Awakening is a collective venture

General discussion, particularly exploring the Dharma in the modern world.
User avatar
Rick
Posts: 2629
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013 1:05 am

Re: Awakening is a collective venture

Post by Rick »

Anonymous X wrote:Do you think that Madhyamaka is the epitome of this awakening?
I think that Madhyamaka is a raft that can help carry a certain type of person to _________ = the other shore?

(There are lotsa rafts.)
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily ...
User avatar
Lazy_eye
Posts: 496
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2009 4:32 am
Location: Laurel, MD
Contact:

Re: Awakening is a collective venture

Post by Lazy_eye »

Johnny Dangerous wrote:
What is the the answer to the charge that "individual mindstream" is just a semantic ploy intended to allow a self-concept back into the Dharma?
For the life of me, I don't understand how this question trips people up the way it does.

Can you watch a movie and understand it's being performed by actors, and that the narrative is not real? If so, this concept is not so difficult, certainly there is an ex[experience of a conventional self.
Ok, so let me make sure I get this. The answer is that it is a self-concept, but it's the conventional self. And the Two Truths doctrine explains why there is a conventional self. Correct?

As to how the question trips people up the way it does, I obviously can't speak for everyone who has stumbled over it. But it's well known (I think) that Buddhists across the traditions have grappled with some ambiguities and apparent contradictions between different things said in different scriptures, going all the way back to the early texts.

For example, in this sutta, the Buddha explicitly rejects the view that "the one who acts is the one who experiences."

On the other hand, according to this one, "I am the owner of my actions, heir to my actions, born of my actions, related through my actions, and have my actions as my arbitrator." The statements in these two suttas don't quite align with each other.

It's not always clear how to resolve the seeming contradiction. I understand that a great deal of later Abhidharma and Mayahana doctrinal elaboration, including the Two Truths as well as alaya-vijnana, grew precisely out of the effort to explain this.

Of course I can watch a movie, but I have a functioning memory that allows me to follow the narrative and believe that the same experiencer is sitting in the movie theater from beginning to end. Transmigration across lifetimes is more like watching a movie and having your memory erased halfway through, so you don't remember anything that came before or who you were when you entered the theater. :)
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Awakening is a collective venture

Post by Malcolm »

Lazy_eye wrote: For example, in this sutta, the Buddha explicitly rejects the view that "the one who acts is the one who experiences."

He also rejects the opposite extreme: "the one who acts is other than the one who experiences."

This is because, in the logic of dependent origination, causes and effects are neither the same nor different.
User avatar
Rick
Posts: 2629
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013 1:05 am

Re: Awakening is a collective venture

Post by Rick »

Malcolm wrote:This is because, in the logic of dependent origination, causes and effects are neither the same nor different.
Okay, Lewis Carroll is DEFINITELY a reincarnation of Nagarjuna:

“We're all mad here.” Alice in Wonderland
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily ...
User avatar
aflatun
Posts: 139
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 3:21 am
Location: Bay Area, CA

Re: Awakening is a collective venture

Post by aflatun »

dzogchungpa wrote:
aflatun wrote:Is Professor Garfield a practitioner? Not that it matters either way, I just imagined he wasn't. In the article I got a more 'committed' vibe than in his academic writing.
He was asked about this here, but it seems that he did not respond.
Thanks for that dzogchungpa. Based on my experience with academics, particularly those connected with religious studies, that's probably an unequivocal "yes" :tongue:
"People often get too quick to say 'there's no self. There's no self...no self...no self.' There is self, there is focal point, its not yours. That's what not self is."

Ninoslav Ñāṇamoli
Senses and the Thought-1, 42:53

"Those who create constructs about the Buddha,
Who is beyond construction and without exhaustion,
Are thereby damaged by their constructs;
They fail to see the Thus-Gone.

That which is the nature of the Thus-Gone
Is also the nature of this world.
There is no nature of the Thus-Gone.
There is no nature of the world."

Nagarjuna
MMK XXII.15-16
User avatar
Adamantine
Former staff member
Posts: 4027
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 7:09 am
Location: Space is the Place

Re: Awakening is a collective venture

Post by Adamantine »

Re: Jay, when I knew him in the '90's he was guiding a student
exchange program with the Central Institute for Higher Tibetan Studies in Sarnath India. He wore his mala wrapped around his
wrist and made sure the students got the chance to pilgrimage to Bodhgaya, which doesn't correspond to a purely academic philosophical approach. What's more, he had adopted at least one Tibetan orphan. Some academics may risk being accused of non-objectivity if they are practicing religion and they are philosophy professors, or in general, so perhaps there's reasons not to advertise if one is practicing... along with more dharmic reasons. Maybe why he doesn't answer the question. But my personal impression was that he was practicing... to what degree I have no idea.
Contentment is the ultimate wealth;
Detachment is the final happiness. ~Sri Saraha
User avatar
dzogchungpa
Posts: 6333
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 10:50 pm

Re: Awakening is a collective venture

Post by dzogchungpa »

I kind of wonder if he ignored the question because it was posed by someone going by the handle "BillF*ckinEvans". :smile:


In all seriousness, would it actually be detrimental to his career or standing to admit that he practiced some kind of Buddhist meditation? In this day and age I would find that surprising given the mindfulness craze etc.
There is not only nothingness because there is always, and always can manifest. - Thinley Norbu Rinpoche
Anonymous X
Posts: 813
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2017 11:43 am
Location: Bangkok

Re: Awakening is a collective venture

Post by Anonymous X »

Lazy_eye wrote:
Johnny Dangerous wrote:
What is the the answer to the charge that "individual mindstream" is just a semantic ploy intended to allow a self-concept back into the Dharma?
For the life of me, I don't understand how this question trips people up the way it does.

Can you watch a movie and understand it's being performed by actors, and that the narrative is not real? If so, this concept is not so difficult, certainly there is an ex[experience of a conventional self.
Ok, so let me make sure I get this. The answer is that it is a self-concept, but it's the conventional self. And the Two Truths doctrine explains why there is a conventional self. Correct?

As to how the question trips people up the way it does, I obviously can't speak for everyone who has stumbled over it. But it's well known (I think) that Buddhists across the traditions have grappled with some ambiguities and apparent contradictions between different things said in different scriptures, going all the way back to the early texts.

For example, in this sutta, the Buddha explicitly rejects the view that "the one who acts is the one who experiences."

On the other hand, according to this one, "I am the owner of my actions, heir to my actions, born of my actions, related through my actions, and have my actions as my arbitrator." The statements in these two suttas don't quite align with each other.

It's not always clear how to resolve the seeming contradiction. I understand that a great deal of later Abhidharma and Mayahana doctrinal elaboration, including the Two Truths as well as alaya-vijnana, grew precisely out of the effort to explain this.

Of course I can watch a movie, but I have a functioning memory that allows me to follow the narrative and believe that the same experiencer is sitting in the movie theater from beginning to end. Transmigration across lifetimes is more like watching a movie and having your memory erased halfway through, so you don't remember anything that came before or who you were when you entered the theater. :)
Staying with the Two Truths doctrine, you only get part of the Totality. Now, for the Three Truths:

From Zongmi on Chan: “The nature axiom has three truths: nature (voidness); characteristics (origination by dependence); and self substance (true mind). The self substance is neither voidness nor form, etc.; it is the potentiality to be both. This corresponds to a mirror’s specific images, the voidness of those images, and the brightness or reflectivity of the mirror itself.
The difference between them concerning the two truths and the three truths. All scholars know that the voidness axiom says that all dharmas, both mundane and supramundane, do not go beyond the two truths. There is no need for quotations to elucidate this. The nature axiom, however, gathers up nature, characteristics, and the self substance [xing xiang ji ziti], and considers them together as the three truths. It takes all dharmas that originate by dependence, such as forms, etc., as the worldly truth and takes [the truth that] conditions lack a self nature and [hence] all dharmas are void as the real truth. (This much is no different in terms of principle from the two truths of the voidness axiom and the characteristics axiom.) That the one true mind substance is neither voidness nor form [but] has the potentiality to be void and the potentiality to be form is the truth of the highest meaning of the middle path.”


For me, without the inclusion of the Tathagatagarbha doctrine, Mahayana and Madhyamaka teachings don't point directly to the heart of the matter.
User avatar
Rick
Posts: 2629
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013 1:05 am

Re: Awakening is a collective venture

Post by Rick »

dzogchungpa wrote:... would it actually be detrimental to his career or standing to admit that he practiced some kind of Buddhist meditation? In this day and age I would find that surprising given the mindfulness craze etc.
Maybe he'd lose academic cred if his philosophy peers thought he'd "gone native?"

And, who knows, his understanding of emptiness is so strong that it might BE his practice. 84,000 paths, right?
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily ...
User avatar
tomschwarz
Posts: 778
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2015 12:31 am

Re: Awakening is a collective venture

Post by tomschwarz »

rachmiel wrote:Jay Garfield, in What Does Buddhism Require:

"The project of full awakening is a collective, not an individual, venture."

I think it's really important to keep this in mind during the journey. And sometimes easy to forget ... for me at least.
Of course you are correct. And well exemplified by the number of dualistic, self centered, and territory-based comments on this thread.

It is easy to use the dahrma to perpetuate dualism, self centered perspective, aggresion, and attachment to arising and subsiding phenomena.

One reaction to that fundemental ignorance is to consider the two truths as you mentioned. In that spirit, let's recall the eight doors to emptiness (emptiness being the ultimate truth):

- emptiness the thing itself (1,2)
- signlessness, the cause (3,4,5,6)
- wishlessness, the result (7,8)
1 - all things are empty
2 - absence of defining characteristics
3 - absence of origination
4 - absence of cessation
5 - absence of defilement
6 - absence of undefilement
7 - no increase
8 - no decrease

Now back to Malcolm, my mindstream vs your mindstream, that is the conventional truth. It is true, but it relates to arising and subsiding phenomena. Also true is the ultimate truth, the truth of emptiness, which does not have defining characteristics. So it is also true, in other, ultimate ways, that our mindstreams do not differ from one another in some defining characteristic. And please consider that this is the basis of absolute love/absolute bodhicitta.

This is the heart level point that lazy eye made, which should be respected with a non political reply:

"But as long as it's an "individual" mindstream, there is still this troublesome attribute of "individuality," which sounds like a synonym for selfhood."

My reply, of course, you are right.
i dedicate this post to your happiness, the causes of your happiness, the absence of your suffering the causes of the absence of your suffering that we may not have too much attachment nor aversion. SAMAYAMANUPALAYA
User avatar
dzogchungpa
Posts: 6333
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 10:50 pm

Re: Awakening is a collective venture

Post by dzogchungpa »

rachmiel wrote:Jay Garfield, in What Does Buddhism Require:

"The project of full awakening is a collective, not an individual, venture."
Interestingly, as Mark Szpakowski mentions here, in 1968 CTR gave a talk in which he said that Maitreya, the buddha of the future, would not be an individual, but society.
There is not only nothingness because there is always, and always can manifest. - Thinley Norbu Rinpoche
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Awakening is a collective venture

Post by Malcolm »

Anonymous X wrote:
Lazy_eye wrote:
Johnny Dangerous wrote:
For the life of me, I don't understand how this question trips people up the way it does.

Can you watch a movie and understand it's being performed by actors, and that the narrative is not real? If so, this concept is not so difficult, certainly there is an ex[experience of a conventional self.
Ok, so let me make sure I get this. The answer is that it is a self-concept, but it's the conventional self. And the Two Truths doctrine explains why there is a conventional self. Correct?

As to how the question trips people up the way it does, I obviously can't speak for everyone who has stumbled over it. But it's well known (I think) that Buddhists across the traditions have grappled with some ambiguities and apparent contradictions between different things said in different scriptures, going all the way back to the early texts.

For example, in this sutta, the Buddha explicitly rejects the view that "the one who acts is the one who experiences."

On the other hand, according to this one, "I am the owner of my actions, heir to my actions, born of my actions, related through my actions, and have my actions as my arbitrator." The statements in these two suttas don't quite align with each other.

It's not always clear how to resolve the seeming contradiction. I understand that a great deal of later Abhidharma and Mayahana doctrinal elaboration, including the Two Truths as well as alaya-vijnana, grew precisely out of the effort to explain this.

Of course I can watch a movie, but I have a functioning memory that allows me to follow the narrative and believe that the same experiencer is sitting in the movie theater from beginning to end. Transmigration across lifetimes is more like watching a movie and having your memory erased halfway through, so you don't remember anything that came before or who you were when you entered the theater. :)
Staying with the Two Truths doctrine, you only get part of the Totality. Now, for the Three Truths:

From Zongmi on Chan: “The nature axiom has three truths: nature (voidness); characteristics (origination by dependence); and self substance (true mind). The self substance is neither voidness nor form, etc.; it is the potentiality to be both. This corresponds to a mirror’s specific images, the voidness of those images, and the brightness or reflectivity of the mirror itself.
The difference between them concerning the two truths and the three truths. All scholars know that the voidness axiom says that all dharmas, both mundane and supramundane, do not go beyond the two truths. There is no need for quotations to elucidate this. The nature axiom, however, gathers up nature, characteristics, and the self substance [xing xiang ji ziti], and considers them together as the three truths. It takes all dharmas that originate by dependence, such as forms, etc., as the worldly truth and takes [the truth that] conditions lack a self nature and [hence] all dharmas are void as the real truth. (This much is no different in terms of principle from the two truths of the voidness axiom and the characteristics axiom.) That the one true mind substance is neither voidness nor form [but] has the potentiality to be void and the potentiality to be form is the truth of the highest meaning of the middle path.”


For me, without the inclusion of the Tathagatagarbha doctrine, Mahayana and Madhyamaka teachings don't point directly to the heart of the matter.
There is no two truths, three truths, and so on. There is delusion and nondelusion. That's all.
User avatar
Grigoris
Former staff member
Posts: 21938
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Awakening is a collective venture

Post by Grigoris »

Lazy_eye wrote:For example, in this sutta, the Buddha explicitly rejects the view that "the one who acts is the one who experiences."

On the other hand, according to this one, "I am the owner of my actions, heir to my actions, born of my actions, related through my actions, and have my actions as my arbitrator." The statements in these two suttas don't quite align with each other.
These are not contradictory in the slightest.

He who acts is not exactly he who experiences because the "he" is in a constant state of flux. Even the "he" that experiences the outcome in this lifetime (let alone future lifetimes) is not the same "he" that executed the action. The Buddha is trying to contradict the idea of a static unchanging self essence (defined as "he") in this instance. Conventionally speaking though, we do experience a continuity of a sense of self, an "I" and it is this that is the owner of the actions, it is this "I" which is spoken of in the second teaching.
Last edited by Grigoris on Mon Jun 26, 2017 7:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde
User avatar
dzogchungpa
Posts: 6333
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 10:50 pm

Re: Awakening is a collective venture

Post by dzogchungpa »

Look, obviously the notion of a "mindstream" is based on the notion of "time" so until you figure out the latter you won't be able to figure out the former. It should take you a while. :smile:
There is not only nothingness because there is always, and always can manifest. - Thinley Norbu Rinpoche
User avatar
Lazy_eye
Posts: 496
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2009 4:32 am
Location: Laurel, MD
Contact:

Re: Awakening is a collective venture

Post by Lazy_eye »

Grigoris wrote:
Lazy_eye wrote:For example, in this sutta, the Buddha explicitly rejects the view that "the one who acts is the one who experiences."

On the other hand, according to this one, "I am the owner of my actions, heir to my actions, born of my actions, related through my actions, and have my actions as my arbitrator." The statements in these two suttas don't quite align with each other.
These are not contradictory in the slightest.

He who acts is not exactly he who experiences because the "he" is in a constant state of flux. Even the "he" that experiences the outcome in this lifetime (let alone future lifetimes) is not the same "he" that executed the action. The Buddha is trying to contradict the idea of a static unchanging self essence (defined as "he") in this instance.
Isn't this just substituting one type of self-view for another? Instead of a static unchanging self, we get a continually fluctuating self. Is this really anātman, though?
Conventionally speaking though, we do experience a continuity of a sense of self, an "I" and it is this that is the owner of the actions, it is this "I" which is spoken of in the second teaching.
Ok, so this is the Two Truths again -- perhaps it's the best available answer.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Awakening is a collective venture

Post by Malcolm »

Lazy_eye wrote: Isn't this just substituting one type of self-view for another? Instead of a static unchanging self, we get a continually fluctuating self. Is this really anātman, though?
The Buddha has already allowed the conventional designation of the aggregates as a self. After, all, how many times in the suttas does the Buddha refer to himself in the past tense when discussing his own previous lives?
User avatar
Lazy_eye
Posts: 496
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2009 4:32 am
Location: Laurel, MD
Contact:

Re: Awakening is a collective venture

Post by Lazy_eye »

Malcolm wrote:
Lazy_eye wrote: Isn't this just substituting one type of self-view for another? Instead of a static unchanging self, we get a continually fluctuating self. Is this really anātman, though?
The Buddha has already allowed the conventional designation of the aggregates as a self. After, all, how many times in the suttas does the Buddha refer to himself in the past tense when discussing his own previous lives?
Many times. My point is that there's an apparent contradiction or ambiguity, and that much later doctrinal elaboration (alaya-vijnana, for example) seems to be designed to clear up the issue.
DGA
Former staff member
Posts: 9466
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:04 pm

Re: Awakening is a collective venture

Post by DGA »

Anonymous X wrote:
Lazy_eye wrote:
Johnny Dangerous wrote:
For the life of me, I don't understand how this question trips people up the way it does.

Can you watch a movie and understand it's being performed by actors, and that the narrative is not real? If so, this concept is not so difficult, certainly there is an ex[experience of a conventional self.
Ok, so let me make sure I get this. The answer is that it is a self-concept, but it's the conventional self. And the Two Truths doctrine explains why there is a conventional self. Correct?

As to how the question trips people up the way it does, I obviously can't speak for everyone who has stumbled over it. But it's well known (I think) that Buddhists across the traditions have grappled with some ambiguities and apparent contradictions between different things said in different scriptures, going all the way back to the early texts.

For example, in this sutta, the Buddha explicitly rejects the view that "the one who acts is the one who experiences."

On the other hand, according to this one, "I am the owner of my actions, heir to my actions, born of my actions, related through my actions, and have my actions as my arbitrator." The statements in these two suttas don't quite align with each other.

It's not always clear how to resolve the seeming contradiction. I understand that a great deal of later Abhidharma and Mayahana doctrinal elaboration, including the Two Truths as well as alaya-vijnana, grew precisely out of the effort to explain this.

Of course I can watch a movie, but I have a functioning memory that allows me to follow the narrative and believe that the same experiencer is sitting in the movie theater from beginning to end. Transmigration across lifetimes is more like watching a movie and having your memory erased halfway through, so you don't remember anything that came before or who you were when you entered the theater. :)
Staying with the Two Truths doctrine, you only get part of the Totality. Now, for the Three Truths:

From Zongmi on Chan: “The nature axiom has three truths: nature (voidness); characteristics (origination by dependence); and self substance (true mind). The self substance is neither voidness nor form, etc.; it is the potentiality to be both. This corresponds to a mirror’s specific images, the voidness of those images, and the brightness or reflectivity of the mirror itself.
The difference between them concerning the two truths and the three truths. All scholars know that the voidness axiom says that all dharmas, both mundane and supramundane, do not go beyond the two truths. There is no need for quotations to elucidate this. The nature axiom, however, gathers up nature, characteristics, and the self substance [xing xiang ji ziti], and considers them together as the three truths. It takes all dharmas that originate by dependence, such as forms, etc., as the worldly truth and takes [the truth that] conditions lack a self nature and [hence] all dharmas are void as the real truth. (This much is no different in terms of principle from the two truths of the voidness axiom and the characteristics axiom.) That the one true mind substance is neither voidness nor form [but] has the potentiality to be void and the potentiality to be form is the truth of the highest meaning of the middle path.”


For me, without the inclusion of the Tathagatagarbha doctrine, Mahayana and Madhyamaka teachings don't point directly to the heart of the matter.
I'm intrigued that Zongmi mobilized the Three Truths approach that Zhiyi promoted. I have a copy of Broughton's book on Zongmi somewhere; I should actually read it sometime.

In the meanwhile, I will mark in passing that in Ch'an awakening is posited as a process that is necessarily social in nature. This is an explicit departure from Indic Buddhism. It is not to say that Buddhahood is plural, but that meaningful Dharma practice is embedded in significant social relationships and can't be understood outside of those, e.g., the support people who bring the yogini her breakfast are participating in her retreat. See: Liberating Intimacy, P. Hershock.
User avatar
aflatun
Posts: 139
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 3:21 am
Location: Bay Area, CA

Re: Awakening is a collective venture

Post by aflatun »

Adamantine wrote:Re: Jay, when I knew him in the '90's he was guiding a student
exchange program with the Central Institute for Higher Tibetan Studies in Sarnath India. He wore his mala wrapped around his
wrist and made sure the students got the chance to pilgrimage to Bodhgaya, which doesn't correspond to a purely academic philosophical approach. What's more, he had adopted at least one Tibetan orphan. Some academics may risk being accused of non-objectivity if they are practicing religion and they are philosophy professors, or in general, so perhaps there's reasons not to advertise if one is practicing... along with more dharmic reasons. Maybe why he doesn't answer the question. But my personal impression was that he was practicing... to what degree I have no idea.
Thanks for this Adamantine. And what you say about academics and accusations of non-objectivity is what I've observed as well, when I was more connected to such people. What I to noticed in my limited experience was that non practitioners were quite vocal about their lack of commitment, almost wearing it on their sleeve so to speak. Practitioners were generally evasive, but polite and humorous, when asked directly if they practiced. Once in a while you'd see someone very open about their religious commitment. It seems like this might be more acceptable in Theravada for whatever reason (Lance Cousins, Peter Harvey, etc). Hence my joke about evasion = probably yes :tongue:
"People often get too quick to say 'there's no self. There's no self...no self...no self.' There is self, there is focal point, its not yours. That's what not self is."

Ninoslav Ñāṇamoli
Senses and the Thought-1, 42:53

"Those who create constructs about the Buddha,
Who is beyond construction and without exhaustion,
Are thereby damaged by their constructs;
They fail to see the Thus-Gone.

That which is the nature of the Thus-Gone
Is also the nature of this world.
There is no nature of the Thus-Gone.
There is no nature of the world."

Nagarjuna
MMK XXII.15-16
User avatar
aflatun
Posts: 139
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 3:21 am
Location: Bay Area, CA

Re: Awakening is a collective venture

Post by aflatun »

dzogchungpa wrote:I kind of wonder if he ignored the question because it was posed by someone going by the handle "BillF*ckinEvans". :smile:


In all seriousness, would it actually be detrimental to his career or standing to admit that he practiced some kind of Buddhist meditation? In this day and age I would find that surprising given the mindfulness craze etc.
I wondered that too about Mr. Evans :rolling:

Whether truly detrimental or not I believe some scholars frown on it. Pretty sad. As if commitments to secularism, materialism, whatever, don't bring their own biases. Some of the most biased and dogmatic people I've ever met work in academic medicine and medical science.
"People often get too quick to say 'there's no self. There's no self...no self...no self.' There is self, there is focal point, its not yours. That's what not self is."

Ninoslav Ñāṇamoli
Senses and the Thought-1, 42:53

"Those who create constructs about the Buddha,
Who is beyond construction and without exhaustion,
Are thereby damaged by their constructs;
They fail to see the Thus-Gone.

That which is the nature of the Thus-Gone
Is also the nature of this world.
There is no nature of the Thus-Gone.
There is no nature of the world."

Nagarjuna
MMK XXII.15-16
Post Reply

Return to “Dharma in Everyday Life”