Author Topic: Zhentong  (Read 6621 times)

Offline Optimus Prime

  • Member
  • Posts: 892
    • View Profile
Re: Zhentong
« Reply #45 on: July 29, 2013, 11:11:17 pm »
According to a Shentongpa (proponent of Shentong), the emptiness of ultimate reality should not be characterized in the same way as the emptiness of apparent phenomena because it is prabhāsvara-saṃtāna, or "clear light mental continuum," endowed with limitless Buddha qualities. It is empty of all that is false, not empty of the limitless Buddha qualities that are its innate nature.

the Moutain Doctrine Tibet's Fundamental Treatise on Other-Emptiness and the Buddha Matrix By: Dolpopa.
Moreover the Angulimala Sutra says:
"Manjushri, an empty home in a built-up city is called empty due to the absence of humans. A pot is empty due to the absence of water. A river is empty due to water not flowing. Is a village that is without householders called "empty, empty?" Or are the households empty in all respects? They are not empty in all respects; they are called empty due to the absence of humans. Is a pot empty in all respects? It is not empty in all respects; it is called "empty" due to the absence of water. Is a river empty in all respects? It is not empty in all respects; it is called "empty" because water is not flowing. Similarly, liberation is not empty in all respects; it is called "empty" because of being devoid of all defects. A Buddha, a supermundane victor, is not empty but is called "empty" because of being devoid of defects and due to the absence of humanness and godhood that have ten of millions of afflictive emotions.
Alas, venerable Manjushri, acting out the behavior of a bug, you do not know the real meaning of empty and non-empty. The naked ones" also meditate on all as empty. Do not say anything, you bug of the naked ones!

[Dolpopa's Commentary]
The passage from "The Buddha is like space" through "How could you, Angulimala, understand/ Empty nothingness!"which indicates, in accordance with the assertions of some, that everything is a self-emptiness of nothingness is an introduction by Manjushri. It leads to Angulimala's delineating the difference between self-emptiness and other-emptiness, despite the fact that Manjushri actually knows the difference.
Then, using the example of hail-stone becoming non-existent upon melting, he teaches that the final liberation, Buddhahood, is not empty,This teaches that the ultimate supermundane truth, the body of attributes,is not empty of its own entity. Using the example of an empty home, an empty vase, and an empty river, he teaches an emptiness of all defects; this teaches that the final liberation is other-emptiness. All descriptions of non-emptiness/ "Liberation is not empty in all respects," "A supermundane victor is not empty," "Non-empty phenomena are other," and so forth-- mean that the ultimate noumenon is not itself empty of itself. 


... [etc.]


Oh Good Man!

Thank you for the excellent compilation of quotation and your digest of Zhentong principles embodied here.

heybai

Yes, excellent.  It means that a Buddha is actually not empty.  A Buddha is empty of negative traits like greed, hatred and delusion.  A Buddha is not empty of the inherent qualities of the Buddha - the substance of their Buddha Nature like great kindness and compassion, wisdom and the 10 powers of the Buddha for example.

Offline BlueSky

  • Member
  • Posts: 628
    • View Profile
Re: Zhentong
« Reply #46 on: July 31, 2013, 03:40:57 am »
The empty that you talk about is our daily understanding of empty.

And that is not the meaning of empty talked in sunyata.

Differentiate between ordinary empty and sunyata empty.

They are different.

ANd the Shentong view treat the sunyata like ordinary empty.

It is really like: You see the glass without water.
And then you say: The glass is empty of water.

Buddha nature is without defilements.
Buddha nature is empty of defilements.

A cow is not a dog.
A cow is empty of dog.

The empty teaching of Shentong is complete nonsense, because the meaning of sunyata empty is not that.

THey are talking different meaning of empty.

Shentong has the view of other emptiness.

The glass doesn't have water. But the glass has the glass.
THe glass is empty of water, but the glass is not empty of glass.

This is trying to fool kindergarden student, treating the meaning of sunyata as shallow as that.

« Last Edit: July 31, 2013, 04:15:35 am by BlueSky »
Enlightenment is simply the clearing away of misunderstanding. When mistaken thinking is gone, liberation has happened. (Gampopa)


When we verbally indicate a thing as 'this' or 'that', our words, like rabbits's horns, are hollow names, mere fictive imputation upon what does not exist. (Longchenpa)

Offline namumahaparinirvanasvaha

  • Member
  • Posts: 769
    • View Profile
Re: Zhentong
« Reply #47 on: July 31, 2013, 08:54:04 am »
The empty that you talk about is our daily understanding of empty.
I didn't talk about any emptiness,I directly quoted what the sutras say about emptiness,It seems you disagree with what the sutras teach about emptiness.

Quote
And that is not the meaning of empty talked in sunyata.
yes it is,hence the fact I quoted it directly from the sutras whereas your 'version" of emptiness is just your opinion
Quote
The empty teaching of Shentong is complete nonsense, because the meaning of sunyata empty is not that.
again I have provided direct quote from the sutras concerning the subject,if you have a problem with the Buddhist sutras teaching on Emptiness you will have to file a complaint with the people who wrote the text thousands of years ago. :cheesy:
Quote
Shentong has the view of other emptiness.
The glass doesn't have water. But the glass has the glass.
THe glass is empty of water, but the glass is not empty of glass.
This is trying to fool kindergarden student, treating the meaning of sunyata as shallow as that.
So you dislike the Buddhas teachings on the subject,well your opinions are your own,again if you dislike the Buddhas teachings them you will have to take it up with the Buddha.
as I said before I just DIRECTLY QUOTED what is taught about Emptiness from the Buddhist sutras.

Offline namumahaparinirvanasvaha

  • Member
  • Posts: 769
    • View Profile
Re: Zhentong
« Reply #48 on: July 31, 2013, 09:50:15 am »
Blue Sky you are also contradicting yourself concerning the topic of Emptiness.
http://www.freesangha.com/forums/general-buddhism-discussion/sabbe-dhamma-anatta/msg64818/#msg64818

from you own writings you recongnize emptiness to be a negation,yet here you pretend it is not (direct contradiction of your statements from a previous page)
(also you don't even try to describe what empiness actually is,yet wish to say what it is not)

Emptiness in Buddhism is simply a negation and this can be consistently proven with the suttas/sutras.

Offline songhill

  • Member
  • Posts: 792
    • View Profile
    • The Zennist
Re: Zhentong
« Reply #49 on: July 31, 2013, 11:06:41 am »
The empty that you talk about is our daily understanding of empty.

And that is not the meaning of empty talked in sunyata.

Differentiate between ordinary empty and sunyata empty.

They are different.

ANd the Shentong view treat the sunyata like ordinary empty.

It is really like: You see the glass without water.
And then you say: The glass is empty of water.

Buddha nature is without defilements.
Buddha nature is empty of defilements.

A cow is not a dog.
A cow is empty of dog.

The empty teaching of Shentong is complete nonsense, because the meaning of sunyata empty is not that.

THey are talking different meaning of empty.

Shentong has the view of other emptiness.

The glass doesn't have water. But the glass has the glass.
THe glass is empty of water, but the glass is not empty of glass.

This is trying to fool kindergarden student, treating the meaning of sunyata as shallow as that.

You probably won't lay your cards down but this is how I read your idea of emptiness. There is only universal emptiness with no independent existence such as the svabhâva-body which is eternal without defilement.

Offline BlueSky

  • Member
  • Posts: 628
    • View Profile
Re: Zhentong
« Reply #50 on: July 31, 2013, 07:30:14 pm »
Blue Sky you are also contradicting yourself concerning the topic of Emptiness.
http://www.freesangha.com/forums/general-buddhism-discussion/sabbe-dhamma-anatta/msg64818/#msg64818

from you own writings you recongnize emptiness to be a negation,yet here you pretend it is not (direct contradiction of your statements from a previous page)
(also you don't even try to describe what empiness actually is,yet wish to say what it is not)

Emptiness in Buddhism is simply a negation and this can be consistently proven with the suttas/sutras.


Fair enough.

I need to clarify further.

Negation and negative statement are very close, but they are not same.

Negation is you have something, and you negate that to be not part of it. It is more to it doesn't have that.

Negative statemen is simply it is not that.  It is more to it is not that.

Heart sutra is a sutta with negative statements, but it is not a sutta with negation statements.

This is very very different.

But when you debate to people, you must see does the opponent that you talk with have something or not.

If you feel he has something, you negate what he has. Once you negate that, actually we need to say again, it is not that, not because it doesn't have that, but simply because it is not that.

Probably in my previous one, I use negate, because I feel my opponent has something.

But, never mind.

Emptiness is not something you use to negate.
However, for those who has self, as if there is something, then emptiness can be used as negation.

ANd this is what Rantong step in, particularly in Gelugpa, when it say the pillar is not empty of pillar, but it is empty of intrinsic nature of pillar.

That is negation, not negative statement.
BEcause it negates the intrinsic nature.

And this is good for beginner, because beginner when they see pillar, they see there is essence of pillar.

The statement of:
The pillar is not empty of pillar, but the pillar is empty of intrinsic nature of pillar,

is much much better than the statement like:
The pillar is empty of donkey, Which is the statement of Shentong, empty of others.

But the problem with the statement of the pillar is not empty of pillar, but simply empty of intrinsic nature, leave a loop hole here.

Which is the pillar is not empty of pillar, the first part. This one can cause an issue in affirming characteristics. ANd for Gelugpa, actually the first part is conventional truth where the nature is always false.

And this one becomes the weakness that is highlighted by Mipham in his Beacon of certainty. This loop hole is the weakness.

And negation is against the view of Great Perfection, where there is no rejection and affirmation if in the first place you already see properly.

This can be very long, and not relevant here.

But, the discussion of emptiness is very deep, where all of the small loop holes can be attacked and highlighted.

And this way of study can make the intellectual understanding of emptiness getting finer and finer.

I shall stop here.

Although I may use negation, but actually the best one is not negation, it shall be only negative statement. In the sense, sImply it is not, not it doesn't have..

And the view of Shentong, is definitely out.

Your eyes see the rock, your hand grasp the rock, you think this is rock, you speak this is rock, but your intuition clear like crystal without even influence by them.

That is emptiness teaching that hard to be understood. The one that looks conflicting, but actually they are not conflicting.

It is not like you see the donkey is not the horse, and then you say donkey is empty of horse.

Donkey is empty of donkey. Who can understand this? probably you can count by finger.

Self is empty of self.
Emptiness is empty of emptiness.
nihilism is empty of nihilism.
Buddha nature is empty of buddha nature.

These are the one that cracks your head and need years of study and meditation. What does it really mean actually?


« Last Edit: July 31, 2013, 07:44:43 pm by BlueSky »
Enlightenment is simply the clearing away of misunderstanding. When mistaken thinking is gone, liberation has happened. (Gampopa)


When we verbally indicate a thing as 'this' or 'that', our words, like rabbits's horns, are hollow names, mere fictive imputation upon what does not exist. (Longchenpa)

Offline namumahaparinirvanasvaha

  • Member
  • Posts: 769
    • View Profile
Re: Zhentong
« Reply #51 on: August 01, 2013, 02:09:35 am »
Sorry Blue Sky the Gelugpa's views of emptiness is nihilism.
they teach that Enlightenment is empty of all defilements(Empty-Empty)
then they teach that Enlightenment is also empty of itself.
hence the Gelugpa's have negated the defilements and ALSO negated Enlightenment and have put them into the same group,thereby negating itself and other leaving = nothing

The Buddha did not teach this (which is why when you have been asked to provide PROOF of your views from the sutras you have failed to provide even ONE quote as evidence)

Shentongs views on Emptiness is upheld and supported in great detail by the sutras themselves. whereas  Gelugpa's view of emptiness only seems to exist inside their own heads(I have provided like 15 Sutra Quotes for proof,how many Sutra quotes have you provided that Explained in DETAIL your version of emptiness?= 0

Do you wanna know what the Emptiness of Enlightenment is?here is a DETAILED explanation of Emptiness(the chapter is LITERALLY called the meaning of emptiness  :cheesy: it doesnt get any more detailed than that.)
Chapter IX
The Underlying Truth:
The Meaning of Emptiness

“O Lord, the wisdom of the tathāgatagarbha is the Tathāgata’s wisdom of
emptiness (śūnyatā).
O Lord, the tathāgatagarbha has not been seen nor attained
originally by all the arhats, pratyekabuddhas, and powerful bodhisattvas.

“O Lord, there are two kinds of wisdom of emptiness with reference to
the tathāgatagarbha.

 The tathāgatagarbha that is empty is separate from,
free from, and different from the stores of all defile ments.


 And the tathāgatagarbha
that is not empty is not separate from, not free from, and not different
from the inconceivable Buddha-Dharmas more numerous than the
sands of the Ganges River.


“O Lord, the various great disciples can believe in the Tathā gata with
reference to the two wisdoms of emptiness.


All arhats and pratyekabuddhas
revolve in the realm of the four contrary views
because of their knowledge
of emptiness. Thus, arhats and pratyekabuddhas do not originally see nor
attain [the wisdom of the tathāgatagarbha].


The extinction of all suffering
is only realized by the buddhas who destroy the stores of all defilements and
practice the path that extinguishes all suffering.”

now Blue Sky it doesn't get any clearer than that.

If you want I can prove to that Emptiness was considered and taught as a negation in the Pali Canon also?

Offline santamonicacj

  • Member
  • Posts: 2268
    • View Profile
Re: Zhentong
« Reply #52 on: August 02, 2013, 04:35:52 pm »
Quote
Sorry Blue Sky the Gelugpa's views of emptiness is nihilism.
they teach that Enlightenment is empty of all defilements(Empty-Empty)
then they teach that Enlightenment is also empty of itself.
hence the Gelugpa's have negated the defilements and ALSO negated Enlightenment and have put them into the same group,thereby negating itself and other leaving = nothing
I was under the impression that Gelug reductionism only was in regard to the phenomenal universe, that which can be taken as an object of consciousness. Enlightenment, not being able to be taken as an object of consciousness, is not subject to the same analysis.

...but I could be off base on that.
Warning: I'm enough of a fundamentalist Tibet style Buddhist to believe that for the last 1,000 years Tibet has produced a handful of enlightened masters in every generation. I do not ask that YOU believe it, but it will greatly simplify conversations if you understand that about me. Thanks.

Offline songhill

  • Member
  • Posts: 792
    • View Profile
    • The Zennist
Re: Zhentong
« Reply #53 on: August 02, 2013, 06:44:53 pm »
Quote
Sorry Blue Sky the Gelugpa's views of emptiness is nihilism.
they teach that Enlightenment is empty of all defilements(Empty-Empty)
then they teach that Enlightenment is also empty of itself.
hence the Gelugpa's have negated the defilements and ALSO negated Enlightenment and have put them into the same group,thereby negating itself and other leaving = nothing
I was under the impression that Gelug reductionism only was in regard to the phenomenal universe, that which can be taken as an object of consciousness. Enlightenment, not being able to be taken as an object of consciousness, is not subject to the same analysis.

...but I could be off base on that.

It was Dolpopa who coined the term Zhentong/Shengtong. From what I have recently read, a pair of Tsongkapa's disciples led the attack against the Jonang tradition in the 15th century. The 5th Dalai Lama's attempt to stamp out the Jonang teachings were met with only limited success.

Offline namumahaparinirvanasvaha

  • Member
  • Posts: 769
    • View Profile
Re: Zhentong
« Reply #54 on: August 03, 2013, 09:38:50 am »
Quote
Sorry Blue Sky the Gelugpa's views of emptiness is nihilism.
they teach that Enlightenment is empty of all defilements(Empty-Empty)
then they teach that Enlightenment is also empty of itself.
hence the Gelugpa's have negated the defilements and ALSO negated Enlightenment and have put them into the same group,thereby negating itself and other leaving = nothing
I was under the impression that Gelug reductionism only was in regard to the phenomenal universe, that which can be taken as an object of consciousness. Enlightenment, not being able to be taken as an object of consciousness, is not subject to the same analysis.

...but I could be off base on that.
What you described would be the Shentong position.

Gelug position is Empty-Empty, Gelug reductionism not only includes the phenomenal universe,but as expands and covers Enlightenment as well.

(its actually not uncommon to find Gelugpas in the west that unintentionally hold Shentong views)

Offline Caz

  • My I strive for the perfection of enlightenment.
  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2191
    • View Profile
Re: Zhentong
« Reply #55 on: August 19, 2013, 02:16:26 am »
Sorry Blue Sky the Gelugpa's views of emptiness is nihilism.
they teach that Enlightenment is empty of all defilements(Empty-Empty)
then they teach that Enlightenment is also empty of itself.
hence the Gelugpa's have negated the defilements and ALSO negated Enlightenment and have put them into the same group,thereby negating itself and other leaving = nothing

The Buddha did not teach this (which is why when you have been asked to provide PROOF of your views from the sutras you have failed to provide even ONE quote as evidence)

Shentongs views on Emptiness is upheld and supported in great detail by the sutras themselves. whereas  Gelugpa's view of emptiness only seems to exist inside their own heads(I have provided like 15 Sutra Quotes for proof,how many Sutra quotes have you provided that Explained in DETAIL your version of emptiness?= 0

Do you wanna know what the Emptiness of Enlightenment is?here is a DETAILED explanation of Emptiness(the chapter is LITERALLY called the meaning of emptiness  :cheesy: it doesnt get any more detailed than that.)
Chapter IX
The Underlying Truth:
The Meaning of Emptiness

“O Lord, the wisdom of the tathāgatagarbha is the Tathāgata’s wisdom of
emptiness (śūnyatā).
O Lord, the tathāgatagarbha has not been seen nor attained
originally by all the arhats, pratyekabuddhas, and powerful bodhisattvas.

“O Lord, there are two kinds of wisdom of emptiness with reference to
the tathāgatagarbha.

 The tathāgatagarbha that is empty is separate from,
free from, and different from the stores of all defile ments.


 And the tathāgatagarbha
that is not empty is not separate from, not free from, and not different
from the inconceivable Buddha-Dharmas more numerous than the
sands of the Ganges River.


“O Lord, the various great disciples can believe in the Tathā gata with
reference to the two wisdoms of emptiness.


All arhats and pratyekabuddhas
revolve in the realm of the four contrary views
because of their knowledge
of emptiness. Thus, arhats and pratyekabuddhas do not originally see nor
attain [the wisdom of the tathāgatagarbha].


The extinction of all suffering
is only realized by the buddhas who destroy the stores of all defilements and
practice the path that extinguishes all suffering.”

now Blue Sky it doesn't get any clearer than that.

If you want I can prove to that Emptiness was considered and taught as a negation in the Pali Canon also?

Why would the view of Je Tsongkhapa be Nihilism ? What is being negated is the mode of existence of said object not the object itself as Nihilists would do. You seem to have a mistaken view of what constitutes Nihilism.

The defilements are conventionally existent but ultimately they lack Inherent existence.
Enlightenment exists but doesn't possess Inherent existence.

Je Tsongkhapa was by no means a Nihilist he was just capable of negating the extremes of existence and nonexistence.  :namaste:
http://emodernbuddhism.com/

This eBook Modern Buddhism – The Path of Compassion and Wisdom, in three volumes, is being distributed freely at the request of the author Geshe Kelsang Gyatso. The author says: "Through reading and practicing the instructions given in this book, people can solve their daily problems and maintain a happy mind all the time." So that these benefits can pervade the whole world, Geshe Kelsang wishes to give this eBook freely to everyone.

We would like to request you to please respect this precious Dharma book, which functions to free living beings from suffering permanently. If you continually read and practice the advice in this book, eventually your problems caused by anger, attachment and ignorance will cease.

Please enjoy this special gift from Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, who dedicates: "May everyone who reads this book experience deep peace of mind, and accomplish the real meaning of human life."

Offline namumahaparinirvanasvaha

  • Member
  • Posts: 769
    • View Profile
Re: Zhentong
« Reply #56 on: August 19, 2013, 03:23:33 am »
Quote
Caz
Why would the view of Je Tsongkhapa be Nihilism ? What is being negated is the mode of existence of said object not the object itself as Nihilists would do. You seem to have a mistaken view of what constitutes Nihilism. The defilements are conventionally existent but ultimately they lack Inherent existence. Enlightenment exists but doesn't possess Inherent existence. Je Tsongkhapa was by no means a Nihilist he was just capable of negating the extremes of existence and nonexistence.
I highlighted the contradiction.
You stated in the first quote that what is being negated is the mode of existence not the object itself.
The second quote states that Enlightenment exists..............wasnt that what was supposed to be negated by the first quote?
By that statement we see that Enlightenment is negated in the same manner the defilements are.

Whatever is without inherent existence is conditioned and ever changing,
Something that is without inherent existence,is arisen and produced from something else,making it dependent upon a cause.

can I ask you is Enlightenment conditioned and dependently originated?

Offline namumahaparinirvanasvaha

  • Member
  • Posts: 769
    • View Profile
Re: Zhentong
« Reply #57 on: August 19, 2013, 03:37:04 am »
Caz would you agree with this atatement?

If unaware of this, things may seem to arise as existents, remain for a time and then subsequently perish. In reality, dependently originated phenomena do not arise as having inherent existence in the first place.


Offline namumahaparinirvanasvaha

  • Member
  • Posts: 769
    • View Profile
Re: Zhentong
« Reply #58 on: August 19, 2013, 03:53:54 am »
Candrakīrti states: claims for existing existents. 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.

 in Rantong it is taught that Enlightenment has no inherent existence and Rantong also states that whatever is without inherent existence is dependently originated/conditioned.

So effectively Rantong is stating that Enlightenment is dependently originated/conditioned.

Well someone may ask what is the problem with Enlightenment being dependently originated/conditioned?

Well the problem is dependent origination is rooted/produced from ignorance and is actually what produces the whole mass of suffering.also Enlightenment is Unconditioned,you have to be conditioned to be produced from D.O.

Offline heybai

  • Member
  • Posts: 2145
    • View Profile
Re: Zhentong
« Reply #59 on: August 19, 2013, 05:11:16 am »

 


SimplePortal 2.3.3 © 2008-2010, SimplePortal