3bob Posted April 10, 2013 ...and what do you call joy Rene? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stosh Posted April 10, 2013 None of these claims would survive Madhyamaka analysis. Right now Im thinking that Madhyamaka analysis is flawed in at least four critical places , which you can potentially correct me on. One, That its adherents dont take a position other than negation , ( the said negation not being a positon) Negation is still a position relative to a point being made by others, that it affirms nothing other than the difference of views, still is an assertion -affirmative point. (vague as it is) Once I choose put on a ghi, and step in a ring, and stand in opposition, Im a combatant just like the other guy, choosing to stand there and be beat up, doesnt constitute winning the fight,( it might constitute winning a loss though) Two ,I disaree that it is the only logical view , to say that- because my ideas are born of my senses and my senses are flawed , that the things I sensed dont exist. One can still posit that my sensation is subjective but is responding to external objectively 'real' things.( it just says that my subjective experience isnt conclusively 'real') Three , like others have pointed out , once you claim you dont exist , you have undermined every argument you make ..since you cant make an argument if you dont exist. and fourthly , Though I like yall well enough , and some of the ideas youall keep .. I still think you abandon the philosophy you profess (as soon as you need to eat or pass water or sleep or go to work or pay a bill..... and so on.) Be all that as it may , It has all been discussed since long ago and the repercussions are pretty much nil relative to mundane requirements of living , which subjectively I opine is the place one can benificently apply their brainpower. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
joeblast Posted April 10, 2013 Is this a physics forum Joe? How does this relate to emptiness? so its not just politics and agw...put it into practice and how does it translate? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
C T Posted April 10, 2013 Belief systems BS are the problem and until belief systems are seen through, resolved, liberated etc. no realization occurs. Hiding behind any philosophical structure for fear of the unknown is futile! What a silly postulation. Spiritual questers employ philosophical constructs as wisdom-developing tools, just as tradespeople employ tools to lay foundations, build solid frameworks and add structural finish, or, for that matter, chefs with their uncanny instinct for using a mix of ingredients, optimal measurements and correct heat settings to create worthwhile meals which bring satisfaction to others. Are they hiding behind their abilities, or perhaps utilizing their skilled knowledge out of fear? The measurement of any system or technique is the end-result. Whether one moves forward or remain stagnant, evaluation is constantly needed, and one needs to be sharp and present to notice obstacles. How could this be reasonably achieved without having some sort of philosophical layout in place? Dont you have any philosophical maps to guide you on your spiritual rounds? Those who attempt with experimentation, dabblers and self-teachings may at best achieve accidental breakthroughs, which are few and far between, not to mention the frequent meetings with anti-results which compound mental inertia and physical stresses. This sort of happenings are (unfortunately) already so obvious on TTB. Should we not strive to become a little more aware from the stories we read here everyday? I would hope so. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
konchog uma Posted April 10, 2013 madhyamaka emptiness doesn't claim nonexistence im sure people will correct me if im wrong, but my understanding is that it says phenomena are empty of inherent existence, of nonexistence, of both and of neither. The emptiness is of any kind of conceptual framework that one could build around phenomena. It is a philosophy designed to inspire a direct relationship with phenomena rather than a relationship with your concepts about them. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RongzomFan Posted April 10, 2013 madhyamaka emptiness doesn't claim nonexistence right im sure people will correct me if im wrong, but my understanding is that it says phenomena are empty of inherent existence, of nonexistence, of both and of neither. no, this inherent stuff is from Tsongkhapa. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
konchog uma Posted April 10, 2013 no, this inherent stuff is from Tsongkhapa. oh i see. If you take the word inherent out, is it correct according to Indian madhyamaka? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RongzomFan Posted April 10, 2013 Belief systems BS are the problem and until belief systems are seen through, resolved, liberated etc. no realization occurs. Hiding behind any philosophical structure for fear of the unknown is futile! I'm not aware of a stronger anti-belief system than Madhyamaka. Madhyamaka is like atheism on steroids, demolishing all the ancient Indian belief systems. Thats why Madhyamaka books need an appendix to describe all the ancient Indian religions. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RongzomFan Posted April 10, 2013 (edited) oh i see. If you take the word inherent out, is it correct according to Indian madhyamaka? Gelugs focus only on the negation of inherent existence (svabhava). This is indeed part of Madhyamaka, but if you stop at that point, thats Gelug crypto-realism as Namdrol says http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=4557&start=0#p46675 http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=6423&start=120#p78294 http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=6423&start=200#p79902 Edited April 10, 2013 by alwayson Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RongzomFan Posted April 10, 2013 If you read any Madhyamaka root text yourself, the emphasis is on nonarisal / illusion. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vmarco Posted April 10, 2013 madhyamaka emptiness doesn't claim nonexistence im sure people will correct me if im wrong, but my understanding is that it says phenomena are empty of inherent existence, of nonexistence, of both and of neither. The emptiness is of any kind of conceptual framework that one could build around phenomena. It is a philosophy designed to inspire a direct relationship with phenomena rather than a relationship with your concepts about them. A contemporary example of emptiness would be 3D scaffling. Emptiness is not the perceived space between perceived phenomena, but the phenomena itself. When that Empty, the Empty of Form, is realized, it uncovers another Empty, the Empty of of the non-phenomena of Paranirvana. Nirvana is the opposite of dukkha,...but paranirvana is not opposite of anything. Of course, it is useless to discuss the Other Empty without first uncovering the Empty of Form,...however, I find it useful to mention, to encourage the uncovering of the emptiness of phenomena. Wei Wu Wei said, “Phenomenally, we can know no present, as it must be in the ‘past’ before our senses can complete the process of recording it, leaving only a suppositional past and future; noumenally, there is no question of ‘past’ or ‘future,’ but only a presence that knows neither ‘time’ nor ‘space.’ ” Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vmarco Posted April 10, 2013 yeah sure. lol From my many discussions with Ralis, he has shown to have broad, hands-on experiences with most traditions within Buddhism,...likely more than myself. I've found that his personal exposure to some of the contemporary greats of Buddhism,...Norbu, Keith Dowman, various rinpoche's, etc., brings an expansiveness to any dialogue with him. To sluff him off as you do, is like tossing away nuts because you think the shells are better. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rene Posted April 10, 2013 ...and what do you call joy Rene? Ineffable. warmest regards 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ralis Posted April 10, 2013 (edited) I'm not aware of a stronger anti-belief system than Madhyamaka. Madhyamaka is like atheism on steroids, demolishing all the ancient Indian belief systems. Thats why Madhyamaka books need an appendix to describe all the ancient Indian religions. To use a philosophical reductionist system such as Madhyamaka becomes another belief system or constructed position. Why? Your stated claim that Indian belief systems are demolished by deconstruction, posits an inferior/false as opposed to superior/true. What about all the gray area in between those two absolute opposites that you cherish? As I have stated many times belief systems BS are absolute constructs of 'isness'. 'Isness' being a control and authoritarian mechanism. Positing an absolute order according to analysis by human senses which stops short of understanding. Edited April 10, 2013 by ralis Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RongzomFan Posted April 10, 2013 From my many discussions with Ralis, he has shown to have broad, hands-on experiences with most traditions within Buddhism,...likely more than myself. I've found that his personal exposure to some of the contemporary greats of Buddhism,...Norbu, Keith Dowman, various rinpoche's, etc., brings an expansiveness to any dialogue with him. To sluff him off as you do, is like tossing away nuts because you think the shells are better. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RongzomFan Posted April 10, 2013 To use a philosophical reductionist system such as Madhyamaka becomes another belief system or constructed position. There is no philosophical position taken in Madhyamaka. This is pretty well known. 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." Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stosh Posted April 10, 2013 (edited) No thesis , is not the same as nonimplicative negation since one has vector- duality and the other does not Edited April 10, 2013 by Stosh Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ralis Posted April 10, 2013 There is no philosophical position taken in Madhyamaka. This is pretty well known. 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." To take an adversarial position such as demolishing Indian Vedanta or whatever, posits a position against. If you can't see that then you have not asked yourself serious questions but are just deferring to Nagarjuna et al. which offers no defense. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RongzomFan Posted April 10, 2013 To take an adversarial position such as demolishing Indian Vedanta or whatever, posits a position against. If you can't see that then you have not asked yourself serious questions but are just deferring to Nagarjuna et al. which offers no defense. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RongzomFan Posted April 10, 2013 There is no philosophical position taken in Madhyamaka. This is pretty well known. 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." bump Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RongzomFan Posted April 10, 2013 To take an adversarial position such as demolishing Indian Vedanta or whatever, posits a position against. If you can't see that then you have not asked yourself serious questions but are just deferring to Nagarjuna et al. which offers no defense. First off, Vedanta didn't exist yet. I'm not aware of Madhyamaka addressing Vedanta. Secondly, you don't take an adversarial position. You just extend their own argument. This is called consequentialism or prasangika. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vanir Thunder Dojo Tan Posted April 10, 2013 for being no such thing as.... emptiness sure has drummed up a lot of "things" to say! 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ralis Posted April 10, 2013 First off, Vedanta didn't exist yet. I'm not aware of Madhyamaka addressing Vedanta. Secondly, you don't take an adversarial position. You just extend their own argument. This is called consequentialism or prasangika. I said "Vedanta or whatever" to cover the scope of Indian philosophy. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
3bob Posted April 11, 2013 "ineffable", thus we could say more than just an idea to be wordy about it Share this post Link to post Share on other sites