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.Coëmgenu wrote: ↑Thu Mar 08, 2018 7:38 pmHow is it significantly different than when Nāgasena Bhikṣu deconstructs the chariot for Menander I principally by breaking it down into its constituents in analysis?SonamTashi wrote: ↑Thu Mar 08, 2018 1:33 pmAt this point, your argument has completely left the confines of Buddhism (and entered the framework of materialism and a very materialistic view of science);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?
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.
"One Mind" in Hua Yen thought
Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought
- Caoimhghín
- Posts: 3419
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
- Location: Whitby, Ontario
Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought
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.krodha wrote: ↑Thu Mar 08, 2018 7:56 pmFor 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.Coëmgenu wrote: ↑Thu Mar 08, 2018 7:38 pmHow is it significantly different than when Nāgasena Bhikṣu deconstructs the chariot for Menander I principally by breaking it down into its constituents in analysis?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);
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.
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.
Then, the monks uttered this gāthā:
These bodies are like foam.
Them being frail, who can rejoice in them?
The Buddha attained the vajra-body.
Still, it becomes inconstant and ruined.
The many Buddhas are vajra-entities.
All are also subject to inconstancy.
Quickly ended, like melting snow --
how could things be different?
The Buddha passed into parinirvāṇa afterward.
(T1.27b10 Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra DĀ 2)
These bodies are like foam.
Them being frail, who can rejoice in them?
The Buddha attained the vajra-body.
Still, it becomes inconstant and ruined.
The many Buddhas are vajra-entities.
All are also subject to inconstancy.
Quickly ended, like melting snow --
how could things be different?
The Buddha passed into parinirvāṇa afterward.
(T1.27b10 Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra DĀ 2)
Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought
Thank you.
meldpunt seksueel misbruik in boeddhistische gemeenschappen nederland.
https://meldpuntbg.nl/
https://meldpuntbg.nl/
- Caoimhghín
- Posts: 3419
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
- Location: Whitby, Ontario
Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought
I should clarify though that the specific phrasing of "unBuddhist" was my contribution. No one actually said that.
Then, the monks uttered this gāthā:
These bodies are like foam.
Them being frail, who can rejoice in them?
The Buddha attained the vajra-body.
Still, it becomes inconstant and ruined.
The many Buddhas are vajra-entities.
All are also subject to inconstancy.
Quickly ended, like melting snow --
how could things be different?
The Buddha passed into parinirvāṇa afterward.
(T1.27b10 Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra DĀ 2)
These bodies are like foam.
Them being frail, who can rejoice in them?
The Buddha attained the vajra-body.
Still, it becomes inconstant and ruined.
The many Buddhas are vajra-entities.
All are also subject to inconstancy.
Quickly ended, like melting snow --
how could things be different?
The Buddha passed into parinirvāṇa afterward.
(T1.27b10 Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra DĀ 2)
Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought
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.Coëmgenu wrote: ↑Thu Mar 08, 2018 8:06 pmBut 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.krodha wrote: ↑Thu Mar 08, 2018 7:56 pmFor 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.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.
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.
- Caoimhghín
- Posts: 3419
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
- Location: Whitby, Ontario
Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought
How does Ven Candrakīrti treat the long tradition of the chariot simile?krodha wrote: ↑Thu Mar 08, 2018 8:37 pmThat 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.Coëmgenu wrote: ↑Thu Mar 08, 2018 8:06 pmBut 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.
'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 Caoimhghín on Thu Mar 08, 2018 11:05 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Then, the monks uttered this gāthā:
These bodies are like foam.
Them being frail, who can rejoice in them?
The Buddha attained the vajra-body.
Still, it becomes inconstant and ruined.
The many Buddhas are vajra-entities.
All are also subject to inconstancy.
Quickly ended, like melting snow --
how could things be different?
The Buddha passed into parinirvāṇa afterward.
(T1.27b10 Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra DĀ 2)
These bodies are like foam.
Them being frail, who can rejoice in them?
The Buddha attained the vajra-body.
Still, it becomes inconstant and ruined.
The many Buddhas are vajra-entities.
All are also subject to inconstancy.
Quickly ended, like melting snow --
how could things be different?
The Buddha passed into parinirvāṇa afterward.
(T1.27b10 Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra DĀ 2)
Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought
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.
Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought
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.Coëmgenu wrote: ↑Thu Mar 08, 2018 8:06 pmBut 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.krodha wrote: ↑Thu Mar 08, 2018 7:56 pmFor 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.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.
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.
Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought
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.Coëmgenu wrote: ↑Thu Mar 08, 2018 11:03 pmHow does Ven Candrakīrti treat the long tradition of the chariot simile?krodha wrote: ↑Thu Mar 08, 2018 8:37 pmThat 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.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.
'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.
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
- Caoimhghín
- Posts: 3419
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
- Location: Whitby, Ontario
Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought
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: ↑Fri Mar 09, 2018 12:00 amCandrakīrti 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.Coëmgenu wrote: ↑Thu Mar 08, 2018 11:03 pmHow 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.
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
Then, the monks uttered this gāthā:
These bodies are like foam.
Them being frail, who can rejoice in them?
The Buddha attained the vajra-body.
Still, it becomes inconstant and ruined.
The many Buddhas are vajra-entities.
All are also subject to inconstancy.
Quickly ended, like melting snow --
how could things be different?
The Buddha passed into parinirvāṇa afterward.
(T1.27b10 Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra DĀ 2)
These bodies are like foam.
Them being frail, who can rejoice in them?
The Buddha attained the vajra-body.
Still, it becomes inconstant and ruined.
The many Buddhas are vajra-entities.
All are also subject to inconstancy.
Quickly ended, like melting snow --
how could things be different?
The Buddha passed into parinirvāṇa afterward.
(T1.27b10 Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra DĀ 2)
Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought
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.
And Candrakīrti isn't suggesting one break down the chariot, rather he is challenging you to locate the chariot in general.
Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought
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.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.
Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought
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
Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought
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.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'.
- Caoimhghín
- Posts: 3419
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
- Location: Whitby, Ontario
Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought
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.
Then, the monks uttered this gāthā:
These bodies are like foam.
Them being frail, who can rejoice in them?
The Buddha attained the vajra-body.
Still, it becomes inconstant and ruined.
The many Buddhas are vajra-entities.
All are also subject to inconstancy.
Quickly ended, like melting snow --
how could things be different?
The Buddha passed into parinirvāṇa afterward.
(T1.27b10 Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra DĀ 2)
These bodies are like foam.
Them being frail, who can rejoice in them?
The Buddha attained the vajra-body.
Still, it becomes inconstant and ruined.
The many Buddhas are vajra-entities.
All are also subject to inconstancy.
Quickly ended, like melting snow --
how could things be different?
The Buddha passed into parinirvāṇa afterward.
(T1.27b10 Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra DĀ 2)
Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought
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.
- Caoimhghín
- Posts: 3419
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
- Location: Whitby, Ontario
Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought
There may be a small matter of confusion over what "deconstruct" means. I'm using it in this sense:krodha wrote: ↑Fri Mar 09, 2018 9:26 amIn 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.
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.
Then, the monks uttered this gāthā:
These bodies are like foam.
Them being frail, who can rejoice in them?
The Buddha attained the vajra-body.
Still, it becomes inconstant and ruined.
The many Buddhas are vajra-entities.
All are also subject to inconstancy.
Quickly ended, like melting snow --
how could things be different?
The Buddha passed into parinirvāṇa afterward.
(T1.27b10 Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra DĀ 2)
These bodies are like foam.
Them being frail, who can rejoice in them?
The Buddha attained the vajra-body.
Still, it becomes inconstant and ruined.
The many Buddhas are vajra-entities.
All are also subject to inconstancy.
Quickly ended, like melting snow --
how could things be different?
The Buddha passed into parinirvāṇa afterward.
(T1.27b10 Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra DĀ 2)
Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought
-- Khenpo SodharEverything is emptiness, emptiness is not just a concept, the nature of all phenomena does not truly exist.
Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought
Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought
There is no chariot other than the parts and the relation of the parts to one another.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
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.