not established;
    since the conditioned is never established,
    how can the unconditioned be established?

Candrakīrti again echoing these sentiments:

  • Since nirvāṇa is the supreme goal, it is the ultimate, beyond all suffering. This being empty of itself is the voidness of the ultimate. Indeed to counter the conviction that nirvāṇa is a real existent entity, the knower of the ultimate set forth the voidness of the ultimate.

The Mahāprajñāpāramitā-śāstra unpacks this principle of prakṛtisūnyatā a bit further:

  • People still say: "The five aggregates [skandha], the twelve bases of consciousness [āyatana] and the eighteen elements [dhātu] are all empty. Only suchness [tathatā], the fundamental element [dharmadhātu], the highest culminating point of the truth [bhūtakoṭi] are true essences [bhūtaprakṛti]." - In order to cut through this error, the Buddha simply replied "The five aggregates [skandha], but also suchness, the fundamental element and the culminating point of the truth are empty." This is called the emptiness of the essences [prakṛtisūnyatā].

And then the tantras and various adepts of Vajrayāna, along with Yogācāra texts such as the Saṃdhinirmocana are brutally explicit in their clarification that nirvāṇa (and an unconditioned nature in general) lacks existence. They truly leave no room for misinterpretation.

Bristollad
Posts: 416
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2015 11:39 am

Re: Rabbit's Horns

Post by Bristollad » Fri Nov 17, 2017 3:12 am

krodha wrote:
Thu Nov 16, 2017 11:35 pm
Grigoris wrote:
Thu Nov 16, 2017 10:00 pm
krodha wrote:
Thu Nov 16, 2017 5:44 pm
Yes it would be correct to say it [nirvana] does not exist.
Not according to Madhyamaka.
Overall, nirvāṇa is a cessation and cessations are not existent entities, so I would argue the fact that nirvāṇa lacks existence goes without saying. Then there is also the undeniable point that only conditioned entities exist, and if you assert that nirvāṇa exists, you are by default stating it is conditioned, which contradicts the teachings given that we both know nirvāṇa is unconditioned.
But cessations are existent phenomena...

The division of existents is into two: permanent (or static) phenomena and functioning things.
Permanent phenomena are divided into four: space, analytical cessations, non-analytical cessations, and suchness
Meditation on Emptiness, p.218 wrote: Analytical cessations are final states of cessation of obstructions upon analysis of the nature of phenomena, which are such that those obstructions will never return. They are enumerated as true cessations, the third of the four noble truths, in terms of the individual obstructions being abandoned on the levels of the paths....{...}...A nirvana is an analytical cessation that comes into existence upon the abandonment of the last affliction. It is not the act of cessation or the act of passing beyond sorrow but a phenomena possessed in the continuum of a yogi that is the mere absence of the ceased afflictions.

DGA
Former staff member
Posts: 9349
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Rabbit's Horns

Post by DGA » Fri Nov 17, 2017 3:18 am

Lukeinaz wrote:
Wed Nov 15, 2017 10:45 pm
From the Gelug POV:

“The horns of a rabbit do not inherently exist because they do not exist at all. The mere realization of their non-existence reveals that the horns of a rabbit do not inherently exist; therefore, the non-inherent existence of the horns of a rabbit is not an emptiness. An emptiness is not understood through realizing the mere non-existence of an object; it is known through comprehending in an existent object the absence of the quality of inherent or objective existence.”

The introduction of the concept of "inherent existence" seems unnecessary to me. Why? Because rabbits don't have horns. They don't have any kind of existence at all. The horn of the rabbit is a metaphor for something that is fictional, nonexistent, nonsense. Why bring in all that conceptual elaboration to just point at something and say, "such bullshit"? Because it is.

it's not all turtles, you know. it's all nonsense, all the way down. it's incoherent and it doesn't mean a damned thing

with that said, it's not impossible to have a good time

Bristollad
Posts: 416
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2015 11:39 am

Re: Rabbit's Horns

Post by Bristollad » Fri Nov 17, 2017 3:27 am

DGA wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 3:18 am
Lukeinaz wrote:
Wed Nov 15, 2017 10:45 pm
From the Gelug POV:

“The horns of a rabbit do not inherently exist because they do not exist at all. The mere realization of their non-existence reveals that the horns of a rabbit do not inherently exist; therefore, the non-inherent existence of the horns of a rabbit is not an emptiness. An emptiness is not understood through realizing the mere non-existence of an object; it is known through comprehending in an existent object the absence of the quality of inherent or objective existence.”

The introduction of the concept of "inherent existence" seems unnecessary to me. Why? Because rabbits don't have horns. They don't have any kind of existence at all. The horn of the rabbit is a metaphor for something that is fictional, nonexistent, nonsense. Why bring in all that conceptual elaboration to just point at something and say, "such bullshit"? Because it is.

it's not all turtles, you know. it's all nonsense, all the way down. it's incoherent and it doesn't mean a damned thing.
Personally I found it coherent and meaningful - horses for courses.

krodha
Posts: 2416
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:30 pm

Re: Rabbit's Horns

Post by krodha » Fri Nov 17, 2017 4:15 am

Bristollad wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 3:12 am
But cessations are existent phenomena...

A cessation is merely an absence of a cause, and absence of arising, etc., if cessations are existent then they are conditioned by definition. You just cited the two forms of cessation below as unconditioned dharmas, which they are, therefore they are not conditioned, and not existent.
Bristollad wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 3:12 am
The division of existents is into two: permanent (or static) phenomena and functioning things.
I think you mean the division of dharmas is in two: unconditioned and conditioned. Translating "dharma" as "an existent" is going to be problematic for various reasons.
Bristollad wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 3:12 am
Permanent phenomena are divided into four: space, analytical cessations, non-analytical cessations, and suchness
There are three forms of unconditioned dharmas, which are space and two forms of cessation. Sometimes emptiness (or suchness) is added.
Bristollad wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 3:12 am
Meditation on Emptiness, p.218 wrote:Analytical cessations are final states of cessation of obstructions upon analysis of the nature of phenomena, which are such that those obstructions will never return. They are enumerated as true cessations, the third of the four noble truths, in terms of the individual obstructions being abandoned on the levels of the paths....{...}...A nirvana is an analytical cessation that comes into existence upon the abandonment of the last affliction. It is not the act of cessation or the act of passing beyond sorrow but a phenomena possessed in the continuum of a yogi that is the mere absence of the ceased afflictions.
At any rate, while cessations are indeed a form of unconditioned phenomena [dharma], they are not existent entities. Nirvana, being analytical cessation, is not an existent entity either.

Bristollad
Posts: 416
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2015 11:39 am

Re: Rabbit's Horns

Post by Bristollad » Fri Nov 17, 2017 8:36 am

krodha wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 4:15 am
Bristollad wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 3:12 am
But cessations are existent phenomena...

A cessation is merely an absence of a cause, and absence of arising, etc., if cessations are existent then they are conditioned by definition. You just cited the two forms of cessation below as unconditioned dharmas, which they are, therefore they are not conditioned, and not existent.
Bristollad wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 3:12 am
The division of existents is into two: permanent (or static) phenomena and functioning things.
I think you mean the division of dharmas is in two: unconditioned and conditioned. Translating "dharma" as "an existent" is going to be problematic for various reasons.
Bristollad wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 3:12 am
Permanent phenomena are divided into four: space, analytical cessations, non-analytical cessations, and suchness
There are three forms of unconditioned dharmas, which are space and two forms of cessation. Sometimes emptiness (or suchness) is added.
Bristollad wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 3:12 am
Meditation on Emptiness, p.218 wrote:Analytical cessations are final states of cessation of obstructions upon analysis of the nature of phenomena, which are such that those obstructions will never return. They are enumerated as true cessations, the third of the four noble truths, in terms of the individual obstructions being abandoned on the levels of the paths....{...}...A nirvana is an analytical cessation that comes into existence upon the abandonment of the last affliction. It is not the act of cessation or the act of passing beyond sorrow but a phenomena possessed in the continuum of a yogi that is the mere absence of the ceased afflictions.
At any rate, while cessations are indeed a form of unconditioned phenomena [dharma], they are not existent entities. Nirvana, being analytical cessation, is not an existent entity either.
There is the selfless: divided into two, non-existents, and existents.
Meditation on Emptiness p. 214 wrote: A synonym of 'non-existent' is 'non-phenomenal non-product'. Non-existents are non-products because they are not produced from an aggregation of causes and conditions; they are also non-phenomena because they do not exist, unlike phenomenal non-products, such as the permanent phenomenon space, which do exist.

An existent is selfless, or non-inherently existent; its non- inherent existence is an emptiness. Synonyms of 'existent' are 'phenomenon', 'object', 'object of knowledge' and 'established base'. Thus, everything that exists is a phenomenon (dharma), so translated because all dharmas are objects of knowledge and can appear to the mind, evenpermanent phenomena such as emptiness and space.
This pretty standard Geluk presentation of tenets.

krodha
Posts: 2416
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:30 pm

Re: Rabbit's Horns

Post by krodha » Fri Nov 17, 2017 8:58 am

Bristollad wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 8:36 am
There is the selfless: divided into two, non-existents, and existents.
What is "the selfless"?

All phenomena are selfless because they lack an essential nature.

There is no entity called "the selfless" that is capable of being divided or remaining undivided.
Bristollad wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 8:36 am
Meditation on Emptiness p. 214 wrote: A synonym of 'non-existent' is 'non-phenomenal non-product'. Non-existents are non-products because they are not produced from an aggregation of causes and conditions; they are also non-phenomena because they do not exist, unlike phenomenal non-products, such as the permanent phenomenon space, which do exist.

An existent is selfless, or non-inherently existent; its non- inherent existence is an emptiness. Synonyms of 'existent' are 'phenomenon', 'object', 'object of knowledge' and 'established base'. Thus, everything that exists is a phenomenon (dharma), so translated because all dharmas are objects of knowledge and can appear to the mind, evenpermanent phenomena such as emptiness and space.
This pretty standard Geluk presentation of tenets.
I'm not a fan of Gelug tenets. But nevertheless, if you are asserting nirvana exists, you are saying it is a conditioned dharma.

There is no such thing as an unconditioned existent.

Nirvana is the total cessation of cause for the cyclical process of rebirth in the three realms. A cessation of affliction. I don't see how you propose to assert that a cessation of that nature is an existent entity.

Bristollad
Posts: 416
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2015 11:39 am

Re: Rabbit's Horns

Post by Bristollad » Fri Nov 17, 2017 9:14 am

krodha wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 8:58 am
Bristollad wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 8:36 am
There is the selfless: divided into two, non-existents, and existents.
What is "the selfless"?

All phenomena are selfless because they lack an essential nature.

There is no entity called "the selfless" that is capable of being divided or remaining undivided.
Bristollad wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 8:36 am
Meditation on Emptiness p. 214 wrote: A synonym of 'non-existent' is 'non-phenomenal non-product'. Non-existents are non-products because they are not produced from an aggregation of causes and conditions; they are also non-phenomena because they do not exist, unlike phenomenal non-products, such as the permanent phenomenon space, which do exist.

An existent is selfless, or non-inherently existent; its non- inherent existence is an emptiness. Synonyms of 'existent' are 'phenomenon', 'object', 'object of knowledge' and 'established base'. Thus, everything that exists is a phenomenon (dharma), so translated because all dharmas are objects of knowledge and can appear to the mind, evenpermanent phenomena such as emptiness and space.
This pretty standard Geluk presentation of tenets.
I'm not a fan of Gelug tenets. But nevertheless, if you are asserting nirvana exists, you are saying it is a conditioned dharma.

There is no such thing as an unconditioned existent.
There is as far as the Geluk presentation is concerned, as stated before there are four. If they were not existents they would not be objects of knowledge and could not appear to the mind.

Why do you say there are no unconditioned existents? Does uncompounded space not exist?

P.s. The selfless is not an entity, it is simply the largest category we can talk about, because everything is selfless.

krodha
Posts: 2416
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:30 pm

Re: Rabbit's Horns

Post by krodha » Fri Nov 17, 2017 11:45 am

Bristollad wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 9:14 am
There is as far as the Geluk presentation is concerned, as stated before there are four. If they were not existents they would not be objects of knowledge and could not appear to the mind.
Unconditioned phenomena cannot be direct objects of knowledge (i.e., objects of mind), they do not appear to the mind.
Bristollad wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 9:14 am
Why do you say there are no unconditioned existents? Does uncompounded space not exist?
An unconditioned existent is an oxymoron.

Uncompounded space is a metaphor for emptiness, are you asserting that emptiness exists?
Bristollad wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 9:14 am
P.s. The selfless is not an entity, it is simply the largest category we can talk about, because everything is selfless.
I'm still unsure as to why you are rendering "selfless" as a noun, as if it is some sort of freestanding thing.

Moreover, stating that selflessness is something capable of being subdivided into the categories of existence and non-existence is absurd.

Bristollad
Posts: 416
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2015 11:39 am

Re: Rabbit's Horns

Post by Bristollad » Fri Nov 17, 2017 1:53 pm

krodha wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 11:45 am
Bristollad wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 9:14 am
There is as far as the Geluk presentation is concerned, as stated before there are four. If they were not existents they would not be objects of knowledge and could not appear to the mind.
Unconditioned phenomena cannot be direct objects of knowledge (i.e., objects of mind), they do not appear to the mind.
Bristollad wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 9:14 am
Why do you say there are no unconditioned existents? Does uncompounded space not exist?
An unconditioned existent is an oxymoron.
No.
krodha wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 11:45 am
Uncompounded space is a metaphor for emptiness, are you asserting that emptiness exists?
Yes
krodha wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 11:45 am
Bristollad wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 9:14 am
P.s. The selfless is not an entity, it is simply the largest category we can talk about, because everything is selfless.
I'm still unsure as to why you are rendering "selfless" as a noun, as if it is some sort of freestanding thing.
I'm not.
krodha wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 11:45 am
Moreover, stating that selflessness is something capable of being subdivided into the categories of existence and non-existence is absurd.
It would be if I had.

I'm not going to get into the whole "Geluk sucks" debate with you. Their presentation works for me.

Lukeinaz
Posts: 351
Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2014 9:34 pm

Re: Rabbit's Horns

Post by Lukeinaz » Fri Nov 17, 2017 2:26 pm

krodha wrote:
Thu Nov 16, 2017 12:46 am
Just as the horns on rabbits' heads,
Do not exist except in the imagination,
Phenomena are all precisely like that,
Merely imagined, having no existence.
- Dharmadhātustava
This is pretty smooth compared to the Hopkins quote. The Gelug view worked well for me up to a point. Eventually I ran out of boxes
to neatly organize all the information.
You are truly astonishing--going to look for yourself when you already are yourself! --Longchen Rabjam

Seeker12
Posts: 137
Joined: Mon May 08, 2017 5:54 pm

Re: Rabbit's Horns

Post by Seeker12 » Fri Nov 17, 2017 2:33 pm

Krodha is correct.

Any entity entails dualism, and there are no truly existent entities with inherent existence.

On the Path, Nirvana is taken as an object for a while but it is also empty ultimately. If things are unborn that means that they never had inherent existence in the first place. Seeing this is not the same as finding an actual inherently existent entity.
Therein is nothing to remove
And thereto not the slightest thing to add.
The perfect truth viewed perfectly
And perfectly beheld is liberation.

Uttaratantra

Seeker12
Posts: 137
Joined: Mon May 08, 2017 5:54 pm

Re: Rabbit's Horns

Post by Seeker12 » Fri Nov 17, 2017 2:36 pm

DGA wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 3:18 am
Lukeinaz wrote:
Wed Nov 15, 2017 10:45 pm
From the Gelug POV:

“The horns of a rabbit do not inherently exist because they do not exist at all. The mere realization of their non-existence reveals that the horns of a rabbit do not inherently exist; therefore, the non-inherent existence of the horns of a rabbit is not an emptiness. An emptiness is not understood through realizing the mere non-existence of an object; it is known through comprehending in an existent object the absence of the quality of inherent or objective existence.”

The introduction of the concept of "inherent existence" seems unnecessary to me. Why? Because rabbits don't have horns. They don't have any kind of existence at all. The horn of the rabbit is a metaphor for something that is fictional, nonexistent, nonsense. Why bring in all that conceptual elaboration to just point at something and say, "such bullshit"? Because it is.

it's not all turtles, you know. it's all nonsense, all the way down. it's incoherent and it doesn't mean a damned thing

with that said, it's not impossible to have a good time
There are rabbit horns and ox's horns. Rabbit horns are clearly non-existent, but Ox's horns appear to be existent. However, on ultimate analysis, ox's horns also do not have inherent existence, hence the conversation about the two of them and 'inherent existence'.
Therein is nothing to remove
And thereto not the slightest thing to add.
The perfect truth viewed perfectly
And perfectly beheld is liberation.

Uttaratantra

Simon E.
Posts: 5625
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 11:09 am

Re: Rabbit's Horns

Post by Simon E. » Fri Nov 17, 2017 2:41 pm

DGA wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 3:18 am
Lukeinaz wrote:
Wed Nov 15, 2017 10:45 pm
From the Gelug POV:

“The horns of a rabbit do not inherently exist because they do not exist at all. The mere realization of their non-existence reveals that the horns of a rabbit do not inherently exist; therefore, the non-inherent existence of the horns of a rabbit is not an emptiness. An emptiness is not understood through realizing the mere non-existence of an object; it is known through comprehending in an existent object the absence of the quality of inherent or objective existence.”

The introduction of the concept of "inherent existence" seems unnecessary to me. Why? Because rabbits don't have horns. They don't have any kind of existence at all. The horn of the rabbit is a metaphor for something that is fictional, nonexistent, nonsense. Why bring in all that conceptual elaboration to just point at something and say, "such bullshit"? Because it is.

it's not all turtles, you know. it's all nonsense, all the way down. it's incoherent and it doesn't mean a damned thing

with that said, it's not impossible to have a good time
:good:

CTR...' I shot the rabbit. If anyone cares it's over there in the pot with some nice orange carrots and an onion.'
Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche " Cambridge Talks"...
Gone fishin' :smile:

User avatar
bokki
Posts: 229
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2017 11:45 pm

Re: Rabbit's Horns

Post by bokki » Fri Nov 17, 2017 3:07 pm

CTR...' I shot the rabbit. If anyone cares it's over there in the pot with some nice orange carrots and an onion.'
Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche " Cambridge Talks"...
LOL LOLOL :rolling:
i love onions, on i on
LOL
tasty, put in a few more
u cry while cutting it, but i like d taste
LOL
"I shot the rabbit...
LOL :rolling:
Another log on the fire,
10,000 frogs singing in the rain,
burst into flames.
- Linda Anderson

Tolya M
Posts: 228
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2016 7:26 pm

Re: Rabbit's Horns

Post by Tolya M » Fri Nov 17, 2017 3:07 pm

-Horns of a hare
-Hair on the tortoise shell
-Raven's teeth
-The son of a barren woman
-Yellow sea shell
- Stick (rope) mistaked for the snake

It was always interesting to me that among these examples there is a completely non-existent and a mistake of perception. Horns of a hare are ears but the son of a barren woman is completely nonsense. Is there any canonical connection between forms of defective views and such examples I wonder? :)

User avatar
PuerAzaelis
Posts: 958
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 1:37 pm

Re: Rabbit's Horns

Post by PuerAzaelis » Fri Nov 17, 2017 3:11 pm

DGA wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 3:18 am
it's incoherent and it doesn't mean a damned thing
2+2=4.

There's nothing incoherent about a rabbit having horns.
Generally, enjoyment of speech is the gateway to poor [results]. So it becomes the foundation for generating all negative emotional states. Jampel Pawo, The Certainty of the Diamond Mind

For posts from this user, see Karma Dondrup Tashi account.

Tolya M
Posts: 228
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2016 7:26 pm

Re: Rabbit's Horns

Post by Tolya M » Fri Nov 17, 2017 3:14 pm

krodha wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 11:45 am
Bristollad wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 9:14 am
There is as far as the Geluk presentation is concerned, as stated before there are four. If they were not existents they would not be objects of knowledge and could not appear to the mind.
Unconditioned phenomena cannot be direct objects of knowledge (i.e., objects of mind), they do not appear to the mind.
They are objects of mind. Tathata, nirvana, nibbana etc. Nibbana is evident only when all path-factors\sila-samadhi-panna are in play for ex.

Bristollad
Posts: 416
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2015 11:39 am

Re: Rabbit's Horns

Post by Bristollad » Fri Nov 17, 2017 3:34 pm

Seeker12 wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 2:33 pm
Krodha is correct.

Any entity entails dualism, and there are no truly existent entities with inherent existence.
Agreed
Seeker12 wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 2:33 pm
On the Path, Nirvana is taken as an object for a while but it is also empty ultimately. If things are unborn that means that they never had inherent existence in the first place. Seeing this is not the same as finding an actual inherently existent entity.
There are no actual inherently existent entities to find, nothing can exist in that way.

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 28285
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Rabbit's Horns

Post by Malcolm » Fri Nov 17, 2017 3:43 pm

Bristollad wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 3:12 am


But cessations are existent phenomena...
No, they are not. They do not arise from causes and conditions. Why? Because they do not arise.

To be existent is to be conditioned. Neither space nor the two cessations are conditioned.
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


[A]nything at all that is well spoken is the word of the Buddha.

-- Ārya-adhyāśaya-sañcodana-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

-- Samadhirāja Sūtra

Post Reply

Return to “Tibetan Buddhism”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], heart, javier.espinoza.t, PeterC, practitioner, ratna and 66 guests