The essence of Buddhism

[3bob]

denial of Shakti is ignorance mistaken for wisdom,

 

simple as that

[Apech]

denial of Shakti is ignorance mistaken for wisdom,

 

simple as that

 

 

Que?

[RigdzinTrinley]

I try to translate 3bob (stop me if wrong sir)

 

Shakti has many levels of course,the one we know most intimately is coarse dualistic vision (Maya)

 

Coffee is part of that

[RigdzinTrinley]

I try to translate 3bob (stop me if wrong sir)

 

Shakti has many levels of course,the one we know most intimately is coarse dualistic vision (Maya)

 

Coffee is part of that

[3bob]

that looks and sounds like two instances of coffee...

 

and again if we were to go by our self-deated and nihilistic Buddhists, there is no Shakti besides even really understanding what Shakti or it's permutations are...

 

and we could ask which is first, the Buddha or the Mother, the chicken or the egg...?

[Apech]

that looks and sounds like two instances of coffee...

 

and again if we were to go by our self-deated and nihilistic Buddhists, there is no Shakti besides even really understanding what Shakti or it's permutations are...

 

and we could ask which is first, the Buddha or the Mother, the chicken or the egg...?

 

 

Interesting use of the term self-deated.  Do you mean you think Buddhist are nihilistic or that there are nihilistic Buddhists?

 

As regards the chicken and the egg ... I believe they both arose from the universal primordial McNugget (with original source of course).

[3bob]

many that give Buddhist sounding summations sound nihilistic, self-deated, counter-productive or fatalistic  - compared to the "Wonder of wonders" that the historic Buddha spoke of.

[RigdzinTrinley]

If one misunderstands emptiness then yes buddhadharma might appear nihilistic

 

On the relative level no madhyamika would negate the illsuionlike arising of dependently originated phenomena

(What those strange tantrikas call clear light or luminosity) - so not nihilistic really

 

On the ultimate level no madhyamika would assert the birth of any phenomena from the form aggregate up to and including the omniscient mind of the Buddha, nor is there a "real" unborn ultimate(dharmadatu) established in the place of dualistic phenomena (what some of the extrinsic emptiness peoples talk about)

 

And by the way these two truth are not one nor different

EDIT: that's why they are a union

 

Now how would you explain the union of Shiva/Shakti

Edited January 7, 2016 by RigdzinTrinley

[3bob]

I'll defer to letting the Buddhists in their own forum hash things out...

 

have fun.

Edited January 7, 2016 by 3bob

[steve]

many that give Buddhist sounding summations sound nihilistic, self-deated, counter-productive or fatalistic  - compared to the "Wonder of wonders" that the historic Buddha spoke of.

 

Those are folks who do not understand Buddhism.

[9th]

many that give Buddhist sounding summations sound nihilistic, self-deated, counter-productive or fatalistic  - compared to the "Wonder of wonders" that the historic Buddha spoke of.

 

It does depend on which "school" you are looking at, but much more importantly the person in question and especially where they are at in the moment.

 

However, Ive never seen or heard summations with such one-dimensional descriptions as you ascribe above in the stream of Vajrayana - which is intimately related and significantly derived from the tantrikas of old, especially those who were said to embody the "peak" of that tradition - namely the mahasiddhas of India.

 

Of course there is always the possibility of the phenomena where that which is unrecognized remains so by virtue of being unrecognized in the first place.  In other words, some of the most glib and simplistic descriptions of the paradoxical or absolute "ultimate truth" can be interpreted in countless ways depending on the person who sees/hears/reads such things - and if they are predisposed to a certain interpretation, it is likely to result in such.  Descriptions of "ultimate truth" will always be this way because they will never fit - it is only in descriptions of "convential truth" can something be debated over and hashed out in a neatly detailed way.

 

 

There are these two who misrepresent the Tathagata. Which two? He who represents a Sutra of indirect meaning as a Sutra of direct meaning and he who represents a Sutra of direct meaning as a Sutra of indirect meaning.

 

-  Anguttara Nikaya I:60 

[RigdzinTrinley]

I'll defer to letting the Buddhists in their own forum hash things out...

 

 

have fun.

Thik hai bhaja,

 

Looks like I won't have anymore fun with this

[3bob]

could be - then again there is always the "four-fold negation" that could settle many arguments by putting them in its context, although there could be multiple arguments as to what the four-fold negation means -  thus more fun

[forestofemptiness]

Gendun Chophel, the Gelug "Mad Monk" says that no one is really a nihilist:

 

There are those who fear that if vases, pillars, and so on were refuted through reasoning, everyone would come to espouse nihilistic views of nonexistence. Their worries are pointless. For in the case of ordinary, everyday beings who are looking at a vase in front of them, how is it possible that a nihilistic view regarding the vase to be utterly nonexistent could arise?

 

trans Tyler Dewar (emphasis added)

[3bob]

that's an easy one considering the trickery of mind...

[forestofemptiness]

[Apech]

 

It's a myth - they don't do it.

[3bob]

my what big toenails he has, don't piss off an ostrich   

 

btw, who or where are these ordinary and everyday beings?  (per another's pigeon holing)

Edited January 8, 2016 by 3bob

[RigdzinTrinley]

Dear 3bob,

 

I'll try to answer your question (emphasis on try)

 

First a little side note on Gendun chophel: he was trained in the gelug tradition but his views regarding madhyamika are very different then that expounded in most gelug colleges - that's why many a geshe call him a nyigmapa

 

That said

 

The above quote might point to the fact that the gelugpas don't like to negate the relative truth as it appears to ordinary beings (here ordinary beings means those who did not realize emptiness yet, unenlightened beings)

 

There line of reasoning is as follows

 

"The vase is not empty of vase it is empty of inherent existence"

 

So they stick very closely to the debate format used in Tibetan Buddhist colleges

 

So they negate true establishment of the vase on the ultimate level, while leaving the mere appearance alone

 

Vase not empty of vase

 

That has sparked a lot of controversy also within the gelug tradition

 

What Gendun chophel says is basically the vase is unborn ultimately when that is realized the vase also is unborn relatively and just a mere illusionlike appearance beyond any mental designation such as exists etc. (You know the dilemma called tetralemma)

 

He says to the hard edge gelugpas: "don't you worry about that radical non duality - ordinary beings still perceive vases as truly established after you gelugpas realized the great equality of Samsara and Nirvana- that neither of the two truths is born ultimately. No need to try and protect conventional appearances of ordinary sentient beings, they cling to them anyway"

 

Or something like that, I would say but the quote is a bit out of context so I need to guess what g.d. is talking about

 

OM VAJRA SATTVA HUNG & excuse me if I butchered your madman's madhyamika

[RigdzinTrinley]

Dear 3bob,

 

I'll try to answer your question (emphasis on try)

 

First a little side note on Gendun chophel: he was trained in the gelug tradition but his views regarding madhyamika are very different then that expounded in most gelug colleges - that's why many a geshe call him a nyigmapa

 

That said

 

The above quote might point to the fact that the gelugpas don't like to negate the relative truth as it appears to ordinary beings (here ordinary beings means those who did not realize emptiness yet, unenlightened beings)

 

Their line of reasoning is as follows

 

"The vase is not empty of vase it is empty of inherent existence"

 

So they stick very closely to the debate format used in Tibetan Buddhist colleges

 

they negate true establishment of the vase on the ultimate level, while leaving the mere appearance alone

 

Vase not empty of vase (but empty of true establishment)

 

This has sparked a lot of controversy also within the gelug tradition

 

What Gendun chophel says is basically the vase is unborn ultimately when that is realized the vase also is unborn relatively and just a mere illusionlike appearance beyond any mental designation such as exists etc. (You know the dilemma called tetralemma)

 

He says to the hard edge gelugpas: "don't you worry about that radical non duality - ordinary beings still perceive vases as truly established after you gelugpas realized the great equality of Samsara and Nirvana- that neither of the two truths is born ultimately. No need to try and protect conventional appearances of ordinary sentient beings, they cling to them anyway"

 

Or something like that, I would say but the quote is a bit out of context so I need to guess what g.d. is talking about

 

OM VAJRA SATTVA HUNG & excuse me if I butchered your madman's madhyamika

Edited January 12, 2016 by RigdzinTrinley

[RigdzinTrinley]

I think this double posting situation has to do with my phone...

[Apech]

I think this double posting situation has to do with my phone...

 

 

If the vase is not empty then how do you fit the flowers in it?  I'l bet Tsongkhapa didn't have answer to that one.

[RigdzinTrinley]

I think he didn't need manjushries council on that one

[Brian]

If the vase is not empty then how do you fit the flowers in it?  I'l bet Tsongkhapa didn't have answer to that one.

Oh, that's easy! The flowers don't exist so the vase being full of vase is no problem.

 

[3bob]

R.T., and for those that have not yet realized inherent existence, don't worry inherent existence is not going anywhere....  

Edited January 12, 2016 by 3bob