TaraTarini

Why I believe in atman over anatman

Recommended Posts

Hi.I'm not really a buddhist or a hindu yet,I'm still searching wich one is true and wether other religions could possibly be true or maybe all of them are true.I don't know yet.but I have reasons to believe that Shunyata as expounded by nagarjuna is not true.I don't mean to offend with that,I know that nagarjuna is held in very high esteem by those in the Madhyamika schools and Yogachara-madhyamaka Synthesis schools like the Svatantrika Yogacharas.But I think that he was wrong,frankly put.

 

the Reason I'm making this thread is because I want Answers to these objections.so that if I'm wrong,I can maybe correct my views and follow the right view.I am not attacking any beliefs,though I do write with the premise that they are not true because from my logical analysis I have seen them to be so.

 

1.Anatman:Anatman is the idea that nothing has inherent existance.thus there is no Self or Supersoul or anything like that.No God.nothing of the sort.

the theravadans Believe in the existance of matter and Cittas wich are substantial but momentary while the Svatantrika Yogacara and their synthesis schools believe a flux of momentary Cittas or consciousnesses are all that exist. 

the person is made up of five aggregates in Buddhism. form (or material image, impression) (rupa), sensations (or feelings, received from form) (vedana), perceptions (samjna), mental activity or formations (sankhara), and consciousness (vijnana).all of these Aggregates form a cohesive whole to form the conventional Self.

Vijnana is also known as Citta or Alayavijnana.in Buddhism there is not one enduring Vijnana  Skandha but a constant flux of Vijnanas with intervals so small you don't percieve them.

but this can easily be refuted.why?Because to believe in this means to believe in creation out of nothing.when one Citta perishes,the other cannot arise.from where and what does the next Citta arise when the former already perishes as the Buddhist doctrine of radical momentariness (Kshanabhangavada)states?

if they exist already dormant somewhere,then there must be a receptacle wich is permanent and this would refute Sarva dharma anatman or all dharmas are no self.but Nagarjuna the biggest mahayana Philosopher says that Cittas are not substantial anyway.So they couldn't have a physical receptacle.

furthermore this would mean that fate exists and that subjective agreement would be next to impossible.karma would lose its value.as there is no choice in what you do,feel or think.and it must be asked also how something existant can go into nonexistance.Mipham the greatest Tibetan philosopher refutes Cessation .again,this is not what any Buddhist would believe in but the alternative being creation or arising out of nothing also makes no sence.this is not a Tirthika view but the view of Mipham Rinpoche in his 'four logical arguments for the middle way''but when you apply these arguments to the subtle mind,it means the subtle mind is permanent!

the Vijnana aggregate rules over the other aggregates and gives them a unitary unity and experience.

but if its momentary it cannot do so and also karma cannot be stored.the buddhists will say one Citta conditions the next Citta so Karma doesn't need to be stored.but this is impossible as the former Citta perishes before the other comes into existance.it cannot condition anything.

it cannot be that the one citta endurs until the next arises being created by the former citta either because this would confer confused experience and this is still one of the arisings wich Mipham refuted.

2.why shunyata as expounded by nagarjuna is false:nagarjuna was a bright thinker,but he blindly followed the Buddha's 1st and 2nd turnings of the wheel of dharma ingoring the 3rd so he strays away from his logic at certain places like saying that all(absolutely all)dharmas are dependant upon other dharmas.this is illogical as shall be shown below

2.An Unconditioned Reality(Dharma,but I don't refer to abstract concepts but concrete things) must exist.

 

There Can Only Be Two Types of Realities(Dharmas):

 

1.Conditioned Reality: Any reality that depends on something for its existence. For example, a Cow depends on its organs, the organs depend on cells, the cells depend on molecules, which depend on atoms,wich depend on electrons,wich depend on Quarks and so forth. This dependence is simultaneous at every moment the conditioned reality exists.

 

 

 

2.Unconditioned Reality: Any reality that is self-sufficient, i.e. does not depend on anything else for its existence. This is what is called “Brahman''(The one Spirit ''or ''Ishwara''(God).

 

any conditioned reality depends upon another reality in order to exist by definition.

 

Any conditioned Dharma, must depend upon:

 

a finite number of conditioned Dharmas alone

 

or an infinite number of conditioned Dharmas alone

 

or a finite number of conditioned Dharmas and at least one unconditioned Dharma

 

A conditioned Dharma cannot be caused by a finite series of conditioned Dharma: If there is a linear series of conditioned Dharma, what would the first one depend on? Since it must depend on something, and there is nothing before it, the whole chain ceases to exist. Thus a linear chain of conditioned realities cannot exist. Additionally, a circular finite chain of conditioned Dharmas could not exist either. This would simply result in each conditioned reality fulfilling their own conditions, which is against the definition of a conditioned Dharma.

 

Conditioned realities cannot exist in an infinite Series either. A very large unlimited of number conditioned realities cannot exist,. As the number of conditioned realities in a series increases, the result continues to be non-existence. Continuously adding to the end of the chain would never allow for the conditions of existence to be satisfied, thus the entire infinite chain of conditioned Dharmas would never have its conditions fulfilled.

 

If an infinite (I am granting Buddhists the notion that a actual Infinite can exist in quantity of concrete things for the sake of argument,I do not Believe this.Set theory does not help because its applicable only to asbtractions)series of conditioned Dharmas could exist on its own, the complete set of infinite conditioned Dharma would be an unconditioned Dharma. However, this is impossible because an unconditioned dharma cannot depend upon an aggregate of conditioned dharmas . if this were the case, it would be conditioned. Therefore, a set of infinite conditioned realities is itself a conditioned reality, and fails to exist on its own.

 

Since any model made up entirely of conditioned Dharmas can never have their conditions fulfilled, every conditioned Dharma must be caused by a series of realities that ends (or begins its ontological Series) with an unconditioned Dharma.

 

if the series of conditioned realities regresses ad infinitum without an unconditioned reality the series itself would be equivalent to nothing. if the series regresses infinitely to more and more fundamental conditions that have the same existential status as the aforementioned conditions, then the search for the fulfillment of conditions would go on endlessly. But if the search for the fulfillment of conditions would go on endlessly, then every hypothetical conditioned reality in the series would never have its conditions fulfilled and thus would never come into existence. No matter where we’re at in the series we’ll always come to a conditioned reality that is nonexistent because it is existentially dependent upon other nonexistent conditioned realities.

 

As Fr. Robert Spitzer who created this argument writes,

"Since every hypothetical conditioned reality is dependent upon other nonexistent conditioned realities for its existence, it will never come into existence. It does not matter whether one posits an infinite number of them; for each one in the series of dependence is still equal to nothing without the reality of the others. But if the ‚Äúothers‚ÄĚ are nothing without others, and those ‚Äúothers‚ÄĚ are nothing without still others, it does not matter if one postulates an infinite number of others (or arranges the infinite number of others in a circle). They are all still nothing in their dependence upon nonexistent conditions."

there are also Reasons that a circular number of conditioned dharmas cannot alone exist but I'm not going to go into that because thats not what Buddhism believes.So there must exist atleast one unconditioned reality.this reality also must be absolutely simple and unique for other reasons I won't get into here.it must be immaterial as all matter is conditioned and made up of parts.

if Shunyata was something concrete and something that had intelligence,then shunyata would be true.as the origin of all things.but all dharmas are dependant on other dharmas is false in my view.

 

corrections are welcome!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello,

I assume no corrections on what you have studied a lot. 

 

Btw. I follow the Upanishads but I do see some common ground with Buddhism,

but correlations along such lines can only go so far and only satisfy up to a point,

after that I don't believe water and oil mix well.

 

Anyway where do you stand on or what do you think about of the verse below?

 

"There is an unborn, unoriginated, unproduced, unformed.

Were there not this unborn, unoriginated, unproduced, unformed,

there would be no escape from the world of the born, originated, produced, formed.

Since there is an unborn, unoriginated, unproduced, unformed,

therefore is there an escape from the born, originated, produced, formed"

 

(The Gospel of Buddha - Sermon at the bamboo grove at Rajagaha
Udana 8:3)

 

Om Shanti

Edited by old3bob
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There may be one without the other. Yet there is, both, self and no-self. And there is, both, neither self nor no-self. And, both, and, neither.

 

Who is the knower of self?

 

Who is the knower of no-self?

 

Who discerns between truth and falsity?

 

Who is the believer?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who is it appreciating the insights gained about oneself through any and all  permutations of conceptual self-objectifying? 

 

Who is it that takes it for granted?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/5/2020 at 6:25 AM, neti neti said:

There may be one without the other. Yet there is, both, self and no-self. And there is, both, neither self nor no-self. And, both, and, neither.

 

Who is the knower of self?

 

Who is the knower of no-self?

 

Who discerns between truth and falsity?

 

Who is the believer?

 

the Buddhist four fold negation (which you are apparently paraphrasing) is really non-conclusive and says to me that it is a mental exercise pointing out the very fact of that, which then implies a direction of pointing further... (to me anyway)

 

 I'd also say that,  Om Tat Sat ...is conclusive being beyond mental exercises.

Edited by old3bob
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So Tara are you coming back?

 

Btw, I have a comment or two on the Buddhist verse below... if someone wants to

also share their understanding of it that would be great.

 

"There is an unborn, unoriginated, unproduced, unformed.

Were there not this unborn, unoriginated, unproduced, unformed,

there would be no escape from the world of the born, originated, produced, formed.

Since there is an unborn, unoriginated, unproduced, unformed,

therefore is there an escape from the born, originated, produced, formed"

 

Using the word "escape" above has some potential problems imo,

whereas if the word detachment was substituted for escape it would work better for 

me in the sense of the saying, "samsara properly understood is Nirvana" which in effect

would also mean said "escape".   Along similar lines the term Moksha means freedom from samsara,

and is often accompanied  with the idea of being in a transcendental form and realm, (as is often

depicted in drawings) yet if moksha is completely free then one would also be free in any realm including

that of  apparent samsara (aka. the born, originated,  produced, formed") being that any limited perception

or attachment to  differentiation has ended or has been 'escaped' from  if one prefers that word.

 

Moving on to another subject : One major difference that is taught in most schools of Hinduism and that most students are aware of compared to Buddhism is the need for the Grace of the Guru,   Buddhism often speaks of compassion and the importance of teachers but that it is not normally meant (as far as I know)  as revealing Grace, a grace that does not come by individual merits or by any powers of the mind, which granted  are recognized as having an important place yet they can not reveal the "Self" as pointed to in the Upanishads and other Vedic teachings.

 

Edited by old3bob
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/3/2020 at 5:14 PM, TaraTarini said:

 

Hi.I'm not really a buddhist or a hindu yet,I'm still searching wich one is true and wether other religions could possibly be true or maybe all of them are true.I don't know yet.but I have reasons to believe that Shunyata as expounded by nagarjuna is not true.I don't mean to offend with that,I know that nagarjuna is held in very high esteem by those in the Madhyamika schools and Yogachara-madhyamaka Synthesis schools like the Svatantrika Yogacharas.But I think that he was wrong,frankly put.

 

the Reason I'm making this thread is because I want Answers to these objections.so that if I'm wrong,I can maybe correct my views and follow the right view.I am not attacking any beliefs,though I do write with the premise that they are not true because from my logical analysis I have seen them to be so

 

 

One thing I have come to accept from my own study and practice¬†is that the conscious mind is limited. Whether ‚Äúthe truth,‚ÄĚ assuming there is such a thing,¬†is closest to the Madhyamika, Yogacara, Advaita, or some other view has very little bearing on my¬†daily practice and conduct. It is my opinion that none of the aforementioned views, or any other, is ‚Äúthe truth.‚ÄĚ Some¬†or all¬†may come close but, in the end, they are simply conceptual constructs of a limited mind which craves explanations,¬†knowledge, security, and control. The mind which desires to grasp ‚Äúthe truth‚ÄĚ is in many ways the primary obstacle to the very understanding it craves, at least in the tradition I follow.

 

One thing I will offer, since you ask for answers, is my opinion that your understanding of shunyata is flawed, hence your conclusions regarding its inaccuracy has no foundation. Understanding the nature of shunyata is primarily experiential. A rational and conceptual apprehension of shunyata can be useful for debate and discussion but is necessarily flawed, as shunyata is pointing to an experience that is free of concept, free even of understanding, free of subject-object differentiation.

 

I will decline to engage in extensive debate as it‚Äôs not my strong suit, nor does philosophy or theory interest me much. I apologize for not being able or willing to elaborate on my ‚Äėanswer‚Äô further. Suffice it to say that a meaningful understanding of shunyata requires dedicated personal practice. Mipham‚Äôs Beacon of Certainty is a good resource. The best resource is skillful practice, IMO.

 

On 11/3/2020 at 5:14 PM, TaraTarini said:

Mipham Rinpoche in his 'four logical arguments for the middle way''but when you apply these arguments to the subtle mind,it means the subtle mind is permanent!

The apparent paradox implied here is resolved in the dzogchen view due to the nature of shunyata. Words are clumsy and imperfect but I‚Äôll use a few here. In the dzogchen view all is impermanent, compounded phenomena BUT the base is empty, clear, and the foundation of all. The characteristics of emptiness include that it‚Äôs indestructible, boundless, ceaseless, unborn, undying, uncreated, limitless, pervasive, etc... Hence it is ‚Äúpermanent‚ÄĚ and yet at the same time it is empty, unimputable, so you can‚Äôt posit it as anything in particular.¬†This is precisely why it can serve as the base of everything.

 

Enough of my words. Words are cheap. I’m not asking you to believe and my own understanding is quite limited so I definitely don’t ask you to believe me! I just thought I’d offer some thoughts of my own. I hope they are of some use.

 

Warm regards on this auspicious day!

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its impossible to philosophise a way to an answer, if ever there can be a conclusive one, that is. The approach towards discovery must be one gleaned only from experiential insight, and this is consistent with what the Buddha taught. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, C T said:

Its impossible to philosophise a way to an answer, if ever there can be a conclusive one, that is. The approach towards discovery must be one gleaned only from experiential insight, and this is consistent with what the Buddha taught. 

 

except that the Buddha's teachings were finally written down to help anyone reading them and thus give them a handle to work with before they had such an "experiential".   It's pretty much the same with all or most teachings that are written down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, old3bob said:

 

except that the Buddha's teachings were finally written down to help anyone reading them and thus give them a handle to work with before they had such an "experiential".   It's pretty much the same with all or most teachings that are written down.

 

Such experiences are not exclusive to Buddhist practitioners, and not predicated on the assumption that one has to be familiar with the writings prior. There are, I'm guessing, very little significant correlation between literacy and experiential (spiritual) insights. In fact, as my practice matures marginally, I'm noticing less dependency on analytical thought and noticing an improvement in concentrative absorption & wakefulness pursuant to this more relaxed approach. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

would most Zen related teachers and students rather have the Blue Cliff records or not...

would most Buddhists in general rather have the sayings of Buddha that were written down or not, and if not would

Buddhism even exist and thus only amount to a passing story of an eccentric  prince who disappeared into the forest? (in remote history never to be seen or heard from again)

 

Btw. I find it interesting that according to Buddhist scripture the "awakened one" was awoken by a great celestial for need of his teachings to go forth instead of being lost in the forest.

 

Edited by old3bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Milarepa: ‚ÄúThe outer world itself is my book. I have no need for books written in black ink.‚ÄĚ

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, C T said:

Milarepa: ‚ÄúThe outer world itself is my book. I have no need for books written in black ink.‚ÄĚ

 

and where does that "outer world" begin and end CT?

Edited by old3bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Formalized knowledge is needed as pointer to spiritual insight. Why is this even a question? ( Unless I’m missing the issue here completely) 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/3/2020 at 4:14 PM, TaraTarini said:

Hi.I'm not really a buddhist or a hindu yet,I'm still searching wich one is true and wether other religions could possibly be true or maybe all of them are true.I don't know yet.but I have reasons to believe that Shunyata as expounded by nagarjuna is not true.I don't mean to offend with that,I know that nagarjuna is held in very high esteem by those in the Madhyamika schools and Yogachara-madhyamaka Synthesis schools like the Svatantrika Yogacharas.But I think that he was wrong,frankly put.

 

the Reason I'm making this thread is because I want Answers to these objections.so that if I'm wrong,I can maybe correct my views and follow the right view.I am not attacking any beliefs,though I do write with the premise that they are not true because from my logical analysis I have seen them to be so.

...

if Shunyata was something concrete and something that had intelligence,then shunyata would be true.as the origin of all things.but all dharmas are dependant on other dharmas is false in my view.

corrections are welcome!

Hi TaraTarini,

 

Welcome to the forum.  I'm quite surprised to see such exacting philosophical dharma argumentation here, it's not exactly what I associate with this forum.  But I would like to make some attempt to engage with what you have written as you seem sincere. 

 

The Madhamaka project is not to establish a final view of reality, it is a project of systematically gives reasons to release all possible views.  As the Buddha said, "Letting go of that view, he does not pick up another", and Nagarjuna's "I bow to the Enlightened one who taught dependent origination...to end all conceptual proliferation" and "He who makes emptiness into a view is hopeless."

 

This is in contradistinction to the Abhidharma project of creating a metaphysical view of reality where there is no self, such as you are clearly familiar with - dividing experience into individual moments of citta and individual atoms of rupa. 

 

You have given reasons to reject many possible views about the true nature of things which I suppose Nagarjuna would agree with.  He would then proceed to give you reasons to reject the remaining views that seem more likely to be correct, such as an absolute which is the origin of all things. 

 

As you likely know, there have been Buddhist philosophers who have accepted Nagarjuna's arguments for conditioned, dualistic things only, but hold that an unconditioned non-dual consciousness evades this critique, and like you say in fact it must do so for a sensible worldview.  IMO this is not so very different from Advaita Vedanta, just that the Buddhists wouldn't call it anything like God or Source.  Other groups insist that Nagarjuna's critique must apply to non-dual consciousness as well.  I am not so familiar with how these groups debated each other, I mostly like to read the personal experience of those whose experience is one or the other, since actual awakening is my primary interest.

 

If you like, let me know what comes up for you reading this.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/8/2020 at 5:56 PM, Creation said:

Hi TaraTarini,

 

Welcome to the forum.  I'm quite surprised to see such exacting philosophical dharma argumentation here, it's not exactly what I associate with this forum.  But I would like to make some attempt to engage with what you have written as you seem sincere. 

 

The Madhamaka project is not to establish a final view of reality, it is a project of systematically gives reasons to release all possible views.  As the Buddha said, "Letting go of that view, he does not pick up another", and Nagarjuna's "I bow to the Enlightened one who taught dependent origination...to end all conceptual proliferation" and "He who makes emptiness into a view is hopeless."

 

This is in contradistinction to the Abhidharma project of creating a metaphysical view of reality where there is no self, such as you are clearly familiar with - dividing experience into individual moments of citta and individual atoms of rupa. 

 

You have given reasons to reject many possible views about the true nature of things which I suppose Nagarjuna would agree with.  He would then proceed to give you reasons to reject the remaining views that seem more likely to be correct, such as an absolute which is the origin of all things. 

 

As you likely know, there have been Buddhist philosophers who have accepted Nagarjuna's arguments for conditioned, dualistic things only, but hold that an unconditioned non-dual consciousness evades this critique, and like you say in fact it must do so for a sensible worldview.  IMO this is not so very different from Advaita Vedanta, just that the Buddhists wouldn't call it anything like God or Source.  Other groups insist that Nagarjuna's critique must apply to non-dual consciousness as well.  I am not so familiar with how these groups debated each other, I mostly like to read the personal experience of those whose experience is one or the other, since actual awakening is my primary interest.

 

If you like, let me know what comes up for you reading this.

Hello dear Friend!Nagarjuna's Shunyata empty of itself is based on impermanence and dependant origination.If every cause is not an effect,then there is no emptiness of self only other!Dependant origination asserts that absolutely EVERY cause is an effect of a previous cause,ad infinitum.But as I have shown earlier,if there is a infinity of causes and effects no condition can be met for any existing thing and there would be nothing in manifestation of existance.Furthermore,Infinity is just a concept in people's minds,it cannot exist for actual things.Infinity is actually Absurd and I think Hilbert's hotel shows this.Set theory may use infinities,but they are not applicable to actual things.

 

A regression of infinite causes cannot be,and production too cannot be established really so even if it could be the case that an actual infinite of causes and effects could exist,in reality it still wouldn't.

 

BTW,this is not exclusive to Buddhism.Jonang and Karma Kagyu Believe in a unconditioned ultimate reality that is the source or backround for conditioned relative realities.its really the old shentong vs rangtong debate in Tibet.

 

So if infinite regression and production cannot be established,there is no Shunyata as Nagarjuna is commonly believed to have posited(I believe he held Bodhi as an ultimate reality based on my rerading of chandradhar sharma's books,and Shentong is based on a understanding madhyamika not cittamatra)

 

What arguments would nagarjuna give for rejecting a absolute?

 

Sorry for the late Replies guys and I hope you guys had a auspicious set of navratri and diwali.

Edited by TaraTarini
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/5/2020 at 9:29 AM, dwai said:

I think that many hindus are trying to mix oil and water when they write things like this article https://medium.com/@dramartyakumar/the-shunyata-of-the-atman-of-hinduism-and-the-atman-in-the-shunyata-of-madhyamika-buddhism-b09fe3fafe71   that said shunyata and brahman were the same because buddhas are aware.when in actuality,a buddha has no awareness at all!

 

Shunyata is based on infinite regression of actual causes and actual effects i.e dependant origination.it is hard for many hindus to understand that the Buddhists really are positing this,because in hinduism as Jagadguru adi shankara wrote in his brahma sutra bhasya;there is one cause and one substance that changes its form.

 

it also seems so counterintuitive to asset infinite regression and baselessness.but that is what the (Rangtong and theravada)buddhists are asserting.they are asserting what they are saying they assert as counterintuitive as it may sound to most people.

 

ultimately if true production cannot be established of concrete things and neither an infinite regress of causes and conditions,then Shunyata would be false as most buddhists outside some shentongpa's schools understand it.

Edited by TaraTarini

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On 11/7/2020 at 10:32 PM, steve said:

 

One thing I have come to accept from my own study and practice¬†is that the conscious mind is limited. Whether ‚Äúthe truth,‚ÄĚ assuming there is such a thing,¬†is closest to the Madhyamika, Yogacara, Advaita, or some other view has very little bearing on my¬†daily practice and conduct. It is my opinion that none of the aforementioned views, or any other, is ‚Äúthe truth.‚ÄĚ Some¬†or all¬†may come close but, in the end, they are simply conceptual constructs of a limited mind which craves explanations,¬†knowledge, security, and control. The mind which desires to grasp ‚Äúthe truth‚ÄĚ is in many ways the primary obstacle to the very understanding it craves, at least in the tradition I follow.

 

One thing I will offer, since you ask for answers, is my opinion that your understanding of shunyata is flawed, hence your conclusions regarding its inaccuracy has no foundation. Understanding the nature of shunyata is primarily experiential. A rational and conceptual apprehension of shunyata can be useful for debate and discussion but is necessarily flawed, as shunyata is pointing to an experience that is free of concept, free even of understanding, free of subject-object differentiation.

 

I will decline to engage in extensive debate as it‚Äôs not my strong suit, nor does philosophy or theory interest me much. I apologize for not being able or willing to elaborate on my ‚Äėanswer‚Äô further. Suffice it to say that a meaningful understanding of shunyata requires dedicated personal practice. Mipham‚Äôs Beacon of Certainty is a good resource. The best resource is skillful practice, IMO.

 

The apparent paradox implied here is resolved in the dzogchen view due to the nature of shunyata. Words are clumsy and imperfect but I‚Äôll use a few here. In the dzogchen view all is impermanent, compounded phenomena BUT the base is empty, clear, and the foundation of all. The characteristics of emptiness include that it‚Äôs indestructible, boundless, ceaseless, unborn, undying, uncreated, limitless, pervasive, etc... Hence it is ‚Äúpermanent‚ÄĚ and yet at the same time it is empty, unimputable, so you can‚Äôt posit it as anything in particular.¬†This is precisely why it can serve as the base of everything.

 

Enough of my words. Words are cheap. I’m not asking you to believe and my own understanding is quite limited so I definitely don’t ask you to believe me! I just thought I’d offer some thoughts of my own. I hope they are of some use.

 

Warm regards on this auspicious day!

Hello dear companion.I have read all of my Dzogchen from Dzogchen Acharya malcolm loppon.As far as I know based on his posts, the base is just shunyata and it is shunyata wich I am disregarding in my OP for a few reasons.Shunyata is based on infinite regression of actual produced things.but infinite regression would be impossible because a true infinite without a starting point is impossible,and if it were possible then nothing would exist in the chain as every condition cannot be met by its former condition in the chain as there is no starting point and you can keep going back.furthermore production of actual things is impossible as in production out of nothing(commonly known as without a cause or other,wich is still creation out of nothing unless other is simply the effect and thus cause and effect are the same and there is really only one constant existant thing wich is against shunyata).

 

Shunyata is based on infinite regression and dependant origination and an actual production out of nothing(otherwise you have the View expressed in the brahma sutra bhasya that there is one substance that merely changes its condition or form).I reject both for a few in my opinion airtight reasons.thats just my opinion!

 

Blessings!

Edited by TaraTarini
duplicate
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW,when I say Shunyata I just mean as ment by the rangtong schools.Dzogchen is incompatible with shentong,yet half of nyingma lamas are shentongpas.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Reason I say that Shunyata is based on production out of nothing is because if it is based on Khshanabhangavada as Abhdidharma holds,then the cause perishes before the effect arises.this is production out of nothing.the other alternative is that the cause endures until the effect arises,but in case of this you would have confused experience especially in regards to Citta.but still this is still production out nothing as the cause creates the effect ex nihilo.

 

it is not clear wich view Nagarjuna holds as true,but both are the only alternatives compatible with dependant origination wich he held as true(EVERY cause is an effect)

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TaraTarini said:

Jagadguru adi shankara wrote in his brahma sutra bhasya;there is one cause and one substance that changes its form

Shankaracharya couldn't have said there is one substance that changes its forms because there isn't really 'many forms', but rather only the appearance of forms (like forms that appear in a dream). I think "cause and substance changing its form" is a misunderstanding of Advaita. 

1 hour ago, TaraTarini said:

that said shunyata and brahman were the same because buddhas are aware.when in actuality,a buddha has no awareness at all!

Shunyata is not the same as Brahman as Brahman is beyond duality (no empty, no full), though emptiness and fullness seem to appear in it. Many a high-level practitioner of Vajrachara and Advaita Vedanta (for some fortuitous reason I seem to know several of them) do state that Buddha nature (Buddha-dhatu or tathagata garbha) is nothing but Brahman. 

 

1 hour ago, TaraTarini said:

Shunyata is based on infinite regression of actual causes and actual effects i.e dependant origination.

The way I understand it, Shunya refers to the lack of independent existence of phenomena¬†that appear and disappear in awareness -- so shunya is really 'svabhńĀva shunya'. Indeed to try and prove that awareness is also dependently originated is a ludicrous exercise as without awareness the exercise itself is pointless. I think if someone claims (usually half-baked Buddhists do that)¬†that awareness is dependently originated, it can be empirically proven as an incorrect statement, since it is perfectly possible to stay aware in absence of any object.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TaraTarini said:

The Reason I say that Shunyata is based on production out of nothing is because if it is based on Khshanabhangavada as Abhdidharma holds,then the cause perishes before the effect arises.this is production out of nothing.the other alternative is that the cause endures until the effect arises,but in case of this you would have confused experience especially in regards to Citta.but still this is still production out nothing as the cause creates the effect ex nihilo.

 

it is not clear wich view Nagarjuna holds as true,but both are the only alternatives compatible with dependant origination wich he held as true(EVERY cause is an effect)

I don't think this is correct.  Your view of dependent origination is how Abhidharma views dependent origination.  For Nagarjuna, dependent origination, correctly understood, implies non-origination, which is paradoxical, but that's the nature of Nagarjuna's understanding of emptiness.  For Nagarjuna, the "things" which are dependently arisen can't actually be said to exist (and can't be said to not exist) and hence can't actually be said to arise - not only are these seemingly contradictory statements actually non-contradictory, but correctly understanding one implies the other.  This is the inseparability of the two truths or the inseparability of appearance and emptiness that later commentators speak of.  Needless to say, later Indian commentators had quite a challenge on their hands to make this into a respectable darsana that could engage in formal debate with other schools.  

 

By the way, if you like this kind of philosophical approach and appreciate Malcolm's writings, I have known Malcolm and his top students to be very available for philosophical debating. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Creation said:

I don't think this is correct.  Your view of dependent origination is how Abhidharma views dependent origination.  For Nagarjuna, dependent origination, correctly understood, implies non-origination, which is paradoxical, but that's the nature of Nagarjuna's understanding of emptiness.  For Nagarjuna, the "things" which are dependently arisen can't actually be said to exist (and can't be said to not exist) and hence can't actually be said to arise - not only are these seemingly contradictory statements actually non-contradictory, but correctly understanding one implies the other.  This is the inseparability of the two truths or the inseparability of appearance and emptiness that later commentators speak of.  Needless to say, later Indian commentators had quite a challenge on their hands to make this into a respectable darsana that could engage in formal debate with other schools.  

 

By the way, if you like this kind of philosophical approach and appreciate Malcolm's writings, I have known Malcolm and his top students to be very available for philosophical debating. 

I have debated Malcolm before,his line of reasoning is that a unconditioned reality cannot be a cause as it becomes dependent the minute it becomes a cause.I say that it can interact with itself and within Kashmiri Shaivism wich I lean towards,thats all that it is doing by multiplying into jiva and tattva.his other reasoning is that a permanent entity cannot be a cause and must create all at once.he is confusing permanent with static and immutability with impassibility and he doesn’t give a good reason why a permanently enduring entity cannot be a cause.furthermore a being with limitless resources and time can create over time if he wants to and is under no obligation to create all at once for efficiency.

 

In my debate with Malcolm all I hear is that I do not understand anything and that I am no shentongpa but a non dual shaivite.I never claimed to be exclusively one above the other but rather follow the tradition of the eight mahasiddhas like machendranath and gorakhnath and follow both(though I consider myself a seeker and do not really label myself Buddhist or Hindu yet let alone exclusively one or the other).Malcolm freaks out about the shentongpa and claims they are nothing like I think they are when in a post in 2010 he had a high Rinpoche admit that shentong and Advaita were no different in how they presented their view.


I have been warned by other users on dharmawheel not to debate with Malcolm as he treats people a certain way(even if I do believe he is a nice guy)in debates.

 

I am open to

written debates all the time however so if you have any of his students come debate me then that would be fine.

 

Okay,I have never heard this before and was genuinely confused as to what he believed about causation.does Nagarjuna hold that matter and mind are separate yet do not arise and thus are not existent by a certain definition of existance or that matter and mind do

not exist the way that adi Shankara thought they were positing?
 

if nothing arises then matter and mind or mind in the madhyamika yogachara synthesis schools of Tibet wich Dzogchenpas adhere to (and I had Malcolm tell me that in dzogchen that mind creates appearances of matter as it’s a synthesis school )is a self.maybe not as it is not static but it does have a enduring existance and inherent existance thus.thats all I’m arguing for.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites