We do, so it is imperative to find one. Good luck!Tsongkhapafan wrote:
You're right, from one point of view we are just relying on words; but words are empty of inherent meaning so we need to receive the correct meaning from living realised Masters.
Inherent deja vu all over again
Re: Inherent deja vu all over again
Last edited by Malcolm on Sat Dec 17, 2016 1:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
- conebeckham
- Posts: 5715
- Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:49 pm
- Location: Bay Area, CA, USA
Re: Inherent deja vu all over again
Yes, yes...but then it merely becomes whose words one wishes to endorse. For instance, the difference between svabhava and bhava....your system asserts Chandra meant one, but used the other. In some sense, you ignore the actual words in favor of other words.Tsongkhapafan wrote:You're right, from one point of view we are just relying on words; but words are empty of inherent meaning so we need to receive the correct meaning from living realised Masters, not just from books.conebeckham wrote:Irony alert.Tsongkhapafan wrote:
Quite so, which is why relying just on words is dangerous.
If we do not rely on words, then on what should we rely?
In his teaching on the Four Reliances, Buddha said:
"Do not rely upon the words, but upon the meaning" means we should not be influenced merely by the poetic or rhetorical style of a particular teaching, but should accept it only if the actual meaning of the words is reasonable. If the words do not make sense or contradict our understanding of the meaning of Dharma, we need to investigate further until we are satisfied.Do not rely upon the person, but upon the Dharma.
Do not rely upon the words, but upon the meaning.
Do not rely upon the interpretative meaning, but upon the definitive meaning.
Do not rely upon consciousness, but upon wisdom.
དམ་པའི་དོན་ནི་ཤེས་རབ་ཆེ་བ་དང་།
རྟོག་གེའི་ཡུལ་མིན་བླ་མའི་བྱིན་རླབས་དང་།
སྐལ་ལྡན་ལས་འཕྲོ་ཅན་གྱིས་རྟོགས་པ་སྟེ།
དེ་ནི་ཤེས་རབ་ལ་ནི་ལོ་རྟོག་སེལ།།
"Absolute Truth is not an object of analytical discourse or great discriminating wisdom,
It is realized through the blessing grace of the Guru and fortunate Karmic potential.
Like this, mistaken ideas of discriminating wisdom are clarified."
- (Kyabje Bokar Rinpoche, from his summary of "The Ocean of Definitive Meaning")
རྟོག་གེའི་ཡུལ་མིན་བླ་མའི་བྱིན་རླབས་དང་།
སྐལ་ལྡན་ལས་འཕྲོ་ཅན་གྱིས་རྟོགས་པ་སྟེ།
དེ་ནི་ཤེས་རབ་ལ་ནི་ལོ་རྟོག་སེལ།།
"Absolute Truth is not an object of analytical discourse or great discriminating wisdom,
It is realized through the blessing grace of the Guru and fortunate Karmic potential.
Like this, mistaken ideas of discriminating wisdom are clarified."
- (Kyabje Bokar Rinpoche, from his summary of "The Ocean of Definitive Meaning")
Re: Inherent deja vu all over again
This thread has brought the following to the front of my mind:conebeckham wrote:Yes, but those who support it will claim that an "oral transmission" or "explicatory tradition" is needed to unpack the "True Meaning" of those phrases, and that only that tradition or transmission of theirs discerns the "correct and intended meaning." And so it goes.....building towering confections of prapanca, Ghandarva cities of conceptual proliferation, because of worries about the correct functioning of the seeming, the inexorability of the Law of Karma, etc.Malcolm wrote: It is in sum, an incorrect translation.
*Gratitude that there are authentic and competent Buddhist masters in this world, and that they are willing to teach and lead beings.
*It's important to follow and authentic and competent master on this path.
- conebeckham
- Posts: 5715
- Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:49 pm
- Location: Bay Area, CA, USA
Re: Inherent deja vu all over again
Fair to say Gelukpas do not refute "conventional existence" and their object to be refuted is inherent existence. But you appear to be proposing a third existence--that understood by worldly people? Or are you claiming that inherent existence is the existence assumed by worldly people?Bakmoon wrote:The conventional existence which Gelugpas do not refute is not the same as 'existence' as understood by worldly people, so it isn't fair to lump it in under the category of existence. in a general sense like that.Malcolm wrote:There is really no difference between existence and inherent existence, as Nāgārjuna shows and as I have discussed many times. It is in fact a barren distinction:Bakmoon wrote: Gelugpas negate inherent existence, not existence in general, so this establishes the nonexistence of inherent existence, not a total nonexistence.
But Gelugpas do not negate the nonexistence of inherent existence. They negate the inherent existence of the nonexistence of inherent existence.
- Where is there an existence not included in inherent existence or dependent existence..."
If the former is the case, that is a unique presentation of tenets, indeed. If the latter, please go back to the source texts, where Chandra, Nagarjuna etc. explicitly say the do not dispute worldly concensus ON THE LEVEL OF NO EXAMNATION. Mere existence, conventional existence--these are equivalent, and don't withstand analysis at all. Inherent existence is a conceptual sophism not part of daily experience for worldly people.
Last edited by conebeckham on Sat Dec 17, 2016 2:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
དམ་པའི་དོན་ནི་ཤེས་རབ་ཆེ་བ་དང་།
རྟོག་གེའི་ཡུལ་མིན་བླ་མའི་བྱིན་རླབས་དང་།
སྐལ་ལྡན་ལས་འཕྲོ་ཅན་གྱིས་རྟོགས་པ་སྟེ།
དེ་ནི་ཤེས་རབ་ལ་ནི་ལོ་རྟོག་སེལ།།
"Absolute Truth is not an object of analytical discourse or great discriminating wisdom,
It is realized through the blessing grace of the Guru and fortunate Karmic potential.
Like this, mistaken ideas of discriminating wisdom are clarified."
- (Kyabje Bokar Rinpoche, from his summary of "The Ocean of Definitive Meaning")
རྟོག་གེའི་ཡུལ་མིན་བླ་མའི་བྱིན་རླབས་དང་།
སྐལ་ལྡན་ལས་འཕྲོ་ཅན་གྱིས་རྟོགས་པ་སྟེ།
དེ་ནི་ཤེས་རབ་ལ་ནི་ལོ་རྟོག་སེལ།།
"Absolute Truth is not an object of analytical discourse or great discriminating wisdom,
It is realized through the blessing grace of the Guru and fortunate Karmic potential.
Like this, mistaken ideas of discriminating wisdom are clarified."
- (Kyabje Bokar Rinpoche, from his summary of "The Ocean of Definitive Meaning")
Re: Inherent deja vu all over again
Of course it is, who else do you think Gelugpas are talking to, āryas? The whole point of the Gelugpa view is that they claim to be addressing common people.Bakmoon wrote:The conventional existence which Gelugpas do not refute is not the same as 'existence' as understood by worldly people, so it isn't fair to lump it in under the category of existence. in a general sense like that.Malcolm wrote:There is really no difference between existence and inherent existence, as Nāgārjuna shows and as I have discussed many times. It is in fact a barren distinction:Bakmoon wrote: Gelugpas negate inherent existence, not existence in general, so this establishes the nonexistence of inherent existence, not a total nonexistence.
But Gelugpas do not negate the nonexistence of inherent existence. They negate the inherent existence of the nonexistence of inherent existence.
- Where is there an existence not included in inherent existence or dependent existence..."
- cloudburst
- Posts: 400
- Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2011 4:49 pm
Re: Inherent deja vu all over again
Cone don't you find it ironic that you are citing an 8oo page work in your defense of freedom from elaborations?conebeckham wrote:And here we see the foundation of the new Ghandarva City, with the beginnings of the superstructure rising......Tsongkhapafan wrote:It's a translation of the meaning, not just the words.Malcolm wrote:
- yadā na bhāvo nābhāvo...
- གང་ཚེ་དངོས་དང་དངོས་མེད་དག
Not one of the words in the following phrase exist in the Tibetan translation, not to the mention the Sanskrit original.
- When neither an entity (dngos po, bhāva) nor a nonentity (dngos po, abhāva)...
None of Śantideva's Indian commentators understand this to mean the "true existence of..." and translated non-entity as emptiness is quite strange and wrong.
- Eventually, when the true existence of things and the true existence of emptiness....
The primary commentator, Prajñākaravarman, states:
It is in sum, an incorrect translation.
- As such, this means that when neither an entity nor a nonentity remain before the mind of the yogi, because at that time an apprehensible aspect does not appear, all concepts are pacified through the absence of perception.
I know you are a literalist, Malcolm, who believes that the mere words of a text convey the correct meaning, but this is simply not the case. I have given a clear explanation of the real meaning of this verse. Can you explain how Prajñākaravarman's commentary differs from the explanation I gave? I don't believe there is any difference except that it is incorrect to say there is an absence of perception per se because there is no mind without an object. Thus, even the commentary requires clarification as to the correct meaning which is that all concepts of inherent existence are pacified through the absence of perceiving inherent existence.
- conebeckham
- Posts: 5715
- Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:49 pm
- Location: Bay Area, CA, USA
Re: Inherent deja vu all over again
Nah. It's more readable than Hopkins, for instance! And Brunnholzl is big on ...."background."
དམ་པའི་དོན་ནི་ཤེས་རབ་ཆེ་བ་དང་།
རྟོག་གེའི་ཡུལ་མིན་བླ་མའི་བྱིན་རླབས་དང་།
སྐལ་ལྡན་ལས་འཕྲོ་ཅན་གྱིས་རྟོགས་པ་སྟེ།
དེ་ནི་ཤེས་རབ་ལ་ནི་ལོ་རྟོག་སེལ།།
"Absolute Truth is not an object of analytical discourse or great discriminating wisdom,
It is realized through the blessing grace of the Guru and fortunate Karmic potential.
Like this, mistaken ideas of discriminating wisdom are clarified."
- (Kyabje Bokar Rinpoche, from his summary of "The Ocean of Definitive Meaning")
རྟོག་གེའི་ཡུལ་མིན་བླ་མའི་བྱིན་རླབས་དང་།
སྐལ་ལྡན་ལས་འཕྲོ་ཅན་གྱིས་རྟོགས་པ་སྟེ།
དེ་ནི་ཤེས་རབ་ལ་ནི་ལོ་རྟོག་སེལ།།
"Absolute Truth is not an object of analytical discourse or great discriminating wisdom,
It is realized through the blessing grace of the Guru and fortunate Karmic potential.
Like this, mistaken ideas of discriminating wisdom are clarified."
- (Kyabje Bokar Rinpoche, from his summary of "The Ocean of Definitive Meaning")
- cloudburst
- Posts: 400
- Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2011 4:49 pm
Re: Inherent deja vu all over again
Malcolm wrote: It is just as Nāgārjuna states in the Ratnavali:
Thus, we again see the necessity of the step by step negation of the four extremes.
- If by refuting existence
there will be however be non-existence,
therefore, by refuting non-existence,
for what reason will there not be existence?
Malcolm, could you give a citation here so we can look at your translation from other sources please?
I assume:
"there will be however be non-existence" means
"there will however be non-existence" or ""there will be however non-existence," whichever one prefers for readability?
the truth is so many assertions and contradictions have been asserted and dropped in this conversation that is would be impossible for someone who was not already versed in these issues to make any sense of it.
Do you recommend that we should accept that Nagarjuna, the prototypical Madhyamika, accepts the law of the excluded middle?
Re: Inherent deja vu all over again
Ah, typos. Gotta love em.cloudburst wrote:Malcolm wrote: It is just as Nāgārjuna states in the Ratnavali:
Thus, we again see the necessity of the step by step negation of the four extremes.
- If by refuting existence
there will be however be non-existence,
therefore, by refuting non-existence,
for what reason will there not be existence?
Malcolm, could you give a citation here so we can look at your translation from other sources please?
I assume:
"there will be however be non-existence" means
"there will however be non-existence" or ""there will be however non-existence," whichever one prefers for readability?
the truth is so many assertions and contradictions have been asserted and dropped in this conversation that is would be impossible for someone who was not already versed in these issues to make any sense of it.
Do you recommend that we should accept that Nagarjuna, the prototypical Madhyamika, accepts the law of the excluded middle?
"there will however be non-existence"
You can find this in the Hopkins translation.
It seems that Nāgārjuna accepts the law of the excluded middle as well as the law of noncontradiction conventionally, except in the case of the four fold negation, or with respect to the ultimate.
M
Re: Inherent deja vu all over again
Thanks for the recommendation. I look forward to picking this one up.conebeckham wrote:Yes, Chapter 9, vs. 34.
Brunnholzl translates it:
This is the famous verse where Shantideva ascended into the sky after uttering these words.Once neither entities nor nonentities
Remain before the mind,
There is no other mental flux (either).
Therefore, it is utter nonrerferential peace.
This translation is from "Center of the Sunlit Sky," which I recommend, BTW. It contains Pawo Tsuklag Trengwa's commentary on Bodhicharyavatara, and much else. One feature of Pawo Rinpoche's commentary, for instance, is that he writes about the experience of a mind free of reference points, which is not something usually found in commentaries on Shantideva's text.
HHDL's "Practicing Wisdom" has Thubten Jinpa translate the verse as:
When real and nonreal both
Are absent from before the mind,
Nothing else remains for the mind to do
But rest in perfect peace, from concepts free.
Re: Inherent deja vu all over again
In the case of the Alchemists, they manifested all sorts of experiments that led to medicines, wines, spirits, etc., European civilization. Many also manifested some very impressive siddhi.Anders wrote:Crazywisdom wrote:The other big causal theory from then was that the result is complete within the cause, like a tree is complete within the seed. Alchemy had this idea and it persisted all over the world. They also thought of The All caused all. Buddha and Nagarjuna also refuted this false notion. It is helpful to read these old texts that assert these rejected causation theories. You can get a very living picture of what Buddhists had to contend with and why and from whom.Can you unpack this a bit for me? At a glance, this sounds a lot like the Indra's Net presentation as found in the Avatamsaka Sutra (although that actual simile is never explained in the sutra)...Malcolm wrote:Yes, this is Saṃkhya, arising from self...Crazywisdom wrote:The other big causal theory from then was that the result is complete within the cause...
How would such a theory manifest practically in terms of how things are understood to arise?
Vajra fangs deliver vajra venom to your Mara body.