"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.
User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 27773
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought

Post by Malcolm » Tue Mar 13, 2018 12:19 am

Sherab wrote:
Mon Mar 12, 2018 11:52 pm
Malcolm wrote:
Mon Mar 12, 2018 12:52 am
Sherab wrote:
Sun Mar 11, 2018 11:43 pm

If you have understood my position in the thread, you will notice that it starts with the avoidance of the two extremes of existence (eternalism) and non-existence (nihilism).
Advaitans make precisely the same claim about brahmin as you make about your ultimate.
You have not made the effort to understand what I wrote... correction, you chose to ignore my arguments and prefer to continue to make allegations based on your strawman picture of my position.
I understand what you wrote, as above, I think you are suffering from lack of understanding the what the two truths actually are, which causes you to adopt a transcendentalist/realist position with respect to the two truths. For you, the ultimate is something free from the two extremes. For me, ultimate truth is merely the perception of the absence of inherent existence/four extremes in entities which arise from conditions. Among the emptinesses Candra lists, for example, is the emptiness of the ultimate:

Because it is the supreme necessity,
the ultimate is nirvana,
Whatever is the emptiness of that
is the emptiness of the ultimate.

The knower of the ultimate
taught the emptiness of the ultimate
in order to avert the grasping
of the thought that nirvana is real.


And:

Whatever is not an extreme
is described as transcending extremes;
since that is empty of itself,
it is conventionally the emptiness of the transcended extremes.



Now, the question for you is, is ultimate empty? Of what is it empty? If the ultimate is also empty, how can be it any thing other than a conventional truth?

And since you are fond of citing the two extremes, if freedom from extremes is empty, how can it be anything other than a conventional truth?

Since everything from matter to omniscience is empty, how can they be anything other than conventional truths? A true ultimate truth would not be empty, now would it?

Nāgārjuna said:

If there is something subtle tha is not empty, there is something subtle to be empty;
but as there is nothing that is not empty, where is there something to be empty?
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: 27773
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought

Post by Malcolm » Tue Mar 13, 2018 12:23 am

Sherab wrote:
Tue Mar 13, 2018 12:03 am
Malcolm wrote:
Mon Mar 12, 2018 11:57 pm
Sherab wrote:
Mon Mar 12, 2018 11:49 pm

When there is a problem in logic, it is either due to invalid logical structure or invalid premises. To resolve a problematic conclusion from a valid logical argument, you have to examine the structure and/or the premises. You have done neither.
You have not shown any logical incoherence in my position. You have merely stated it to be so.
Anymore more such assertions and I would begin to think that you are trolling me:
What was the logical argument that I made? You said "even ultimate truth is merely a conventional truth" Call this statement 1. You also said, "An ultimate truth is the veridical perception of a given entity, a relative truth is the non-veridical perception of a given entity. " Call this statement 2.

Statement 1 can be represented as U -> C, where U = ultimate truth and C = conventional truth
Statement 2 can be represented as U = V, R = not V, where V = veridical perception of a given entity.
Substituting 2 into 1 gives V -> not V, which is incoherent.

Anyone with an understanding of logic will tell you that the argument above is logically correct. Whether the argument is valid or not depends then on whether the premises, statements 1 & 2, are true. If we take your premises as true, than the argument is true and you have an incoherent conclusion. So one of your premises must be false. I would suggest that Statement 1 is false, namely that the ultimate truth is merely a conventional truth. I have already stated before that I thought that saying the ultimate truth is merely a conventional truth is to over negate. It is my view that the incoherence from over-negation implies the undermining of the possibility of knowing what reality is, a consequence that I tried to argue in an earlier post. In other words, when you negate the ultimate to such an extent that it reduces the ultimate to the convention, and since the convention excludes veridical perception, that veridical perception that is necessary for knowing the ultimate is excluded as well.

Refute the above argument if you can. If not, do not make wild allegations of misrepresentation of your position as it only serves to diminish your status.
From https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.p ... 00#p437956
I answered this in many ways, but the most expressive is that there simply is no reality beneath things. There is nothing to find. Not even something free from two extremes. Therefore, ultimate truth, emptiness, is a conventional truth, because it is effective at bringing about liberation.

Your attempt to reduce it to a formal proposition via western logic is a fools errand. Richardson already attempted this, and when he reduced Madhyamaka to statements in formal logic, he found they were incoherent. But he also missed the point of Madhyamaka, and the two truths.
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: 3883
Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 8:31 am
Location: Sydney AU

Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought

Post by Wayfarer » Tue Mar 13, 2018 1:16 am

Sherab wrote:Then you have missed what I wrote here : https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.p ... 40#p438687
My reasoning for maintaining that there is a difference between the relative and the ultimate is simply this. If the ultimate is truly indescribable, then you cannot say that it is truly non-existent. If it is truly non-existent, then the word "non-existent" would be an accurate and exact description.
'It'?

As per the quote I provided from the Aspiration Prayer: not existent, not non-existent. Neither is, nor is not. Accordingly there is no 'ultimate' that does (or doesn't) exist. And the apophaticism required is realising the futility of trying to pin that realisation down to 'is' or 'is not' statements. As Master Seung Sahn used to always say: 'only don't know'.

(Tricky, I know.)
Only practice with no gaining idea ~ Suzuki-roshi

User avatar
Sherab
Posts: 1182
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am

Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought

Post by Sherab » Tue Mar 13, 2018 11:28 pm

Wayfarer wrote:
Tue Mar 13, 2018 1:16 am
Sherab wrote:Then you have missed what I wrote here : https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.p ... 40#p438687
My reasoning for maintaining that there is a difference between the relative and the ultimate is simply this. If the ultimate is truly indescribable, then you cannot say that it is truly non-existent. If it is truly non-existent, then the word "non-existent" would be an accurate and exact description.
'It'?

As per the quote I provided from the Aspiration Prayer: not existent, not non-existent. Neither is, nor is not. Accordingly there is no 'ultimate' that does (or doesn't) exist. And the apophaticism required is realising the futility of trying to pin that realisation down to 'is' or 'is not' statements. As Master Seung Sahn used to always say: 'only don't know'.

(Tricky, I know.)
Agree. As I said, my position was that the ultimate is indescribable. So words that reference the relative, the conventional, really cannot describe it as all designations in the relative/conventional cannot escape the dualistic underpinning of the relative/conventional. The best that can be said is that there is, or the ultimate is just is.
Last edited by Sherab on Tue Mar 13, 2018 11:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Sherab
Posts: 1182
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am

Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought

Post by Sherab » Tue Mar 13, 2018 11:57 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Tue Mar 13, 2018 12:23 am
Sherab wrote:
Tue Mar 13, 2018 12:03 am
Malcolm wrote:
Mon Mar 12, 2018 11:57 pm


You have not shown any logical incoherence in my position. You have merely stated it to be so.
Anymore more such assertions and I would begin to think that you are trolling me:
What was the logical argument that I made? You said "even ultimate truth is merely a conventional truth" Call this statement 1. You also said, "An ultimate truth is the veridical perception of a given entity, a relative truth is the non-veridical perception of a given entity. " Call this statement 2.

Statement 1 can be represented as U -> C, where U = ultimate truth and C = conventional truth
Statement 2 can be represented as U = V, R = not V, where V = veridical perception of a given entity.
Substituting 2 into 1 gives V -> not V, which is incoherent.

Anyone with an understanding of logic will tell you that the argument above is logically correct. Whether the argument is valid or not depends then on whether the premises, statements 1 & 2, are true. If we take your premises as true, than the argument is true and you have an incoherent conclusion. So one of your premises must be false. I would suggest that Statement 1 is false, namely that the ultimate truth is merely a conventional truth. I have already stated before that I thought that saying the ultimate truth is merely a conventional truth is to over negate. It is my view that the incoherence from over-negation implies the undermining of the possibility of knowing what reality is, a consequence that I tried to argue in an earlier post. In other words, when you negate the ultimate to such an extent that it reduces the ultimate to the convention, and since the convention excludes veridical perception, that veridical perception that is necessary for knowing the ultimate is excluded as well.

Refute the above argument if you can. If not, do not make wild allegations of misrepresentation of your position as it only serves to diminish your status.
From https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.p ... 00#p437956
I answered this in many ways, but the most expressive is that there simply is no reality beneath things. There is nothing to find. Not even something free from two extremes. Therefore, ultimate truth, emptiness, is a conventional truth, because it is effective at bringing about liberation.

Your attempt to reduce it to a formal proposition via western logic is a fools errand. Richardson already attempted this, and when he reduced Madhyamaka to statements in formal logic, he found they were incoherent. But he also missed the point of Madhyamaka, and the two truths.
I have not seen Richardson's formulation, so I cannot comment on its validity. As for my formulation from your own statements of your position, there is no doubt that there is logical incoherence.

To me, any logical incoherence shown through the method of modern logic is a red flag that something is wrong and is not something that I will ignore as I am not a fan of unquestioned faith-based positions. For you, you choose to ignore in favour of your own interpretation of statements from authority, assuming implicitly that your interpretation is correct. This being so, there is no possibility of any progress from this discussion as I have mentioned before.

While still on this topic of logic, another place where we disagree is this: whether there is two extremes or four extremes. I hold that when the two extremes of eternalism and nihilism are properly defined, there is no need for two of the extremes in the four extremes: the extreme of <eternalism AND nihilism> would be incoherent; the extreme of NOT <eternalism OR nihilism> would be indeterminate, which is say that anything that belongs to this set cannot be ascertained.

When you negate the ultimate until it too becomes the conventional, and as the conventional is non-veridical, you are forced to hold the position that everything is non-veridical. This in my view is to put yourself in your extreme of NOT <eternalism OR nihilism>. Where is the possibility of liberation in this "realm", let alone omniscience? Given that you do not place the value of logic above the value of (your own interpretation of) authority, you will of course disagree with me. That much I expect.
Last edited by Sherab on Wed Mar 14, 2018 12:03 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 27773
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought

Post by Malcolm » Wed Mar 14, 2018 12:02 am

Sherab wrote:
Tue Mar 13, 2018 11:57 pm

While still on this topic of logic, another place where we disagree is this: whether there is two extremes or four extremes. I hold that when the two extremes of eternalism and nihilism are properly defined, there is no need for two of the extremes in the four extremes: the extreme of <eternalism AND nihilism> would be incoherent; the extreme of NOT <eternalism OR nihilism> would be indeterminate, which is say that anything that belongs to this set cannot be ascertained.

There are four extremes because there are opponents who adhere to each of the four extremes, such as yourself, who adhere to the fourth extreme, neither existent nor nonexistent, as your post above shows. And because these four extremes are clearly negated in many places in sūtra, tantra, and commentaries.

BTW, I did not negate the ultimate, I stated that ultimate truth must be a conventional truth because otherwise, it would not be effective (ārthakriya).
Last edited by Malcolm on Wed Mar 14, 2018 12:06 am, edited 1 time in total.
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

krodha
Posts: 2393
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:30 pm

Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought

Post by krodha » Wed Mar 14, 2018 12:05 am

Sherab wrote:
Tue Mar 13, 2018 11:28 pm
Wayfarer wrote:
Tue Mar 13, 2018 1:16 am
Sherab wrote:Then you have missed what I wrote here : https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.p ... 40#p438687
My reasoning for maintaining that there is a difference between the relative and the ultimate is simply this. If the ultimate is truly indescribable, then you cannot say that it is truly non-existent. If it is truly non-existent, then the word "non-existent" would be an accurate and exact description.
'It'?

As per the quote I provided from the Aspiration Prayer: not existent, not non-existent. Neither is, nor is not. Accordingly there is no 'ultimate' that does (or doesn't) exist. And the apophaticism required is realising the futility of trying to pin that realisation down to 'is' or 'is not' statements. As Master Seung Sahn used to always say: 'only don't know'.

(Tricky, I know.)
Agree. As I said, my position was that the ultimate is indescribable. So words that reference the relative, the conventional, really cannot describe it as all designations in the relative/conventional cannot escape the dualistic underpinning of the relative/conventional. The best that can be said is that there is, or there ultimate is just is.
The ineffability of ultimate truth is no different than the ineffability of anything and everything else. And that being the case, there is no reason to opt out of discussing ultimate truth as all it requires is the employment of a correct description.

In declaring ultimate truth off limits because it is ineffable, you are exercising a decision that is no more profound than refraining to describe the taste of sugar because the experiential taste is ineffable. Yet for the rest of us, who have no problem with communicating, describing that taste as "sweet" is perfectly okay. Likewise describing said taste as "salty" would be inaccurate.

In this discussion Malcolm is essentially critiquing your insistence on describing the taste of sugar as "salty", and you are saying this critique has no basis because the experiential taste is ineffable.

This is (i) nonsensical, and (ii) a cop out.

User avatar
Sherab
Posts: 1182
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am

Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought

Post by Sherab » Wed Mar 14, 2018 12:16 am

Malcolm wrote:
Wed Mar 14, 2018 12:02 am
Sherab wrote:
Tue Mar 13, 2018 11:57 pm

While still on this topic of logic, another place where we disagree is this: whether there is two extremes or four extremes. I hold that when the two extremes of eternalism and nihilism are properly defined, there is no need for two of the extremes in the four extremes: the extreme of <eternalism AND nihilism> would be incoherent; the extreme of NOT <eternalism OR nihilism> would be indeterminate, which is say that anything that belongs to this set cannot be ascertained.

There are four extremes because there are opponents who adhere to each of the four extremes, such as yourself, who adhere to the fourth extreme, neither existent nor nonexistent, as your post above shows. And because these four extremes are clearly negated in many places in sūtra, tantra, and commentaries.
I mentioned that the two extremes are constraints. In other words, they are boundaries not to be crossed. Within those constraints, you do your analysis. Your analysis led you to the position that nothing can be ascertained as everything is indeterminate. My analysis led me to the position that everything can be ascertained in the ultimate, except that what is ascertained is indescribable. See the difference?

krodha
Posts: 2393
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:30 pm

Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought

Post by krodha » Wed Mar 14, 2018 12:32 am

Sherab wrote:
Wed Mar 14, 2018 12:16 am
My analysis led me to the position that everything can be ascertained in the ultimate, except that what is ascertained is indescribable. See the difference?
Why continually lean on the concept of "ineffability?"

User avatar
Sherab
Posts: 1182
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am

Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought

Post by Sherab » Thu Mar 15, 2018 12:44 am

Two comments:

First, any interpretation of an authority should be done within the constraints of logic and logical reasoning.

Secondly, in interpreting commentaries by authorities on the ultimate, one has to get a grip on the method to examine/analyse the relative to come to a reasonable conclusion of the ultimate. In the process, there must be no violation of the rules of logic, no invalid premises and no conclusion that contradicts any of the premises.

The method is the avoidance of extremes:

(1) Call the extreme of existence/eternalism <E>
(2) Call te extreme of non-existence/nihilism <N>.
(3) The four extremes <E>, <N>, <E & N>, Not<E or N>.
(4) The extreme of <E> is to be avoided by showing that such <E> is not valid or functional.
(5) The extreme of <N> is to be avoided by showing that such <N> is not valid or functional.
(6) The extreme of <E & N> is automatically avoided when <E> is avoided and <N> is avoided.
(7) Note that Not <E or N> represents the region not included in <E> or <N>. As this region is not covered by <E> or <N>, avoidance of this region if any, requires examination/analysis of this region.

Therefore in avoiding the extremes, we need to avoid only the two extremes of <E> and <N>, and then proceed to examine or analyse the region Not<E or N>.

<E> is the region of static existence, eternally unchanging. And being eternally unchanging, is incapable of any function.
<N> is the region of unsustained existence, where any arising is followed by ceasing without any further continuation.
Not <E or N> is the region of existence in at least the form of a continuum of arising and ceasing.

How is the region of Not<E or N> to be examined? By examining how and where it arises and ceases.

A further note: If one do not define <E> and <N> properly, the whole analysis becomes problematic. For example, if one unthinkingly assumes <E> is Not<N> and Not<E> is <N>, then <E & N> becomes incoherent and Not<E or N> becomes indeterminate.

For example,
(i) the ultimate truth is veridical cognition. (A)
(ii) the conventional truth is non-veridical cognition. (not A)
(iii) the ultimate truth is the conventional truth (A & Not A)
(iv) the ultimate truth is neither conventional truth nor not conventional truth (Not A or A)

I don't expect you to agree with me.

User avatar
Snowbear
Posts: 279
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2018 10:41 am

Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought

Post by Snowbear » Thu Mar 15, 2018 12:52 am

Sherab wrote:
Thu Mar 15, 2018 12:44 am
Two comments:

First, any interpretation of an authority should be done within the constraints of logic and logical reasoning.

Secondly, in interpreting commentaries by authorities on the ultimate, one has to get a grip on the method to examine/analyse the relative to come to a reasonable conclusion of the ultimate. In the process, there must be no violation of the rules of logic, no invalid premises and no conclusion that contradicts any of the premises.

The method is the avoidance of extremes:

(1) Call the extreme of existence/eternalism <E>
(2) Call te extreme of non-existence/nihilism <N>.
(3) The four extremes <E>, <N>, <E & N>, Not<E or N>.
(4) The extreme of <E> is to be avoided by showing that such <E> is not valid or functional.
(5) The extreme of <N> is to be avoided by showing that such <N> is not valid or functional.
(6) The extreme of <E & N> is automatically avoided when <E> is avoided and <N> is avoided.
(7) Note that Not <E or N> represents the region not included in <E> or <N>. As this region is not covered by <E> or <N>, avoidance of this region if any, requires examination/analysis of this region.

Therefore in avoiding the extremes, we need to avoid only the two extremes of <E> and <N>, and then proceed to examine or analyse the region Not<E or N>.

<E> is the region of static existence, eternally unchanging. And being eternally unchanging, is incapable of any function.
<N> is the region of unsustained existence, where any arising is followed by ceasing without any further continuation.
Not <E or N> is the region of existence in at least the form of a continuum of arising and ceasing.

How is the region of Not<E or N> to be examined? By examining how and where it arises and ceases.

A further note: If one do not define <E> and <N> properly, the whole analysis becomes problematic. For example, if one unthinkingly assumes <E> is Not<N> and Not<E> is <N>, then <E & N> becomes incoherent and Not<E or N> becomes indeterminate.

For example,
(i) the ultimate truth is veridical cognition. (A)
(ii) the conventional truth is non-veridical cognition. (not A)
(iii) the ultimate truth is the conventional truth (A & Not A)
(iv) the ultimate truth is neither conventional truth nor not conventional truth (Not A or A)

I don't expect you to agree with me.
Wow, you put an impressive amount of care and time into that. Due to my obscurations I don't know what it all means. I'm curious what effect this has had on your practice.

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 27773
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought

Post by Malcolm » Thu Mar 15, 2018 4:51 pm

Sherab wrote:
Thu Mar 15, 2018 12:44 am

Therefore in avoiding the extremes, we need to avoid only the two extremes of <E> and <N>, and then proceed to examine or analyse the region Not<E or N>.
Not <E or N> is also rejected as it is the fourth extreme.

You are confusing the Madhyamaka analysis of causal series, neither the same nor different, with the four extreme. This is the basis of most of your errors.

The reasoning why "not existent and not nonexistent" is rejected is because there are some who proposed that existents, while arising, have a phase where they are not existent and not nonexistent.

Madhyamaka arguments are not formal proofs in logic. They are rebuttals of other's positions.

Take the opening statement of MMK:

At no time, no where,
does any thing arise from (1) itself,
(2) from other than itself,
(3) from both, or (4) without a cause.


The first extreme is existence, arising from self; the second extreme is nonexistence, arising from other; the third extreme is both, arising from self and other; the final extreme is without cause, neither existence nor nonexistence.

All four extremes must be refuted. There is no short cut around this.
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

Simon E.
Posts: 5526
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 11:09 am

Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought

Post by Simon E. » Thu Mar 15, 2018 5:03 pm

Snowbear wrote:
Thu Mar 15, 2018 12:52 am
Sherab wrote:
Thu Mar 15, 2018 12:44 am
Two comments:

First, any interpretation of an authority should be done within the constraints of logic and logical reasoning.

Secondly, in interpreting commentaries by authorities on the ultimate, one has to get a grip on the method to examine/analyse the relative to come to a reasonable conclusion of the ultimate. In the process, there must be no violation of the rules of logic, no invalid premises and no conclusion that contradicts any of the premises.

The method is the avoidance of extremes:

(1) Call the extreme of existence/eternalism <E>
(2) Call te extreme of non-existence/nihilism <N>.
(3) The four extremes <E>, <N>, <E & N>, Not<E or N>.
(4) The extreme of <E> is to be avoided by showing that such <E> is not valid or functional.
(5) The extreme of <N> is to be avoided by showing that such <N> is not valid or functional.
(6) The extreme of <E & N> is automatically avoided when <E> is avoided and <N> is avoided.
(7) Note that Not <E or N> represents the region not included in <E> or <N>. As this region is not covered by <E> or <N>, avoidance of this region if any, requires examination/analysis of this region.

Therefore in avoiding the extremes, we need to avoid only the two extremes of <E> and <N>, and then proceed to examine or analyse the region Not<E or N>.

<E> is the region of static existence, eternally unchanging. And being eternally unchanging, is incapable of any function.
<N> is the region of unsustained existence, where any arising is followed by ceasing without any further continuation.
Not <E or N> is the region of existence in at least the form of a continuum of arising and ceasing.

How is the region of Not<E or N> to be examined? By examining how and where it arises and ceases.

A further note: If one do not define <E> and <N> properly, the whole analysis becomes problematic. For example, if one unthinkingly assumes <E> is Not<N> and Not<E> is <N>, then <E & N> becomes incoherent and Not<E or N> becomes indeterminate.

For example,
(i) the ultimate truth is veridical cognition. (A)
(ii) the conventional truth is non-veridical cognition. (not A)
(iii) the ultimate truth is the conventional truth (A & Not A)
(iv) the ultimate truth is neither conventional truth nor not conventional truth (Not A or A)

I don't expect you to agree with me.
Wow, you put an impressive amount of care and time into that. Due to my obscurations I don't know what it all means. I'm curious what effect this has had on your practice.
Thats interesting. It hadn't struck me that it might be anything to do with practice... :lol:
If you use the word 'mind' without defining your terms I will ask you politely for a definition. :smile:
This is not to be awkward. But it's really not self-explanatory.

User avatar
Sherab
Posts: 1182
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am

Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought

Post by Sherab » Thu Mar 15, 2018 11:48 pm

Snowbear wrote:
Thu Mar 15, 2018 12:52 am
Wow, you put an impressive amount of care and time into that. Due to my obscurations I don't know what it all means. I'm curious what effect this has had on your practice.
It is about
(1) ensuring that when interpreting authority, they should not violate logic and valid reasoning. This is because if you allow your interpretation to have a free pass from logic and valid reasoning, anything goes.
(2) ensuring having more intellectual certainty of what is most vital to the teachings of the Buddha, is there or is there not a liberation from all that is produced, made, born, etc. (I have argued that Malcolm has over negated and as a result, there is no getting over the realm of illusion.)
(3) being able to counter theists arguing that a Creator God that created an illusory world and the Buddha's teachings cannot penetrate through to the realm of the Creator God of the theists. I have argued that there is an ultimate and that it can be penetrated, and that the Buddha has to have penetrated to that in order to be able to state with authority that there is no Creator God.

User avatar
Sherab
Posts: 1182
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am

Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought

Post by Sherab » Thu Mar 15, 2018 11:52 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Thu Mar 15, 2018 4:51 pm
Madhyamaka arguments are not formal proofs in logic. They are rebuttals of other's positions.
That does not mean that you get a free pass to be fast and loose with the rules of logic and valid reasoning.

User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 1563
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
Location: Whitby, Ontario

Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought

Post by Coëmgenu » Fri Mar 16, 2018 12:10 am

Sherab wrote:
Thu Mar 15, 2018 11:52 pm
Malcolm wrote:
Thu Mar 15, 2018 4:51 pm
Madhyamaka arguments are not formal proofs in logic. They are rebuttals of other's positions.
That does not mean that you get a free pass to be fast and loose with the rules of logic and valid reasoning.
The four extremes, though, in a way, are logic to a certain extent, inasmuch as anything that one could "logically" come up with is included within those extremes.

Affirmation
Negation
Some combination of both
Suggesting "something else" as the solution.

The "logic" of Madhyamaka is in its consistency and internal justifications. Ultimately it is working with what is essentially a "illogical" proposition. Depending on how one views "logical", the entire Buddhadharma is illogical.
世尊在靈山會上拈華示眾眾皆默然唯迦葉破顏微笑世尊云
The Lord dwelt at the Vulture Peak with the assembly and plucked a flower as a teaching. The myriad totality were silent, save for Kāśyapa, whose face cracked in a faint smile. The Lord spoke.
吾有正法眼藏涅槃妙心實相無相微妙法門不立文字教外別傳付囑摩訶迦葉。
I have the treasure of the true dharma eye, I have nirvāṇa as wondrous citta, I know signless dharmatā, the subtle dharma-gate, which is not standing on written word, which is external to scriptures, which is a special dispensation, which is entrusted to Mahākāśyapa.

नस्वातोनापिपरतोनद्वाभ्यांनाप्यहेतुतः
उत्पन्नाजातुविद्यन्तेभावाःक्वचनकेचन

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 27773
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought

Post by Malcolm » Fri Mar 16, 2018 1:40 am

Sherab wrote:
Thu Mar 15, 2018 11:52 pm
Malcolm wrote:
Thu Mar 15, 2018 4:51 pm
Madhyamaka arguments are not formal proofs in logic. They are rebuttals of other's positions.
That does not mean that you get a free pass to be fast and loose with the rules of logic and valid reasoning.
All we need to do is show the opponents position is self-contradictory, as in your assertion there is an ultimate that is free from two extremes which is merely an affirmation of existence.

Tsongkhapa's point of view, that "existence" refutes existence in the ultimate, whereas "nonexistence" refutes nonexistence in the relative is infinitely preferable to your formulation.
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: 27773
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought

Post by Malcolm » Fri Mar 16, 2018 1:40 am

Coëmgenu wrote:
Fri Mar 16, 2018 12:10 am
Sherab wrote:
Thu Mar 15, 2018 11:52 pm
Malcolm wrote:
Thu Mar 15, 2018 4:51 pm
Madhyamaka arguments are not formal proofs in logic. They are rebuttals of other's positions.
That does not mean that you get a free pass to be fast and loose with the rules of logic and valid reasoning.
The four extremes, though, in a way, are logic to a certain extent, inasmuch as anything that one could "logically" come up with is included within those extremes.

Affirmation
Negation
Some combination of both
Suggesting "something else" as the solution.

The "logic" of Madhyamaka is in its consistency and internal justifications. Ultimately it is working with what is essentially a "illogical" proposition. Depending on how one views "logical", the entire Buddhadharma is illogical.
Madhyamakas do not make ultimate propositions at all. They merely show the flaws of others ultimate propositions. Thus we have no need to demonstrate any internal coherency since we are merely dismantling the propositions of others.
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
Matt J
Posts: 702
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 2:29 am

Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought

Post by Matt J » Fri Mar 16, 2018 1:59 am

I thought the four extremes were supposed to be exhaustive of conceptual positions.
The Great Way is not difficult
If only there is no picking or choosing
--- Xin Xin Ming

User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 1563
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
Location: Whitby, Ontario

Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought

Post by Coëmgenu » Fri Mar 16, 2018 3:17 am

Matt J wrote:
Fri Mar 16, 2018 1:59 am
I thought the four extremes were supposed to be exhaustive of conceptual positions.
Conceptual positions IMO = logic. Afaik they are negations of logical propositions. I suppose that can be explained as "exhaustions of concepts" as well.
世尊在靈山會上拈華示眾眾皆默然唯迦葉破顏微笑世尊云
The Lord dwelt at the Vulture Peak with the assembly and plucked a flower as a teaching. The myriad totality were silent, save for Kāśyapa, whose face cracked in a faint smile. The Lord spoke.
吾有正法眼藏涅槃妙心實相無相微妙法門不立文字教外別傳付囑摩訶迦葉。
I have the treasure of the true dharma eye, I have nirvāṇa as wondrous citta, I know signless dharmatā, the subtle dharma-gate, which is not standing on written word, which is external to scriptures, which is a special dispensation, which is entrusted to Mahākāśyapa.

नस्वातोनापिपरतोनद्वाभ्यांनाप्यहेतुतः
उत्पन्नाजातुविद्यन्तेभावाःक्वचनकेचन

Post Reply

Return to “East Asian Buddhism”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 17 guests