RongzomFan

**Being a realist (buddhist definition) is not good**

Recommended Posts

All philosophical and religious positions revolve around only 2 views: Existence and Nonexistence.

However its all illusion, like a dream. Phenomena don't arise in the first place.

 

Nagarjuna in ''Mūlamadhyamakakārikā'' 21.12. states:
"An existent does not arise from an existent;
neither does an existent arise from a non-existent.
A non-existent does not arise from a non-existent;
neither does a non-existent arise from an existent."

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=38WJRwP3nLgC&pg=PA297&dq=Mulamadhyamakakarika+of+Nagarjuna+An+existent+does+not+arise+from+an+existent;+neither+does+an+existent+arise+from+a+non-existent.&hl=en&sa=X&ei=fnGiUtuWMPPMsQSzkIDwCA&ved=0CDgQuwUwAQ#v=onepage&q=Mulamadhyamakakarika%20of%20Nagarjuna%20An%20existent%20does%20not%20arise%20from%20an%20existent%3B%20neither%20does%20an%20existent%20arise%20from%20a%20non-existent.&f=false

 

 

Here are some quotations from 2 top books, Nagarjuna's Reason Sixty and Center of the Sunlit Sky:

 

"Nagarjuna taught , "bereft of beginning, middle, and end," meaning that the world is free from creation, duration, and destruction."

-Candrakirti

 

"Once one asserts things, one will succumb to the view of seeing such by imagining their beginning, middle and end; hence that grasping at things is the cause of all views."
-Candrakirti

 

"the perfectly enlightened buddhas-proclaimed, "What is dependently created is uncreated."
-Candrakirti

"Likewise, here as well, the Lord Buddha’s pronouncement that "What is dependently created is objectively uncreated," is to counteract insistence on the objectivity of things."
-Candrakirti

"Since relativity is not objectively created, those who, through this reasoning, accept dependent things as resembling the moon in water and reflections in a mirror, understand them as neither objectively true nor false. Therefore, those who think thus regarding dependent things realize that what is dependently arisen cannot be substantially existent, since what is like a reflection is not real. If it were real, that would entail the absurdity that its transformation would be impossible. Yet neither is it unreal, since it manifests as real within the world."
-Candrakirti

 

Nagarjuna said "If I had any position, I thereby would be at fault. Since
I have no position, I am not at fault at all."

Aryadeva said "Against someone who has no thesis of “existence,
nonexistence, or [both] existence and nonexistence,” it is not possible to
level a charge, even if [this is tried] for a long time."

 

"I do not say that entities do not exist, because I say that they originate in dependence. “So are you a realist then?” I am not, because I am just a proponent of dependent origination. “What sort of nature is it then that you [propound]?” I propound dependent origination. “What is the meaning of dependent origination?” It has the meaning of the lack of a nature and the meaning of nonarising through a nature [of its own]. It has the meaning of the origination of results with a nature similar to that of illusions, mirages, reflections, cities of scent-eaters, magical creations, and dreams. It has the meaning of emptiness and identitylessness."
-Candrakirti

 

Nagarjuna in Mūlamadhyamakakārikā 1.1. states:

"Not from themselves, not from something other,

Not from both, and not without a cause-

At any place and any time,

All entities lack arising."

 

Buddhapālita comments (using consequentalist arguments which ultimately snowballs into Tibetan prasangika vs. svatantrika):

"Entities do not arise from their own intrinsic nature, because their arising would be pointless and because they would arise endlessly. For entities that [already] exist as their own intrinsic nature, there is no need to arise again. If they were to arise despite existing [already], there would be no time when they do not arise; [but] that is also not asserted [by the Enumerators].

 

Candrakīrti, in ''Madhyamakāvatāra'' VI.14., comments:

"If something were to originate in dependence on something other than it,

Well, then utter darkness could spring from flames

And everything could arise from everything,

Because everything that does not produce [a specific result] is the same in being other [than it]."

 

Candrakīrti, in the ''Prasannapadā'', comments:

"Entities also do not arise from something other, because there is nothing other."

 

Nagarjuna in ''Mūlamadhyamakakārikā'' 1.3cd. states:

"If an entity in itself does not exist,

An entity other [than it] does not exist either."

 

Candrakīrti, in the ''Prasannapadā'', comments:

"Nor do entities arise from both [themselves and others], because this would entail [all] the flaws that were stated for both of these theses and because none of these [disproved possibilities] have the capacity to produce [entities]."

 

Nagarjuna, in ''Mūlamadhyamakakārikā'' VII.17., states:

"If some nonarisen entity

Existed somewhere,

It might arise.

However, since such does not exist, what would arise?"

 

Nagarjuna, in ''Mūlamadhyamakakārikā'' VII.19cd., states:

"If something that lacks arising could arise,

Just about anything could arise in this way."

 

Candrakīrti, in ''Madhyamakāvatāra'' VI.151., comments:

"It is not asserted that a chariot is something other than its parts.

It is not something that is not other, nor does it possess them.

It does not exist in the parts, nor do the parts exist in it.

It is neither their mere collection nor the shape—thus is the analogy."

 

Candrakirti, in "Madhyamakavatara" VI.23., defines ultimate and relative truth
"The object of perfect seeing is true reality
And false seeing is seeming reality."

Edited by RongzomFan
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everything is dependently originated. Thats easy enough to understand.

The trick is understanding that dependently originated phenomena never arise in the first place.

Edited by RongzomFan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All philosophical and religious positions revolve around only 2 views:

Existence and Nonexistence.

 

One cannot claim that anything exists, since for something to exist it would

logically have to arise from a) itself b ) other or c) both these possibilities

together

 

reading COTSS at present.. & i agree with madhyamaka so dont take me as trying to refute nagarjuna or anything like that

 

but as the dalai lama says, if science provides information that contradicts buddhism, buddhism should change. and i am just wondering what you think about vacuum fluctuation (which is when particles spring into existence in a vacuum)?

 

(i know "nothing arises". but that seems like a cop-out to use that line and go no further. if you can prove scientifically that nothing arises i would be interested in hearing it. til then..)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

nice to read more than one-line quips btw

 

I'm not going to even point out the irony in this statement.

Edited by alwayson
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

reading COTSS at present.. & i agree with madhyamaka so dont take me as trying to refute nagarjuna or anything like that

 

but as the dalai lama says, if science provides information that contradicts buddhism, buddhism should change. and i am just wondering what you think about vacuum fluctuation (which is when particles spring into existence in a vacuum)?

 

(i know "nothing arises". but that seems like a cop-out to use that line and go no further. if you can prove scientifically that nothing arises i would be interested in hearing it. til then..)

 

See post 1

 

Madhyamikas do not put forth a philosophical position. We cannot be wrong.

 

Nagarjuna said "If I had any position, I thereby would be at fault. Since

I have no position, I am not at fault at all."

Edited by alwayson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the purposes of this thread I will be a follower of Madhyamaka.

 

But my view really is gzhi of Dzogchen Menngagde, not Madhyamaka.

 

To the extent they are compatible is debatable.

Edited by alwayson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See post 1

 

Madhyamikas do not put forth a philosophical position. We cannot be wrong.

 

Nagarjuna said "If I had any position, I thereby would be at fault. Since

I have no position, I am not at fault at all."

 

seems like a cop-out. but its true, madhyamaka doesn't offer a position. i guess that also means it can't be right. since nothing exists to them i suppose madhyamakas dont care.

 

i respect that the truth can't be conceptualized, but it seems that in empty space, things spontaneously arise. One could refute the inherent existance of those things (but they would still be there), or refute that things arise (but again..)

 

i asked a physicist friend of mine and he pointed out the law of conservation of energy, which does accord with the view. He said that theoretically that energy comes from particles that spontaneously disappear elsewhere, because that happens, but nobody is sure where the energy goes (in keeping with the LOCOE). So that makes sense logically.

 

sorry to derail your thread with physics. If someone is unwilling to accept the existance of things in the first place, im not sure how important the laws which govern those things are... lol j/k physics basically confirms madhyamaka i just wondered about that one point

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

seems like a cop-out. but its true, madhyamaka doesn't offer a position. i guess that also means it can't be right. since nothing exists to them i suppose madhyamakas dont care.

 

sorry to derail your thread with physics. If someone is unwilling to accept the existance of things in the first place, im not sure how important the laws which govern those things are... lol j/k physics basically confirms madhyamaka i just wondered about that one point

Correction: Madhaymakas, assert that phenomena are non-existent on the ultimate level, due to their interdependent nature. 'Non-existence' and 'Existence,' are mere imputations. These imputations are based off of cognitive errors and do not exist when the wisdom of sunyata is fully realized.

 

Science in general is based off of a materialist POV.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks for the reminder SJ. i appreciate it, and agree. Further, the words and logic that madhyamakas use to define "existant" "nonexistant" and all the other designations inherent in that logic are all imputed terms. At the ultimate level, once a person breaks through the shell of delusion and sees that reality is not unlike a dream, everything you could say or think is imputation. So all that buddhist logic is nice and helpful to many, but to some, it is like pages and pages of fingers pointing, but no moon. The moon only appears when one can put all the discursive activity down... in other words i have never heard of anyone thinking themselves to liberation. Its not something you can share directly through books.

 

And while i agree that science is inherently materialist, i would say that there is nothing wrong with understanding the material world and how it works. Its just not the end-all-be-all... not the full equation.. as fringe science happily acknowledges. Quantum physics confirms the observations of the buddhas, and if it didn't i would have as hard a time "being buddhist" as i would with being a fundamentalist christian who thinks that dinosaur fossils are tests of faith and that the world is 5000 years old, was created in 7 days, etc. I can't do that tho, i can't be that.

 

You can take this or leave it, but my root lama has taught me that there is a reality, and that we need to pay attention to it, to connect with it, to understand it as best we can. It might be a fleeting mirage, but dismissing it without recognizing it at our true self, the sacred vajra mandala, and treating is as such (somewhat sacred) is a cop-out. He's a prasangika, and dismisses view that stops at svatantrika emptiness, but i see the sense in what he is trying to impart, and i have been influenced by him to respect, revere, and observe reality as a student, not to dismiss it outright as unreal and thereby unimportant.

 

lastly, i don't take you as saying that reality is unimportant, that is not in direct response to you. Its just a commonly held "buddhist" viewpoint that reality is unreal, illusory, and thats the end of the logical process. According to madhyamaka, that is an extreme point of view, and no different than saying reality is real. So the truth of the vajra world is neither of those extremes, and shouldn't be seen as important or unimportant, sacred or profane... that is what madhyamaka teaches, a way beyond words and concepts, but it doesn't mean that gravity isn't relevant, or that you should step out in front of a bus because the bus lacks inherent existence. Those sorts of things are for the fully realized, or at least who have awakened the power of flying about or teleportation... until i get there, i feel like understanding the laws of the world has relevance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks for the reminder SJ. i appreciate it, and agree. Further, the words and logic that madhyamakas use to define "existant" "nonexistant" and all the other designations inherent in that logic are all imputed terms. At the ultimate level, once a person breaks through the shell of delusion and sees that reality is not unlike a dream, everything you could say or think is imputation. So all that buddhist logic is nice and helpful to many, but to some, it is like pages and pages of fingers pointing, but no moon. The moon only appears when one can put all the discursive activity down... in other words i have never heard of anyone thinking themselves to liberation. Its not something you can share directly through books.

As I have seen Malcolm explain it (NOT VERBATIM): Madhyamaka, when properly used, is meant to end proliferations; it's use is meant to lead to non-conceptual realization [that no longer imputes phenomena as 'existent' or 'non-existent.']

Edited by Simple_Jack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Its just a commonly held "buddhist" viewpoint that reality is unreal, illusory, and thats the end of the logical process.

 

The end of the logical process is freedom from the views of existence and nonexistence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@SJ, thanks, yes. Non-conceptual realization is the only thing worth pursuing from my point of view. I find it ironic that it takes nagarjuna a sprawling epic of a text thats too long for most non-monastics to read at all, or that Center of the Sunlit Sky is 1000 pages long.. but the point of all of it is nonconceptual. Not knocking it, just finding irony.

 

@alwayson, i shouldn't have used "logical process" as you are correct and it doesnt encapsulate what i meant. But as you know, saying "this doesnt exist" and leaving it at that is extremism and nihilism, neither of which are madhyamaka points of view. So its not a complete consideration because it is conceptual. One can have the same attachment to nonexistence that most people have to existence, and like you say, freedom from both is the point. So yes, it can't be logically conceived, but i shouldnt have said that that end of process stems from negation alone... i realize it doesn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@alwayson, i shouldn't have used "logical process"

 

 

Why not?

 

You were correct, thats what Madhyamaka is. Just a bunch of conceptual reasonings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

because its not what i meant. i wasnt talking about madhyamaka when i said it.. i was talking about buddhists like zen and others who say "life is nonexistant" and stop there. if the process stops there, its still a form of extremism and nihilism. thats what i was trying to clarify.

 

yes, i am all for stopping ones logical process. by all means. but in that instance, those words didnt fit what i meant to say.

 

speaking of zen, i think koans are more efficient ways of stopping the logical process vis a vis madhyamaka... just based on the number of words used to finally get beyond words

 

not really making a point.. just saying... the point of no point

Edited by konchog uma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@SJ, thanks, yes. Non-conceptual realization is the only thing worth pursuing from my point of view. I find it ironic that it takes nagarjuna a sprawling epic of a text thats too long for most non-monastics to read at all, or that Center of the Sunlit Sky is 1000 pages long.. but the point of all of it is nonconceptual. Not knocking it, just finding irony.

I think it has to do with the fact of how difficult it is to actually realize 'emptiness.' By comparison, it is many times easier to recognize the luminosity of mind as described in Hinduism (or Kashmir Shaivism.)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

because its not what i meant. i wasnt talking about madhyamaka when i said it.. i was talking about buddhists like zen and others who say "life is nonexistant" and stop there. if the process stops there, its still a form of extremism and nihilism. thats what i was trying to clarify.

 

yes, i am all for stopping ones logical process. by all means. but in that instance, those words didnt fit what i meant to say.

 

speaking of zen, i think koans are more efficient ways of stopping the logical process vis a vis madhyamaka... just based on the number of words used to finally get beyond words

 

not really making a point.. just saying... the point of no point

Taking this from this thread http://thetaobums.co...eo/page__st__16:

 

Something that needs to be pointed out is the specific context of what "conceptualization" means in Buddhism:

 

http://www.dharmawhe...t=4461&start=40

 

Malcolm: Here, when we say non-conceptual, we do not mean a mind in which there is an absence of thought.

 

When consciousness is freed from signs and characteristics, this is called the realization of emptiness. An non-conceptual mind may still indeed be trapped by signs and characteristics.

 

Jnana: Conceptual = vikalpa.

Non-conceptual = nirvikalpa.

 

According to Kamalaśīla, śamatha is non-conceptual (nirvikalpa), vipaśyanā is conceptual (savikalpa), and the resultant gnosis realized through correct vipaśyanā is non-conceptual (nirvikalpajñāna).

Edited by Simple_Jack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites