to be dependently originated...
Existence
Re: Existence
I’m confused (as usual). I thought dependent origination meant that nothing exists inherently?
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily ...
Re: Existence
That is why these days I start to become completely mad with all that hammering on Love and Compassion. Because we are only in a way of dependence. Caring for each other (Indra net), is freeing from the experience of a restricted existence on itself. Or caring actions look very much means (condition) for freedom from own delusion.Correct, that is what it means. Everything arises based on causes and conditions.
Many thanks!
Re: Existence
This quote may be more clear and comprehensible.
One can link it with above quote from The Vimalakriti Sutra.Though things arise, none of them has any independent nature whatsoever. Like water in a mirage, a dream, an echo, a phantom emanation, a reflection, a castle in the air, or a hallucination, all things are clearly apparent yet do not truly exist they merely manifest adventitiously, without basis or support. You should realize that all these manifestations are temporary, adventitious phenomena.
Commentary:
...However, even as they manifest they have never existed as anything whatsoever, being simply appearances, expressions of emptiness that are in essence clearly apparent yet nonexistent. This is because all phenomena, having no independent nature, have never existed in any of the three phases of their origination, duration, or cessation.
Longchen Rabjam, A treasure trove of scriptural transmission : a commentary on "The precious treasury of the basic space of phenomena"
Re: Existence
Oy ... that explains a lot.
Last edited by Rick on Mon Aug 06, 2018 5:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily ...
Re: Existence
Aha.
Hey Malcolm, I'm gonna assume you've done some translation from other (European) languages to English, yes? Would you say that (dharmic) Tibetan is comparatively difficult to translate?
Hey Malcolm, I'm gonna assume you've done some translation from other (European) languages to English, yes? Would you say that (dharmic) Tibetan is comparatively difficult to translate?
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily ...
Re: Existence
Okay then forget the "comparatively."
In your experience, are Tibetan dharma teachings difficult to translate into English? Is Tibetan a highly nuanced language, the meaning is in the eye of the beholder kinda thing? Or is it more mechanical, attain a reasonable degree of fluency and the translation takes care of itself.
In your experience, are Tibetan dharma teachings difficult to translate into English? Is Tibetan a highly nuanced language, the meaning is in the eye of the beholder kinda thing? Or is it more mechanical, attain a reasonable degree of fluency and the translation takes care of itself.
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily ...
Re: Existence
It means the conjured person or thing through magic or by magician; which has no base and which is just an illusion.
This answer is just like a zen koan.
Re: Existence
Tibetan is a relatively simple language with a relatively simple grammar. The most difficult thing about it is that it lacks synonyms, so the same words pull multiple duties depending on context. On the other hand, the language of Dzogchen texts is fairly straightforward, if a bit wordy sometimes.Rick wrote: ↑Mon Aug 06, 2018 5:49 pm Okay then forget the "comparatively."
In your experience, are Tibetan dharma teachings difficult to translate into English? Is Tibetan a highly nuanced language, the meaning is in the eye of the beholder kinda thing? Or is it more mechanical, attain a reasonable degree of fluency and the translation takes care of itself.
Re: Existence
Interesting, thanks.
Sanskrit has a lot of rich idiosyncratic “spiritual” terms that don’t translate all that well into English. How do they translate into Tibetan? Or does Tibetan actually use Sanskrit words in their texts?
Sanskrit has a lot of rich idiosyncratic “spiritual” terms that don’t translate all that well into English. How do they translate into Tibetan? Or does Tibetan actually use Sanskrit words in their texts?
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily ...
Re: Existence
The Tibetans created a technical language to handle Buddhist terminologies.
- tomschwarz
- Posts: 778
- Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2015 12:31 am
Re: Existence
Leaving aside the super interesting debate about translation, because i bet this translation of tibetan to english is quite bad/incorrect, please in your own voice, based on your own understanding haha, questions:haha wrote: ↑ all things are clearly apparent yet do not truly exist ... all these manifestations are temporary, adventitious phenomena.
1) What does truly exist (other than our beloved dependent origination)? Does the planet earth exist (for 4 billion years so far)?
2) Can something go in and out of existance? Like the human being sidartha gauthama?
3) is everything an illusion? If no, what is not an illusion? Is happiness an illusion? Fyi in standard english illusion means:
an instance of a wrong or misinterpreted perception of a sensory experience. So if all of buddha dharma does not exist, if its all an illusion, then is perception as a whole the wrong way to go?
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
Re: Existence
The term in Tibetan is sgyu ma, which in Sanskrit is māya.tomschwarz wrote: ↑Mon Aug 06, 2018 10:12 pmLeaving aside the super interesting debate about translation, because i bet this translation of tibetan to english is quite bad/incorrect, please in your own voice, based on your own understanding haha, questions:haha wrote: ↑ all things are clearly apparent yet do not truly exist ... all these manifestations are temporary, adventitious phenomena.
1) What does truly exist (other than our beloved dependent origination)? Does the planet earth exist (for 4 billion years so far)?
2) Can something go in and out of existance? Like the human being sidartha gauthama?
3) is everything an illusion? If no, what is not an illusion? Is happiness an illusion? Fyi in standard english illusion means:
an instance of a wrong or misinterpreted perception of a sensory experience. So if all of buddha dharma does not exist, if its all an illusion, then is perception as a whole the wrong way to go?