Inherent deja vu all over again

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 23312
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Inherent deja vu all over again

Postby Malcolm » Sat Dec 17, 2016 1:24 am

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.


We do, so it is imperative to find one. Good luck!
Last edited by Malcolm on Sat Dec 17, 2016 1:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
Atikosha
Tibetan Medicine Blog
Sudarsana Mandala, Tibetan Medicine and Herbs
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


There is neither sharp nor dull in the capacity of sentient beings. If it is asked why this is so, it is because an introduction is sufficient.


— Self-Liberated Vidyā Tantra

User avatar
conebeckham
Posts: 4437
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:49 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA, USA

Re: Inherent deja vu all over again

Postby conebeckham » Sat Dec 17, 2016 1:34 am

Tsongkhapafan wrote:
conebeckham wrote:
Tsongkhapafan wrote:
Quite so, which is why relying just on words is dangerous.


Irony alert.

If we do not rely on words, then on what should we rely?


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.

In his teaching on the Four Reliances, Buddha said:

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.


"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.


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.
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")

DGA
Former staff member
Posts: 8429
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Inherent deja vu all over again

Postby DGA » Sat Dec 17, 2016 1:43 am

conebeckham wrote:
Malcolm wrote:It is in sum, an incorrect translation.

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.


This thread has brought the following to the front of my mind:

*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.

User avatar
conebeckham
Posts: 4437
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:49 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA, USA

Re: Inherent deja vu all over again

Postby conebeckham » Sat Dec 17, 2016 1:53 am

Bakmoon wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
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.


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:

    Where is there an existence not included in inherent existence or dependent existence..."

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.

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?

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")

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 23312
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Inherent deja vu all over again

Postby Malcolm » Sat Dec 17, 2016 1:58 am

Bakmoon wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
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.


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:

    Where is there an existence not included in inherent existence or dependent existence..."

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.


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


There is neither sharp nor dull in the capacity of sentient beings. If it is asked why this is so, it is because an introduction is sufficient.


— Self-Liberated Vidyā Tantra

User avatar
cloudburst
Posts: 318
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2011 4:49 pm

Re: Inherent deja vu all over again

Postby cloudburst » Sat Dec 17, 2016 5:07 am

conebeckham wrote:
Tsongkhapafan wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
    yadā na bhāvo nābhāvo...

    གང་ཚེ་དངོས་དང་དངོས་མེད་དག

    When neither an entity (dngos po, bhāva) nor a nonentity (dngos po, abhāva)...

Not one of the words in the following phrase exist in the Tibetan translation, not to the mention the Sanskrit original.

    Eventually, when the true existence of things and the true existence of emptiness....

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.

The primary commentator, Prajñākaravarman, states:

    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.

It is in sum, an incorrect translation.


It's a translation of the meaning, not just the words.

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.


And here we see the foundation of the new Ghandarva City, with the beginnings of the superstructure rising......


Cone don't you find it ironic that you are citing an 8oo page work in your defense of freedom from elaborations?

User avatar
conebeckham
Posts: 4437
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:49 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA, USA

Re: Inherent deja vu all over again

Postby conebeckham » Sat Dec 17, 2016 5:12 am

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")

User avatar
cloudburst
Posts: 318
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2011 4:49 pm

Re: Inherent deja vu all over again

Postby cloudburst » Sat Dec 17, 2016 5:19 am

Malcolm wrote: It is just as Nāgārjuna states in the Ratnavali:

    If by refuting existence
    there will be however be non-existence,
    therefore, by refuting non-existence,
    for what reason will there not be existence?

Thus, we again see the necessity of the step by step negation of the four extremes.



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?

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 23312
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Inherent deja vu all over again

Postby Malcolm » Sat Dec 17, 2016 5:44 am

cloudburst wrote:
Malcolm wrote: It is just as Nāgārjuna states in the Ratnavali:

    If by refuting existence
    there will be however be non-existence,
    therefore, by refuting non-existence,
    for what reason will there not be existence?

Thus, we again see the necessity of the step by step negation of the four extremes.



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?


Ah, typos. Gotta love em.

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


There is neither sharp nor dull in the capacity of sentient beings. If it is asked why this is so, it is because an introduction is sufficient.


— Self-Liberated Vidyā Tantra

Lukeinaz
Posts: 183
Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2014 9:34 pm

Re: Inherent deja vu all over again

Postby Lukeinaz » Sat Dec 17, 2016 6:43 pm

conebeckham wrote:Yes, Chapter 9, vs. 34.
Brunnholzl translates it:

Once neither entities nor nonentities
Remain before the mind,
There is no other mental flux (either).
Therefore, it is utter nonrerferential peace.

This is the famous verse where Shantideva ascended into the sky after uttering these words.

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.


Thanks for the recommendation. I look forward to picking this one up.

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.
What a joy when the gentle rain comes on time.
What a joy when the crops ripen in the fields.
What a joy if bodhicitta were to be produced
in the minds of living beings equal to space.
-Khunu Rinpoche

Crazywisdom
Posts: 981
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:48 pm

Re: Inherent deja vu all over again

Postby Crazywisdom » Thu Jan 05, 2017 11:11 pm

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.


Malcolm wrote:
Crazywisdom wrote:The other big causal theory from then was that the result is complete within the cause...


Yes, this is Saṃkhya, arising from self...


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)...

How would such a theory manifest practically in terms of how things are understood to arise?


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.
El Perdedor


Return to “Sakya”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests