"One Mind" in Hua Yen thought

Forum for discussion of East Asian Buddhism. Questions specific to one school are best posted in the appropriate sub-forum.
krodha
Posts: 2286
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:30 pm

Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought

Post by krodha » Thu Mar 08, 2018 7:56 pm

Coëmgenu wrote:
Thu Mar 08, 2018 7:38 pm
SonamTashi wrote:
Thu Mar 08, 2018 1:33 pm
Sherab wrote:
Thu Mar 08, 2018 12:33 am
The only way an ordinary being can properly analyze the relative is this: (I wrote this previously)
In analyzing the relative, we look at the appearance and then ask what is underneath that appearance. So we look at an apple and see that it is formed from molecules. The apple therefore does not exist at the level of the molecules. The apple therefore is simply the appearance of the apple if we don't look at the underlying reality of the apple. Similarly, when we look at a molecule, we see that it is comprised of atoms. At the level of the atom, the molecule does not exist and is simply an appearance. When we look at an atom, we see that it comprises other particles such as quarks and electrons.....

Do you agree or do you think there is a better approach?
At this point, your argument has completely left the confines of Buddhism (and entered the framework of materialism and a very materialistic view of science);
How is it significantly different than when Nāgasena Bhikṣu deconstructs the chariot for Menander I principally by breaking it down into its constituents in analysis?

I wouldn't necessarily agree with the "properly" and "only" and whatnot in the above quoted material, but I wouldn't call deconstructing the atom unBuddhist.
For one, the alleged chariot and its parts are held to be equally unfindable, and the chariot is not considered to be composed of parts. At least per Candrakīrti's rendition.

User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 1454
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
Location: Whitby, Ontario

Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought

Post by Coëmgenu » Thu Mar 08, 2018 8:06 pm

krodha wrote:
Thu Mar 08, 2018 7:56 pm
Coëmgenu wrote:
Thu Mar 08, 2018 7:38 pm
SonamTashi wrote:
Thu Mar 08, 2018 1:33 pm


At this point, your argument has completely left the confines of Buddhism (and entered the framework of materialism and a very materialistic view of science);
How is it significantly different than when Nāgasena Bhikṣu deconstructs the chariot for Menander I principally by breaking it down into its constituents in analysis?

I wouldn't necessarily agree with the "properly" and "only" and whatnot in the above quoted material, but I wouldn't call deconstructing the atom unBuddhist.
For one, the alleged chariot and its parts are held to be equally unfindable, and the chariot is not considered to be composed of parts. At least per Candrakīrti's rendition.
But look at what it says: "We look at A and see that it is formed of B. At the level of B, A does not exist. We look at B, and see that it is formed of C...", ad infinitum, well-past the exhaustion of the latin alphabet.

Nothing is found here either.

Whether or not they intended it, the user Sherab presented the Chariot simile, essentially. I am not familiar with whether or not Ven Candrakīrti wrote a commentary on the Nāgasenabhikṣusūtra.

If I can some up my thoughts and the motivation for my participation here: I don't think the chariot simile is unBuddhist, and it reminds me of people who call other people names like "unAmerican" when I see people calling others unBuddhist and the likes.
子念昔貧,志意下劣,今於父所,大獲珍寶,并及舍宅、一切財物。甚大歡喜,得未曾有。
The son thought of past poverty, outlook humble, now having from father a treasure harvest, also father's house, all his wealth. Great joy - to have what was never before had.

Τῆς πατρῴας, δόξης σου, ἀποσκιρτήσας ἀφρόνως, ἐν κακοῖς ἐσκόρπισα, ὅν μοι παρέδωκας πλοῦτον· ὅθεν σοι τὴν τοῦ Ἀσώτου, φωνὴν κραυγάζω· Ἥμαρτον ἐνώπιόν σου Πάτερ οἰκτίρμον, δέξαι με μετανοοῦντα, καὶ ποίησόν με, ὡς ἕνα τῶν μισθίων σου.
Your fatherly due I withheld unthinking, in evil I wasted your wealth; a prodigal cries, "I've erred, father, receive the repentant as serf."

妙法蓮華經 Κοντάκιον τοῦ Ἀσώτου

User avatar
fuki
Posts: 210
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2017 3:51 pm
Location: Netherlands

Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought

Post by fuki » Thu Mar 08, 2018 8:11 pm

Coëmgenu wrote:
Thu Mar 08, 2018 8:06 pm
and it reminds me of people who call other people names like "unAmerican" when I see people calling others unBuddhist and the likes.
Thank you.

:namaste:
meldpunt seksueel misbruik in boeddhistische gemeenschappen nederland.
https://meldpuntbg.nl/

User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 1454
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
Location: Whitby, Ontario

Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought

Post by Coëmgenu » Thu Mar 08, 2018 8:16 pm

fuki wrote:
Thu Mar 08, 2018 8:11 pm
Coëmgenu wrote:
Thu Mar 08, 2018 8:06 pm
and it reminds me of people who call other people names like "unAmerican" when I see people calling others unBuddhist and the likes.
Thank you.

:namaste:
I should clarify though that the specific phrasing of "unBuddhist" was my contribution. No one actually said that.
子念昔貧,志意下劣,今於父所,大獲珍寶,并及舍宅、一切財物。甚大歡喜,得未曾有。
The son thought of past poverty, outlook humble, now having from father a treasure harvest, also father's house, all his wealth. Great joy - to have what was never before had.

Τῆς πατρῴας, δόξης σου, ἀποσκιρτήσας ἀφρόνως, ἐν κακοῖς ἐσκόρπισα, ὅν μοι παρέδωκας πλοῦτον· ὅθεν σοι τὴν τοῦ Ἀσώτου, φωνὴν κραυγάζω· Ἥμαρτον ἐνώπιόν σου Πάτερ οἰκτίρμον, δέξαι με μετανοοῦντα, καὶ ποίησόν με, ὡς ἕνα τῶν μισθίων σου.
Your fatherly due I withheld unthinking, in evil I wasted your wealth; a prodigal cries, "I've erred, father, receive the repentant as serf."

妙法蓮華經 Κοντάκιον τοῦ Ἀσώτου

krodha
Posts: 2286
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:30 pm

Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought

Post by krodha » Thu Mar 08, 2018 8:37 pm

Coëmgenu wrote:
Thu Mar 08, 2018 8:06 pm
krodha wrote:
Thu Mar 08, 2018 7:56 pm
Coëmgenu wrote:
Thu Mar 08, 2018 7:38 pm
How is it significantly different than when Nāgasena Bhikṣu deconstructs the chariot for Menander I principally by breaking it down into its constituents in analysis?

I wouldn't necessarily agree with the "properly" and "only" and whatnot in the above quoted material, but I wouldn't call deconstructing the atom unBuddhist.
For one, the alleged chariot and its parts are held to be equally unfindable, and the chariot is not considered to be composed of parts. At least per Candrakīrti's rendition.
But look at what it says: "We look at A and see that it is formed of B. At the level of B, A does not exist. We look at B, and see that it is formed of C...", ad infinitum, well-past the exhaustion of the latin alphabet.

Nothing is found here either.

Whether or not they intended it, the user Sherab presented the Chariot simile, essentially. I am not familiar with whether or not Ven Candrakīrti wrote a commentary on the Nāgasenabhikṣusūtra.

If I can some up my thoughts and the motivation for my participation here: I don't think the chariot simile is unBuddhist, and it reminds me of people who call other people names like "unAmerican" when I see people calling others unBuddhist and the likes.
That is not how the chariot example works in Candrakīrti's exposition, but perhaps that is now it is in the teaching you are referring to.

User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 1454
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
Location: Whitby, Ontario

Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought

Post by Coëmgenu » Thu Mar 08, 2018 11:03 pm

krodha wrote:
Thu Mar 08, 2018 8:37 pm
Coëmgenu wrote:
Thu Mar 08, 2018 8:06 pm
krodha wrote:
Thu Mar 08, 2018 7:56 pm

For one, the alleged chariot and its parts are held to be equally unfindable, and the chariot is not considered to be composed of parts. At least per Candrakīrti's rendition.
But look at what it says: "We look at A and see that it is formed of B. At the level of B, A does not exist. We look at B, and see that it is formed of C...", ad infinitum, well-past the exhaustion of the latin alphabet.

Nothing is found here either.

Whether or not they intended it, the user Sherab presented the Chariot simile, essentially. I am not familiar with whether or not Ven Candrakīrti wrote a commentary on the Nāgasenabhikṣusūtra.

If I can some up my thoughts and the motivation for my participation here: I don't think the chariot simile is unBuddhist, and it reminds me of people who call other people names like "unAmerican" when I see people calling others unBuddhist and the likes.
That is not how the chariot example works in Candrakīrti's exposition, but perhaps that is now it is in the teaching you are referring to.
How does Ven Candrakīrti treat the long tradition of the chariot simile?

'Ad infinitum' is the novel element of its presentation in this thread. Nāgasena Bhikṣu is content to simply break down the chariot into constituents. He doesn't further break them down into particles etc.
Last edited by Coëmgenu on Thu Mar 08, 2018 11:05 pm, edited 2 times in total.
子念昔貧,志意下劣,今於父所,大獲珍寶,并及舍宅、一切財物。甚大歡喜,得未曾有。
The son thought of past poverty, outlook humble, now having from father a treasure harvest, also father's house, all his wealth. Great joy - to have what was never before had.

Τῆς πατρῴας, δόξης σου, ἀποσκιρτήσας ἀφρόνως, ἐν κακοῖς ἐσκόρπισα, ὅν μοι παρέδωκας πλοῦτον· ὅθεν σοι τὴν τοῦ Ἀσώτου, φωνὴν κραυγάζω· Ἥμαρτον ἐνώπιόν σου Πάτερ οἰκτίρμον, δέξαι με μετανοοῦντα, καὶ ποίησόν με, ὡς ἕνα τῶν μισθίων σου.
Your fatherly due I withheld unthinking, in evil I wasted your wealth; a prodigal cries, "I've erred, father, receive the repentant as serf."

妙法蓮華經 Κοντάκιον τοῦ Ἀσώτου

User avatar
Sherab
Posts: 1172
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am

Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought

Post by Sherab » Thu Mar 08, 2018 11:04 pm

Malcolm, do let me know if you are not going to reply to my question to you below.

Sherab wrote:
Thu Mar 08, 2018 12:33 am
From my perspective Malcolm, there were quite a few points that I made that you did not address directly nor satisfactorily.

I will now focus only on one point, that is the method of analysis of the relative.

The only way an ordinary being can properly analyze the relative is this: (I wrote this previously)
In analyzing the relative, we look at the appearance and then ask what is underneath that appearance. So we look at an apple and see that it is formed from molecules. The apple therefore does not exist at the level of the molecules. The apple therefore is simply the appearance of the apple if we don't look at the underlying reality of the apple. Similarly, when we look at a molecule, we see that it is comprised of atoms. At the level of the atom, the molecule does not exist and is simply an appearance. When we look at an atom, we see that it comprises other particles such as quarks and electrons.....

Do you agree or do you think there is a better approach?
Last edited by Sherab on Thu Mar 08, 2018 11:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Sherab
Posts: 1172
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am

Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought

Post by Sherab » Thu Mar 08, 2018 11:10 pm

Coëmgenu wrote:
Thu Mar 08, 2018 8:06 pm
krodha wrote:
Thu Mar 08, 2018 7:56 pm
Coëmgenu wrote:
Thu Mar 08, 2018 7:38 pm
How is it significantly different than when Nāgasena Bhikṣu deconstructs the chariot for Menander I principally by breaking it down into its constituents in analysis?

I wouldn't necessarily agree with the "properly" and "only" and whatnot in the above quoted material, but I wouldn't call deconstructing the atom unBuddhist.
For one, the alleged chariot and its parts are held to be equally unfindable, and the chariot is not considered to be composed of parts. At least per Candrakīrti's rendition.
But look at what it says: "We look at A and see that it is formed of B. At the level of B, A does not exist. We look at B, and see that it is formed of C...", ad infinitum, well-past the exhaustion of the latin alphabet.

Nothing is found here either.

Whether or not they intended it, the user Sherab presented the Chariot simile, essentially. I am not familiar with whether or not Ven Candrakīrti wrote a commentary on the Nāgasenabhikṣusūtra.

If I can some up my thoughts and the motivation for my participation here: I don't think the chariot simile is unBuddhist, and it reminds me of people who call other people names like "unAmerican" when I see people calling others unBuddhist and the likes.
Thanks Coëmgenu. I think you can see the place where the analysis will lead to and the questions that it will raise. It is clear that I can't say the same for certain people on the forum.

krodha
Posts: 2286
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:30 pm

Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought

Post by krodha » Fri Mar 09, 2018 12:00 am

Coëmgenu wrote:
Thu Mar 08, 2018 11:03 pm
krodha wrote:
Thu Mar 08, 2018 8:37 pm
Coëmgenu wrote:
Thu Mar 08, 2018 8:06 pm
But look at what it says: "We look at A and see that it is formed of B. At the level of B, A does not exist. We look at B, and see that it is formed of C...", ad infinitum, well-past the exhaustion of the latin alphabet.

Nothing is found here either.

Whether or not they intended it, the user Sherab presented the Chariot simile, essentially. I am not familiar with whether or not Ven Candrakīrti wrote a commentary on the Nāgasenabhikṣusūtra.

If I can some up my thoughts and the motivation for my participation here: I don't think the chariot simile is unBuddhist, and it reminds me of people who call other people names like "unAmerican" when I see people calling others unBuddhist and the likes.
That is not how the chariot example works in Candrakīrti's exposition, but perhaps that is now it is in the teaching you are referring to.
How does Ven Candrakīrti treat the long tradition of the chariot simile?

'Ad infinitum' is the novel element of its presentation in this thread. Nāgasena Bhikṣu is content to simply break down the chariot into constituents. He doesn't further break them down into particles etc.
Candrakīrti does not break the chariot into constituent pieces but instead demonstrates that the basis of imputation does not contain or produce a chariot at all.

In his Madhyamakāvatāra he employs the sevenfold reasoning in order to establish the lack of a fundamental, core identity (self) in phenomena. Candrakīrti argues that the identity of a given person, place, thing, etc., is merely an inferential, conventional designation that does not ultimately correlate to the appearances it is attributed to. Meaning: the alleged object that the designation infers (the existence of) cannot be found when sought due to the fact that the alleged object itself cannot bear keen analysis.

To completely exhaust all possible landing points, Candrakīrti demonstrates:

(i) There is no chariot which is other than its parts

(ii) There is no chariot which is the same as its parts

(iii) There is no chariot which possesses its parts

(iv) There is no chariot which depends on its parts

(v) There is no chariot upon which the parts depend

(vi) There is no chariot which is the collection of its parts

(vii) There is no chariot which is the shape of its parts

User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 1454
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
Location: Whitby, Ontario

Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought

Post by Coëmgenu » Fri Mar 09, 2018 12:31 am

krodha wrote:
Fri Mar 09, 2018 12:00 am
Coëmgenu wrote:
Thu Mar 08, 2018 11:03 pm
krodha wrote:
Thu Mar 08, 2018 8:37 pm

That is not how the chariot example works in Candrakīrti's exposition, but perhaps that is now it is in the teaching you are referring to.
How does Ven Candrakīrti treat the long tradition of the chariot simile?

'Ad infinitum' is the novel element of its presentation in this thread. Nāgasena Bhikṣu is content to simply break down the chariot into constituents. He doesn't further break them down into particles etc.
Candrakīrti does not break the chariot into constituent pieces but instead demonstrates that the basis of imputation does not contain or produce a chariot at all.
Constituent pieces or constituent parts, either way, the sevenfold negation appears to rely on breaking down the suggestion of "a chariot" principally by looking at the relation of the suggested entity and the parts that comprise it:
krodha wrote:(i) There is no chariot which is other than its parts

(ii) There is no chariot which is the same as its parts

(iii) There is no chariot which possesses its parts

(iv) There is no chariot which depends on its parts

(v) There is no chariot upon which the parts depend

(vi) There is no chariot which is the collection of its parts

(vii) There is no chariot which is the shape of its parts
子念昔貧,志意下劣,今於父所,大獲珍寶,并及舍宅、一切財物。甚大歡喜,得未曾有。
The son thought of past poverty, outlook humble, now having from father a treasure harvest, also father's house, all his wealth. Great joy - to have what was never before had.

Τῆς πατρῴας, δόξης σου, ἀποσκιρτήσας ἀφρόνως, ἐν κακοῖς ἐσκόρπισα, ὅν μοι παρέδωκας πλοῦτον· ὅθεν σοι τὴν τοῦ Ἀσώτου, φωνὴν κραυγάζω· Ἥμαρτον ἐνώπιόν σου Πάτερ οἰκτίρμον, δέξαι με μετανοοῦντα, καὶ ποίησόν με, ὡς ἕνα τῶν μισθίων σου.
Your fatherly due I withheld unthinking, in evil I wasted your wealth; a prodigal cries, "I've erred, father, receive the repentant as serf."

妙法蓮華經 Κοντάκιον τοῦ Ἀσώτου

krodha
Posts: 2286
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:30 pm

Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought

Post by krodha » Fri Mar 09, 2018 1:01 am

Yet there are no parts or pieces to an entity that was never there in the first place. Hence why Nāgārjuna asserts that even constituent aggregates are merely inferential conventions.

And Candrakīrti isn't suggesting one break down the chariot, rather he is challenging you to locate the chariot in general.

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 27259
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought

Post by Malcolm » Fri Mar 09, 2018 3:03 am

krodha wrote:
Fri Mar 09, 2018 1:01 am
Yet there are no parts or pieces to an entity that was never there in the first place. Hence why Nāgārjuna asserts that even constituent aggregates are merely inferential conventions.

And Candrakīrti isn't suggesting one break down the chariot, rather he is challenging you to locate the chariot in general.
Yes. The question isn’t, as some mistakenly suppose, what the chariot is, but rather where the chariot is. One finds it isn’t anywhere at all, it’s just an imputation.
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
Wayfarer
Posts: 3738
Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 8:31 am
Location: Sydney AU

Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought

Post by Wayfarer » Fri Mar 09, 2018 5:03 am

A bank robbery was foiled when the robbers, having grabbed the cash, fled the building, only to find that their getaway car didn't actually exist. 'I was sure I had parked it there and left the engine running', said the driver, as he was hauled off in the police paddy wagon, 'but when we came back out, it couldn't be found. It turned out that it had only ever been an imputation, although it beats me how we used it to get there in the first place'.
Only practice with no gaining idea ~ Suzuki-roshi

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 27259
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought

Post by Malcolm » Fri Mar 09, 2018 5:34 am

Wayfarer wrote:
Fri Mar 09, 2018 5:03 am
A bank robbery was foiled when the robbers, having grabbed the cash, fled the building, only to find that their getaway car didn't actually exist. 'I was sure I had parked it there and left the engine running', said the driver, as he was hauled off in the police paddy wagon, 'but when we came back out, it couldn't be found. It turned out that it had only ever been an imputation, although it beats me how we used it to get there in the first place'.
What a car is, is not the question. We all know what a car is. Where the car is in what we think a car is, is a separate question.
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
Coëmgenu
Posts: 1454
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
Location: Whitby, Ontario

Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought

Post by Coëmgenu » Fri Mar 09, 2018 9:14 am

krodha wrote:
Fri Mar 09, 2018 1:01 am
And Candrakīrti isn't suggesting one break down the chariot, rather he is challenging you to locate the chariot in general.
By having us look at the suggested chariot at the level of its constituents rather than at the level of the suggested compounded object.

Quite literally deconstructing the suggestion.
子念昔貧,志意下劣,今於父所,大獲珍寶,并及舍宅、一切財物。甚大歡喜,得未曾有。
The son thought of past poverty, outlook humble, now having from father a treasure harvest, also father's house, all his wealth. Great joy - to have what was never before had.

Τῆς πατρῴας, δόξης σου, ἀποσκιρτήσας ἀφρόνως, ἐν κακοῖς ἐσκόρπισα, ὅν μοι παρέδωκας πλοῦτον· ὅθεν σοι τὴν τοῦ Ἀσώτου, φωνὴν κραυγάζω· Ἥμαρτον ἐνώπιόν σου Πάτερ οἰκτίρμον, δέξαι με μετανοοῦντα, καὶ ποίησόν με, ὡς ἕνα τῶν μισθίων σου.
Your fatherly due I withheld unthinking, in evil I wasted your wealth; a prodigal cries, "I've erred, father, receive the repentant as serf."

妙法蓮華經 Κοντάκιον τοῦ Ἀσώτου

krodha
Posts: 2286
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:30 pm

Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought

Post by krodha » Fri Mar 09, 2018 9:26 am

Coëmgenu wrote:
Fri Mar 09, 2018 9:14 am
krodha wrote:
Fri Mar 09, 2018 1:01 am
And Candrakīrti isn't suggesting one break down the chariot, rather he is challenging you to locate the chariot in general.
By having us look at the suggested chariot at the level of its constituents rather than at the level of the suggested compounded object.

Quite literally deconstructing the suggestion.
In a way, perhaps. But again, it is more geared towards challenging the assumption that there is an entity that possesses qualities and characteristics.

Like an apple, as an entity, that possesses the characteristic of being red, being round, being smooth etc., we even say "the apple is red," and so on. Which is fine on a conventional level, but becomes problematic when we misconstrue the situation and believe there is truly an entity there.

Candrakīrti is saying "show me the apple." Find the core entity.

The authentic failure to find the entity in question is the act of realizing its non-arising.

User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 1454
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
Location: Whitby, Ontario

Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought

Post by Coëmgenu » Fri Mar 09, 2018 9:31 am

krodha wrote:
Fri Mar 09, 2018 9:26 am
Coëmgenu wrote:
Fri Mar 09, 2018 9:14 am
krodha wrote:
Fri Mar 09, 2018 1:01 am
And Candrakīrti isn't suggesting one break down the chariot, rather he is challenging you to locate the chariot in general.
By having us look at the suggested chariot at the level of its constituents rather than at the level of the suggested compounded object.

Quite literally deconstructing the suggestion.
In a way, perhaps. But again, it is more geared towards challenging the assumption that there is an entity that possesses qualities and characteristics.

Like an apple, as an entity, that possesses the characteristic of being red, being round, being smooth etc., we even say "the apple is red," and so on. Which is fine on a conventional level, but becomes problematic when we misconstrue the situation and believe there is truly an entity there.

Candrakīrti is saying "show me the apple." Find the core entity.

The authentic failure to find the entity in question is the act of realizing its non-arising.
There may be a small matter of confusion over what "deconstruct" means. I'm using it in this sense:

analyze (a text or a linguistic or conceptual system) by deconstruction, typically in order to expose its hidden internal assumptions and contradictions and subvert its apparent significance or unity.

Rather than in the sense of "a deconstructed pizza". Which is wheat, tomatos, a cow, and a pig, etc.
子念昔貧,志意下劣,今於父所,大獲珍寶,并及舍宅、一切財物。甚大歡喜,得未曾有。
The son thought of past poverty, outlook humble, now having from father a treasure harvest, also father's house, all his wealth. Great joy - to have what was never before had.

Τῆς πατρῴας, δόξης σου, ἀποσκιρτήσας ἀφρόνως, ἐν κακοῖς ἐσκόρπισα, ὅν μοι παρέδωκας πλοῦτον· ὅθεν σοι τὴν τοῦ Ἀσώτου, φωνὴν κραυγάζω· Ἥμαρτον ἐνώπιόν σου Πάτερ οἰκτίρμον, δέξαι με μετανοοῦντα, καὶ ποίησόν με, ὡς ἕνα τῶν μισθίων σου.
Your fatherly due I withheld unthinking, in evil I wasted your wealth; a prodigal cries, "I've erred, father, receive the repentant as serf."

妙法蓮華經 Κοντάκιον τοῦ Ἀσώτου

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 27259
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought

Post by Malcolm » Fri Mar 09, 2018 5:58 pm

Everything is emptiness, emptiness is not just a concept, the nature of all phenomena does not truly exist.
-- Khenpo Sodhar
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: 27259
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought

Post by Malcolm » Fri Mar 09, 2018 5:59 pm

Coëmgenu wrote:
Fri Mar 09, 2018 9:14 am
krodha wrote:
Fri Mar 09, 2018 1:01 am
And Candrakīrti isn't suggesting one break down the chariot, rather he is challenging you to locate the chariot in general.
By having us look at the suggested chariot at the level of its constituents rather than at the level of the suggested compounded object.

Quite literally deconstructing the suggestion.
The question is, where is the chariot?
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
Sherab
Posts: 1172
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am

Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought

Post by Sherab » Sat Mar 10, 2018 12:09 am

krodha wrote:
Fri Mar 09, 2018 12:00 am

To completely exhaust all possible landing points, Candrakīrti demonstrates:

(i) There is no chariot which is other than its parts

(ii) There is no chariot which is the same as its parts

(iii) There is no chariot which possesses its parts

(iv) There is no chariot which depends on its parts

(v) There is no chariot upon which the parts depend

(vi) There is no chariot which is the collection of its parts

(vii) There is no chariot which is the shape of its parts
There is no chariot other than the parts and the relation of the parts to one another.

So do the parts and the relation of the parts to one another truly exist then and is therefore the ultimate?

To answer this, you have to continue with the analysis at the level of the parts, and so on.

As I see it, the discussion on this topic hinges on the validation or invalidation of the method of analysis that I mentioned.

As I don't expect any further progress in this discussion, I am disengaging myself from it.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests