Inherent deja vu all over again

Jeff H
Posts: 876
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2014 8:56 pm
Location: Vermont, USA

Re: Inherent deja vu all over again

Post by Jeff H » Mon Dec 12, 2016 11:36 pm

DGA wrote:
Jeff H wrote:
“Some say Tsongkhapa’s qualification of ‘inherent existence’ is unnecessary. Worse than unnecessary, as one person put it, ‘The main criticism of Tsongkhapa's view is that it supposes that a nonexistence (the absence of inherent existence) is ultimate. This makes Tsongkhapa's point of view subtly nihilistic.’

“They point to references from Nagarjuna and Chandrakirti that indicate the object of negation is simply existence and, by extension, non-existence. They say there’s no reason to belabor conventional appearance as an instance of what might be called ‘false existence’, and that to do so leaves an impression of true existence in the student’s mind.

“I revere the Tsongkhapa-based teachings I have received, but I do not know how to respond to these criticisms.”
I think this question is perfectly sensible as it stands. It would be worthwhile to follow up on it.
I just sent the question.
We who are like children shrink from pain but love its causes. - Shantideva

BuddhaFollower
Posts: 602
Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2015 1:41 pm

Re: Inherent deja vu all over again

Post by BuddhaFollower » Tue Dec 13, 2016 12:40 am

Jeff H wrote:
DGA wrote:
Jeff H wrote:
“Some say Tsongkhapa’s qualification of ‘inherent existence’ is unnecessary. Worse than unnecessary, as one person put it, ‘The main criticism of Tsongkhapa's view is that it supposes that a nonexistence (the absence of inherent existence) is ultimate. This makes Tsongkhapa's point of view subtly nihilistic.’

“They point to references from Nagarjuna and Chandrakirti that indicate the object of negation is simply existence and, by extension, non-existence. They say there’s no reason to belabor conventional appearance as an instance of what might be called ‘false existence’, and that to do so leaves an impression of true existence in the student’s mind.

“I revere the Tsongkhapa-based teachings I have received, but I do not know how to respond to these criticisms.”
I think this question is perfectly sensible as it stands. It would be worthwhile to follow up on it.
I just sent the question.
I already posted the Gelug POV on this on the first page.

Jeff H
Posts: 876
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2014 8:56 pm
Location: Vermont, USA

Re: Inherent deja vu all over again

Post by Jeff H » Tue Dec 13, 2016 1:54 am

BuddhaFollower wrote:
Jeff H wrote:
DGA wrote:
I think this question is perfectly sensible as it stands. It would be worthwhile to follow up on it.
I just sent the question.
I already posted the Gelug POV on this on the first page.
Sorry, Buddhafollower, I completely missed your original post, but got your PM.

I had read Thubten Jinpa's book before starting Geshe Tashi's Lam Rim Chenmo course, but I hadn't encountered any objections to his inherent existence argument at that time, so the passage you quote didn't stick with me. I've mainly associated his relationship with Manjushri with his epiphany about the union of shamatha and vipasanna.

At my level, I don't consider it definitive if a teacher says, "Yes, Tsongkhapa received revealed teachings from Manjushri." I need to have the revelations filtered through teachers who can explain how and why the revelation is true and useful in my path. And I need to be able to use the resulting understanding to be able respond to critiques from those who don't share that position. Not to "prove" the point, but to strengthen my own understanding.
We who are like children shrink from pain but love its causes. - Shantideva

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

Re: Inherent deja vu all over again

Post by DGA » Tue Dec 13, 2016 2:11 am

Jeff H wrote:
DGA wrote:
Jeff H wrote:
“Some say Tsongkhapa’s qualification of ‘inherent existence’ is unnecessary. Worse than unnecessary, as one person put it, ‘The main criticism of Tsongkhapa's view is that it supposes that a nonexistence (the absence of inherent existence) is ultimate. This makes Tsongkhapa's point of view subtly nihilistic.’

“They point to references from Nagarjuna and Chandrakirti that indicate the object of negation is simply existence and, by extension, non-existence. They say there’s no reason to belabor conventional appearance as an instance of what might be called ‘false existence’, and that to do so leaves an impression of true existence in the student’s mind.

“I revere the Tsongkhapa-based teachings I have received, but I do not know how to respond to these criticisms.”
I think this question is perfectly sensible as it stands. It would be worthwhile to follow up on it.
I just sent the question.
I'm glad. I don't have a pony in this race--I'm not invested in any of the arguments for or against Je Tsonkhapa's position--but I am interested in understanding what value there may be in debating such matters.

BuddhaFollower
Posts: 602
Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2015 1:41 pm

Re: Inherent deja vu all over again

Post by BuddhaFollower » Tue Dec 13, 2016 2:22 am

Jeff H wrote:At my level, I don't consider it definitive if a teacher says, "Yes, Tsongkhapa received revealed teachings from Manjushri." I need to have the revelations filtered through teachers who can explain how and why the revelation is true and useful in my path. And I need to be able to use the resulting understanding to be able respond to critiques from those who don't share that position. Not to "prove" the point, but to strengthen my own understanding.
As explained by Geshe Thupten Jinpa, why do you think the traditional Gelug defense of Tsongkhapa is that he received his view from Manjushri??

Jeff H
Posts: 876
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2014 8:56 pm
Location: Vermont, USA

Re: Inherent deja vu all over again

Post by Jeff H » Tue Dec 13, 2016 4:22 am

BuddhaFollower wrote:
Jeff H wrote:At my level, I don't consider it definitive if a teacher says, "Yes, Tsongkhapa received revealed teachings from Manjushri." I need to have the revelations filtered through teachers who can explain how and why the revelation is true and useful in my path. And I need to be able to use the resulting understanding to be able respond to critiques from those who don't share that position. Not to "prove" the point, but to strengthen my own understanding.
As explained by Geshe Thupten Jinpa, why do you think the traditional Gelug defense of Tsongkhapa is that he received his view from Manjushri??
I looked up your reference in Jinpa's Self, Reality and Reason in Tibetan Philosophy, and frankly it seems more complicated than simply explaining the originality of Tsongkhapa's work as revelation from Manjushri.

The book's subtitle is Tsongkhapa's Quest for the Middle Way, and the chapter is painting a picture of the context in which he wrote and his thoughts were received. Jinpa's purpose there is to explain his (Jinpa's) methodology for exploring how Tsongkhapa arrived at the basic philosophy and how it was subsequently shaped to become so predominant for so many masters for so long.

I had largely forgotten this book, but I think this would be an excellent re-read for me now. Thank you very much for this reference. It is very much on point for this topic.
We who are like children shrink from pain but love its causes. - Shantideva

User avatar
Karma Dondrup Tashi
Posts: 1602
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 7:13 pm

Re: Inherent deja vu all over again

Post by Karma Dondrup Tashi » Tue Dec 13, 2016 6:22 am

Malcolm wrote:I think a major difference is that Sakyas and those who follow Sapan, as well a Nyingmapas, reject the idea that Buddhist epistemology (pramāṇa) has any soteriological value; whereas the Gelugpas and some Kagyus, such as Drigung, think it has soteriological value.
Both sides appear to be saying that a proper understanding of valid cognition results in ontological undecidability.

I'm not sure why that is different from saying that things have no self, regardless of whether you get to that understanding via analysis or insight.
Being without love would be the most appalling torment - the Inferno itself! [...] [A]ll those who have chosen the way of depersonalisation are unable to cry and [...] they have dry eyes for ever. For it is the personality which cries and which alone is capable of the "gift of tears".

Powell, Robert, and Hans Urs Von Balthasar. Meditations on the Tarot: A Journey into Christian Hermeticism. New York: Jermy P. Tarcher/Putnam, 2002.

User avatar
Tsongkhapafan
Posts: 1209
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 9:36 am

Re: Inherent deja vu all over again

Post by Tsongkhapafan » Tue Dec 13, 2016 9:54 am

The relentless criticism of Tsongkhapa's views on DW gets a bit wearing after a while. It's also overly intellectual.

I've not seen a single person post any useful meditations on emptiness or any practical information that would lead to a realisation of emptiness. Je Tsongkhapa's teachings are full of such useful and practical explanations and they work. Those who study and practise these teachings know how to destroy self-grasping ignorance but here Nagarjuna is treated as philosophy that can in no way solve human problems. It's just a football that's kicked around for intellectual enjoyment; that's pretty sad and not what Buddha's teachings were intended for.

Follow whatever view you wish to follow but endlessly arguing about them here is pointless. Does anyone have anything practical to say?

User avatar
Ayu
Former staff member
Posts: 6992
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2012 8:25 am
Location: Europe

Re: Inherent deja vu all over again

Post by Ayu » Tue Dec 13, 2016 10:22 am

Tsongkhapafan wrote:The relentless criticism of Tsongkhapa's views on DW gets a bit wearing after a while. It's also overly intellectual.

I've not seen a single person post any useful meditations on emptiness or any practical information that would lead to a realisation of emptiness. Je Tsongkhapa's teachings are full of such useful and practical explanations and they work. Those who study and practise these teachings know how to destroy self-grasping ignorance but here Nagarjuna is treated as philosophy that can in no way solve human problems. It's just a football that's kicked around for intellectual enjoyment; that's pretty sad and not what Buddha's teachings were intended for.

Follow whatever view you wish to follow but endlessly arguing about them here is pointless. Does anyone have anything practical to say?
:good: I have to agree.
The Lamrim of Tsongkhapa has to be meditated from the beginning to the end. Especially the last chapter about emptiness cannot be grasped intellectually. Debate is only for to support the meditation, but it cannot get the matter on it's own. The recommended procedure for learning is "Hearing (study), reflecting (e.g. by debate) and meditating." It is not right to leave out one of these three.
And there cannot be something like "Tsongkhapa's emptiness", because emptiness is simply emptiness. Tsongkhapas explanations are a measure for learning, not a map of solid phenomena. He didn't explain everything in one sentence, he instead gave the students the chance to understand it in meditation by themselves.
I have decided to stick with love.
Hate is too great a burden to bear.
- Martin Luther King, Jr. -

Jeff H
Posts: 876
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2014 8:56 pm
Location: Vermont, USA

Re: Inherent deja vu all over again

Post by Jeff H » Tue Dec 13, 2016 4:13 pm

DGA wrote: I am interested in understanding what value there may be in debating such matters.
Karma Dondrup Tashi wrote: Both sides appear to be saying that a proper understanding of valid cognition results in ontological undecidability.
I'm not sure why that is different from saying that things have no self, regardless of whether you get to that understanding via analysis or insight.
Tsongkhapafan wrote:[Here Nagarjuna’s philosophy is] just a football that's kicked around for intellectual enjoyment; that's pretty sad and not what Buddha's teachings were intended for.
Ayu wrote: Tsongkhapas explanations are a measure for learning, not a map of solid phenomena. He didn't explain everything in one sentence, he instead gave the students the chance to understand it in meditation by themselves.
Excellent posts! I’d like to respond to the matter of intellectualism and debate by addressing DGA’s question.

This topic has become important for me primarily because it’s important to Malcolm. I have great respect for Malcolm and he takes it so seriously that we can set our watches by his intervention any time the matter comes. And his arguments, as well as the arguments of those who agree with him (if I may presume: the Dzogchen contingent), are very, very strong. In Tibetan Buddhism such intellectual exercises are not taken lightly.

My pursuit of Buddhism has been, in a manner of speaking, a lay-cloistered experience. I fell into the Gelug camp quite naturally and it resonates very deeply for me. It’s where I belong for now. Having reached a turning point about a year ago, instead of taking up another formal course, I emerged from my cloister to DW.

DW, for me, is a great market place where I get to listen to highly educated and accomplished practitioners discuss all manner of topics. I can post my thoughts and see how they sound in a public forum, and what responses they elicit. This process is similar to monastic debates, not in form, but in purpose. It reminds me of being a kid, out behind the shed with other kids of different ages, all sharing our impressions of and reactions to an adult world we didn’t understand. The adults we are today arose from that kind of cacophony of shared thoughts. Arya beings of the future will arise from the chaos of DW.

Shantideva points out that we who are not Buddhas today simply didn’t apply ourselves diligently enough in our past lives. Now, I wouldn’t presume to guess who on DW might be emanations or bodhisattvas, but would I guess that the vast majority of us are neither.

My teacher says lam rim is like a school system. You pass through different grades and the lam rim teachings help you recognize where you are. “Where you are” is a function of the karma you created in past lives. I am in elementary school, the lam rim initial scope. I’m still working on guru devotion, precious life, death and impermanence, rebirth, refuge, and karma. I long for renunciation (middle school), but I haven’t scratched the surface of that yet. Once I do, I can get serious about bodhicitta (high school). In the meantime, I try to simulate bodhicitta, and prepare for the real thing, by acting on the bodhisattva deeds. And all the while I struggle to practice concentration and grasp selflessness (college prep).

Malcolm and the other critics of Tsongkhapa have raised serious questions for me about the object of negation. The purpose of debate is not winning; it is examination. I think the concept of inherent existence is a useful expedient in my efforts to process selflessness. Malcolm thinks it is a pernicious obstruction. Despite his strong arguments, I’m not inclined to renounce the wisdom of the lineage that has taught me about inherent existence. I need to understand what he is saying, and learn what the Gelugs say, then decide for myself. I think that is what Buddha taught. (And, yes, even though I am no academic scholar like many on DW, my method is still largely intellectual. It’s my karma now, and by following through, I hope to generate a more practice- and faith-based karma for the future.)

In this process I might find that, for me, there is a better alternative to using inherent existence. It is also possible that a great master like Tsongkhapa could have made a mistake. That could also mean that some subtle points of Nagarjuna’s might have needed refinement by Tsongkhapa.

But more to the point, I understand the lam rim to encompass everything a single being needs to attain enlightenment. A “single being” refers to one mental continuum in all its infinite morphings.
I’m quite sure I’m in the right place, doing the right things, right now. This particular point is important now because it informs the next leg of my journey.
We who are like children shrink from pain but love its causes. - Shantideva

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 28278
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Inherent deja vu all over again

Post by Malcolm » Tue Dec 13, 2016 4:45 pm

Jeff H wrote: Malcolm and the other critics of Tsongkhapa have raised serious questions for me about the object of negation. The purpose of debate is not winning; it is examination. I think the concept of inherent existence is a useful expedient in my efforts to process selflessness. Malcolm thinks it is a pernicious obstruction. Despite his strong arguments, I’m not inclined to renounce the wisdom of the lineage that has taught me about inherent existence. I need to understand what he is saying, and learn what the Gelugs say, then decide for myself. I think that is what Buddha taught. (And, yes, even though I am no academic scholar like many on DW, my method is still largely intellectual. It’s my karma now, and by following through, I hope to generate a more practice- and faith-based karma for the future.)
.
I don't think the Tsongkhapa's treatment of inherent existence is a pernicious obsctruction— everyone agrees that phenomena have no inherent existence. The disagreement 1) is over the issue of the intellectual history of Madhyamaka in India, and 2) over novelties in Tsongkhapa's own interpretation which seem unwarranted when Indian Madhyamaka is examined.

Finally, the purpose of these conversations is to eliminate concepts which lead us deeper into the cave, for everyone involved, including myself.

Finally, the reason why this conversation comes up again and again is because of the historical accident that the political dominance of the Ganden Phodrang propelled the teachings of Tsongkhapa to prominence and thus, they were the first version of Tibetan Madhyamaka to which early Western Buddhist scholars had access. This has skewed Madhyamaka studies in the West almost from the beginning.

It is necessary to redress this imbalance.
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

Jeff H
Posts: 876
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2014 8:56 pm
Location: Vermont, USA

Re: Inherent deja vu all over again

Post by Jeff H » Tue Dec 13, 2016 5:31 pm

Malcolm wrote:I don't think the Tsongkhapa's treatment of inherent existence is a pernicious obsctruction— everyone agrees that phenomena have no inherent existence. The disagreement 1) is over the issue of the intellectual history of Madhyamaka in India, and 2) over novelties in Tsongkhapa's own interpretation which seem unwarranted when Indian Madhyamaka is examined.
...
Finally, the reason why this conversation comes up again and again is because of the historical accident that the political dominance of the Ganden Phodrang propelled the teachings of Tsongkhapa to prominence and thus, they were the first version of Tibetan Madhyamaka to which early Western Buddhist scholars had access. This has skewed Madhyamaka studies in the West almost from the beginning.

It is necessary to redress this imbalance.
Yes, this makes sense, and in the context of intellectual history it is important. But I have come to place my faith in the modern teachers (Tibetan and western) who have brought a specific teaching to me with claims that it is an effective method. It is possible that novelties can be efficacious and true, even if they don't precisely preserve a particular former teaching. Dominance in politics, or the debate yard, does not imply either truth or error.
Malcolm wrote:Finally, the purpose of these conversations is to eliminate concepts which lead us deeper into the cave, for everyone involved, including myself.
This makes it sound pernicious. But it echoes my own understanding of the importance of these conversations.
We who are like children shrink from pain but love its causes. - Shantideva

BuddhaFollower
Posts: 602
Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2015 1:41 pm

Re: Inherent deja vu all over again

Post by BuddhaFollower » Tue Dec 13, 2016 6:22 pm

Tsongkhapafan wrote:The relentless criticism of Tsongkhapa's views on DW gets a bit wearing after a while. It's also overly intellectual.

I've not seen a single person post any useful meditations on emptiness or any practical information that would lead to a realisation of emptiness. Je Tsongkhapa's teachings are full of such useful and practical explanations and they work.
If you realize emptiness, you are on first bhumi and have all sorts of special powers.

BuddhaFollower
Posts: 602
Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2015 1:41 pm

Re: Inherent deja vu all over again

Post by BuddhaFollower » Tue Dec 13, 2016 6:43 pm

Jeff H wrote:I looked up your reference in Jinpa's Self, Reality and Reason in Tibetan Philosophy, and frankly it seems more complicated than simply explaining the originality of Tsongkhapa's work as revelation from Manjushri.
The Manjushri story has always been the Gelug defense of Tsongkhapa.

"Khedrup hit back with his ‘secret biography’ of Tsongkhapa, which recorded visions and meditative experiences; in this work, Khedrup revealed that Tsongkhapa had experienced numerous visions of Manjushri, the bodhisattva of wisdom. Not only that, but he had been able to converse with Manjushri, and the bodhisattva had explicitly approved Tsongkhapa’s philosophical stance. This, for Tsongkhapa’s follower at least, cleared up the problem of authenticity"
-----Tibet: A History, Sam van Schaik, 2011, page 107.

User avatar
cloudburst
Posts: 336
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2011 4:49 pm

Re: Inherent deja vu all over again

Post by cloudburst » Tue Dec 13, 2016 6:45 pm

Jeff H wrote:
Malcolm wrote:I don't think the Tsongkhapa's treatment of inherent existence is a pernicious obsctruction— everyone agrees that phenomena have no inherent existence. The disagreement 1) is over the issue of the intellectual history of Madhyamaka in India, and 2) over novelties in Tsongkhapa's own interpretation which seem unwarranted when Indian Madhyamaka is examined.
...
Finally, the reason why this conversation comes up again and again is because of the historical accident that the political dominance of the Ganden Phodrang propelled the teachings of Tsongkhapa to prominence and thus, they were the first version of Tibetan Madhyamaka to which early Western Buddhist scholars had access. This has skewed Madhyamaka studies in the West almost from the beginning.

It is necessary to redress this imbalance.
Yes, this makes sense, and in the context of intellectual history it is important. But I have come to place my faith in the modern teachers (Tibetan and western) who have brought a specific teaching to me with claims that it is an effective method. It is possible that novelties can be efficacious and true, even if they don't precisely preserve a particular former teaching. Dominance in politics, or the debate yard, does not imply either truth or error.
Malcolm wrote:Finally, the purpose of these conversations is to eliminate concepts which lead us deeper into the cave, for everyone involved, including myself.
This makes it sound pernicious. But it echoes my own understanding of the importance of these conversations.
Hi Jeff

if you want to understand the issue in a simple way, you just need to realize that when others say "existence," Gelugs say "inherent existence."
We can go around this merry go round over and over, and we likely will, but in the end, you will see that what lama Tsongkhapa did was exactly in line with Nagarjuna and Chandrakirti. You will always be swarmed here by those who have a emotionalized need to "refute" the Gelug position, but you can learn a lot. I understand why they do this, and I think Malcolm is correct about the imbalance in western scholarship.

Meanwhile, to my way of thinking, it has basically already been redressed. The main western proponents of Gelug scholarship and translation have been shown to be essentially indigestible and addicted to scholarship. Let's be honest, no one is reading Jeffery Hopkins today. Nor Robert Thurman, Alex Berzin etc. Nowadays, there is a new Kagyu or Nyingma treatise coming out every other day, and good for them. In the end, for a practitioner, it really doesn't matter what is popular, it matters whether or not one can tame ones mind.

I think what Je Tsongkhapa did was simply incredible, and the more deeply you go into it, the more your understanding will increase. As the Seventh Dalai Lama said in a praise of JTK, "....even the words you used are perfect, nakedly pointing the way for the ripe."

Malcolm's point above, that the purpose of these conversation is to eliminate concepts which lead us further into the cave, to me is correct. We want to eliminate useless or harmful concepts while nourishing wisdom concepts. Eventually we will become a Buddha, free from concepts.

I think JTK's way of preserving the conventional is a masterstroke, and it is also very logical and works to help ordinary people very much. I think this might be the more likely reason that there was a prominence of the Gelugpa, we are good at building because we accept the conventional presentation as harmonious with the ultimate.

When others hear 'this exists' or 'that exists', they flip out, because they have been taught that all existence is existence by way of a nature. We say existence and they helplessly conclude that we are "realists in the conventional and nihilists in the ultimate." I have pondered, especially in the light of this recent "quantum physics" thread as to whether they don't understand what is being said, or simply find it expedient NOT to.

If you simply rely on Je Tsongkhapa, you will be able to see through the noise and understand his intent. This issue is probably insoluble on discussion boards because people are unsure of their position, arguing from team mentality, experimenting, provoking and many other modes of discussion. Just look at Malcolm, he has changed his view on every major issue multiple times since I started reading here in around 2004! When criticized for it, he said he is not closed-minded and he is willing to change. I respect that. Meanwhile, even though he debates as though he is totally certain of what he writes, he is just working it out as well.

I am glad you have posted this here, perhaps we can have a real discussion about some of these issues, but we will have to do so through a lot of background noise. I am intereseted in discussing the object of negation, the svatantrikas/prasangika distinction, conventional or "mere" existence etc. Hopefully I can write more later, you have raised many good issues.

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 28278
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Inherent deja vu all over again

Post by Malcolm » Tue Dec 13, 2016 6:48 pm

Tsongkhapafan wrote:The relentless criticism of Tsongkhapa's views on DW gets a bit wearing after a while.
Gelugpas only have themselves to blame for this, considering that the Gelugpa hegemony expended endless energy suppressing and censoring generations of scholars in Tibet that disagreed with the Gelug orthodoxy.

Even you have over and over again here proclaimed that only Tsongkhapa's understanding of Madhyamaka is correct, and everyone else's is faulty and does not lead to liberation. When you make such claims, it is normal people will object to your dogmatism.
I've not seen a single person post any useful meditations on emptiness or any practical information that would lead to a realisation of emptiness.
One assumes you are including yourself in this criticism.
Does anyone have anything practical to say?
Do you?
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

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 28278
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Inherent deja vu all over again

Post by Malcolm » Tue Dec 13, 2016 6:56 pm

cloudburst wrote: When others hear 'this exists' or 'that exists', they flip out, because they have been taught that all existence is existence by way of a nature. We say existence and they helplessly conclude that we are "realists in the conventional and nihilists in the ultimate." I have pondered, especially in the light of this recent "quantum physics" thread as to whether they don't understand what is being said, or simply find it expedient NOT to.
We consider this to be a malformation of the four-fold negation, as you know, and an affirmation that the ultimate is in fact mere one-sided negation.

As for the QP thread, I think the OP's project is quixotic at best.
Meanwhile, even though he debates as though he is totally certain of what he writes, he is just working it out as well.
There are certain themes about which I am utterly consistent.

BTW, it is pretty hilarious to move this into the Sakyapa Thread. I am no more a Sakyapa, than I am a Nyingmapa, a Gelugpa or Kagyupa.
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

BuddhaFollower
Posts: 602
Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2015 1:41 pm

Re: Inherent deja vu all over again

Post by BuddhaFollower » Tue Dec 13, 2016 7:06 pm

cloudburst wrote:you will see that what lama Tsongkhapa did was exactly in line with Nagarjuna and Chandrakirti.
Nagarjuna and Candrakirti stress Nonarising/Anutpada/Illusion like the Prajnaparamita Sutras did.

Dr. Richard King:
"It is equally apparent that one of the important features of the Prajnaparamita positition is that of the nonarising (anutpada) of dharmas."

Candrakirti says:
"the perfectly enlightened buddhas-proclaimed, "What is dependently created is uncreated."
"Likewise, here as well, the Lord Buddha’s pronouncement that "What is dependently created is objectively uncreated"

"Once one asserts things, one will succumb to the view of seeing such by imagining their beginning, middle and end; hence that grasping at things is the cause of all views."
"illusions, mirages, reflections, cities of scent-eaters, magical creations, and dreams."

(uncreated is Joseph Loizzo's translation for non-arising.)

Nagarjuna's Mūlamadhyamakakārikā 7.33 says:
"Since arising, abiding, and disintegrating are not established, there are no conditioned phenomena.
Since conditioned phenomena are not established, how could unconditioned phenomena be established?"
- translated by Karl Brunnholzl

User avatar
cloudburst
Posts: 336
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2011 4:49 pm

Re: Inherent deja vu all over again

Post by cloudburst » Tue Dec 13, 2016 7:18 pm

Malcolm wrote:
We consider this to be a malformation of the four-fold negation, as you know, and an affirmation that the ultimate is in fact mere one-sided negation.
of course.
I think the issue here is that you have failed to see the brilliance of what Lama Tsongkhapa has done. He has simply essentialized the critique. Refuting the first extreme, inherent existence sorts the issue, the rest is just clean-up. It's celan up that may need to happen, and of course we study it.
Malcolm wrote: There are certain themes about which I am utterly consistent.
no doubt
Malcolm wrote: BTW, it is pretty hilarious to move this into the Sakyapa Thread. I am no more a Sakyapa, than I am a Nyingmapa, a Gelugpa or Kagyupa.

I thought it was on Gelug. I will maybe start a new one over there, this has little or nothing to do with Sakya

User avatar
cloudburst
Posts: 336
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2011 4:49 pm

Re: Inherent deja vu all over again

Post by cloudburst » Tue Dec 13, 2016 7:22 pm

BuddhaFollower wrote:
cloudburst wrote:you will see that what lama Tsongkhapa did was exactly in line with Nagarjuna and Chandrakirti.
Nagarjuna and Candrakirti stress Nonarising/Anutpada/Illusion like the Prajnaparamita Sutras did.
BuddhaFollower wrote:Dr. Richard King:
"It is equally apparent that one of the important features of the Prajnaparamita positition is that of the nonarising (anutpada) of dharmas."
consult gongpa rabsel for an extensive treatment of lack of production. This is well explained by Je Tsongkhapa
BuddhaFollower wrote: Candrakirti says:
"the perfectly enlightened buddhas-proclaimed, "What is dependently created is uncreated."
"Likewise, here as well, the Lord Buddha’s pronouncement that "What is dependently created is objectively uncreated"

"Once one asserts things, one will succumb to the view of seeing such by imagining their beginning, middle and end; hence that grasping at things is the cause of all views."
"illusions, mirages, reflections, cities of scent-eaters, magical creations, and dreams."

(uncreated is Joseph Loizzo's translation for non-arising.)

Nagarjuna's Mūlamadhyamakakārikā 7.33 says:
"Since arising, abiding, and disintegrating are not established, there are no conditioned phenomena.
Since conditioned phenomena are not established, how could unconditioned phenomena be established?"
- translated by Karl Brunnholzl
both of these quotations are quoted by Je Tsongkhapa and treated brilliantly. Do you think these are somehow in contradiction to Je Tsongkhapa's view?

Post Reply

Return to “Sakya”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests