FreeSangha - Buddhist Forum

Schools of Buddhism => Vajrayana => New Jonangpa => Topic started by: namumahaparinirvanasvaha on June 23, 2013, 11:41:24 pm

Title: Zhentong
Post by: namumahaparinirvanasvaha on June 23, 2013, 11:41:24 pm
This thread is for discussing Zhentong in general,along with all the other teachings associated with it.

Mountain doctrine from Dolpopa.
Qouting from (Maiteyas sublime continuum of the Great Vehicle)
Speaks of the meaning of being empty and non empty of its own entity.

This naturally pure basic constituent of a one gone thus,ultimate truth,thusness,has no previously existent flaws of afflictions to be removed because freedom from all adventitoius defilments from the start is its nature,
And similarly it does not have the least factor of qualities of purification to be set up because the noumenon of the ultimate qualities of the powers and so forth spontaneously established from the start and indivisible is its nature

Having directly viewed reality devoid of the two extremes, the element of attributes,thusness with correct wisdom knowing the ultimate
And having gradually developed pristine wisdom directly seeing the real noumenon just as it is,release from adventitious defilements that are to be abandoned is attained.
The basic constituent, matrix of one gone thus, is empty of adventitious defilements,compounded conventional phenomena suitable to be abandoned
Which have the character of being separable from the noumenon, whereby one sees that it is free from the extreme of existance.
The element of attributes is not empty of the unsurpassed ultimate infinite Buddha qualities of the powers and so forth
Which have the character of not being separable from the noumenon, whereby it is also free from the extreme of non existence.
Title: Re: Zhentong
Post by: namumahaparinirvanasvaha on June 23, 2013, 11:55:41 pm
 :r4wheel:View on Non Duality :r4wheel:

Not existent, and also not non existent,and moreover the thoight of all the statements in a great many stainless texts of the middle way,of being devoid of the extremes of existence and non exisejce is that:
 :r4wheel: Since all dependently arisen conventionalities do not really exist, when one realises this, one does not fall to an extreme of existence and is released from the extreme of  superimposition.
 :r4wheel: Since the ultimate nonmenon that is beyond dependent arising is never non existent, when one realises this, one does not fall to an extreme of non existance and is realeased from the extreme of deprecation.




Title: Re: Zhentong
Post by: songhill on June 24, 2013, 06:57:00 am
Namu!

You've probably read Hookham's book, The Buddha Within which is all about the Shentong interpretation of the Ratnagotravibhaga. It's on Scrib free: S. K. Hookham - The Buddha Within (http://www.scribd.com/doc/81263460/S-K-Hookham-The-Buddha-Within#)

Shentong (T. gzhan-stong) which refers to ultimate reality being empty of existence and non-existence both and neither, comes from Indian tathagatagarbha thought; which is associated especially with the Kagyu and Nyingma lineages. It's alternative is, of course Rangtong (empty of own essence) which leans towards nihilism. With Rangtong, there is no possibility of achieving the shinning forth of Buddha Mind nor nondual experience.

I am beginning to think that the whole problem in the Shentong vs Rangtong debate stems from a misreading of Nagarjuna and his real position (yes, he did make a knowledge claim otherwise he would be a skeptic which the Buddha called eel-wigglers). I have mentioned it before on this forum, that it's not a good idea to just jump into Nagarjuna without understanding emptiness in the early canon (nikaya/agama).

Beginners (not all, of course) have the terrible habit of misreading the notion of emptiness (shunya) which is why they should not take it up until they've studied how it is used in the Nikayas. The defunct E-Sangha liked to gnaw on the bone of emptiness such that anything positive in Buddhism, for example, the gnosis of pure Mind, had to be refitted so it could go enter the Rangtong black hole.
Title: Re: Zhentong
Post by: reef on June 24, 2013, 08:22:26 am
shentong/rangtong/zentong ? anything like yingtong ? ....tiddle eye po :P
sorry coudn't resist ..i just love the goonies x interesting post btw thank you
Sent from my GT-I8160 using Tapatalk 2
Title: Re: Zhentong
Post by: namumahaparinirvanasvaha on June 24, 2013, 10:39:30 am
Namu!

You've probably read Hookham's book, The Buddha Within which is all about the Shentong interpretation of the Ratnagotravibhaga. It's on Scrib free: S. K. Hookham - The Buddha Within ([url]http://www.scribd.com/doc/81263460/S-K-Hookham-The-Buddha-Within#[/url])

Shentong (T. gzhan-stong) which refers to ultimate reality being empty of existence and non-existence both and neither, comes from Indian tathagatagarbha thought; which is associated especially with the Kagyu and Nyingma lineages. It's alternative is, of course Rangtong (empty of own essence) which leans towards nihilism. With Rangtong, there is no possibility of achieving the shinning forth of Buddha Mind nor nondual experience.

I am beginning to think that the whole problem in the Shentong vs Rangtong debate stems from a misreading of Nagarjuna and his real position (yes, he did make a knowledge claim otherwise he would be a skeptic which the Buddha called eel-wigglers). I have mentioned it before on this forum, that it's not a good idea to just jump into Nagarjuna without understanding emptiness in the early canon (nikaya/agama).

Beginners (not all, of course) have the terrible habit of misreading the notion of emptiness (shunya) which is why they should not take it up until they've studied how it is used in the Nikayas. The defunct E-Sangha liked to gnaw on the bone of emptiness such that anything positive in Buddhism, for example, the gnosis of pure Mind, had to be refitted so it could go enter the Rangtong black hole.


yes I loved her book I did disagree with the chapter on "no shentong without a proper understanding or rangtong"
that chapter really wasn't realivant whatsoever.

i'm looking for a FREE PDF of Dolpopas mountain doctrine so I can post a link here so anyone can read it.If you find it or a web page that has the entire book post it on here for me.
(I LOVE Dolpopa,3/4 of his writing is quotes from the sutras and 1/4th is his commentary, he really shows you where his views are founded. and makes sure the reader knows that this isn't what he made up.I personally cant stand commenaries that are 90% opionion with no evidence to back it up.
Title: Re: Zhentong
Post by: namumahaparinirvanasvaha on June 24, 2013, 10:41:29 am
shentong/rangtong/zentong ? anything like yingtong ? ....tiddle eye po :P
sorry coudn't resist ..i just love the goonies x interesting post btw thank you
Sent from my GT-I8160 using Tapatalk 2

is there anything about Zhentong you have a question about?or are interested in?
Title: Re: Zhentong
Post by: reef on June 24, 2013, 12:34:25 pm
im actually going to research it and will get back to you shortly for some answers if ok ...thanks for asking ^-^

Sent from my GT-I8160 using Tapatalk 2

Title: Re: Zhentong
Post by: songhill on June 24, 2013, 12:49:00 pm
I think by and large, the debate between Shengtong and Rangtong rests on a significant mal-interpretation of Nāgārjuna’s Shunyavada thought. Did N make as a knowledge claim that, (1) dependently originated entities are without svabhâva (true nature or essence), and (2), is ultimate truth or reality beyond conceptions and inexpressible (all of which are conditioned)? I think a strong case can be made that N made both claims.

So where does this leave Rangtong? It sort of leaves it positing, in almost a round about way, a black hole of meaninglessness. This black hole amounts so saying: Everything is like a dream, a reflection. But the Buddha never said this much less N who, in fact, said:

Quote
Those who assert dependent entities / to be neither real nor false. / like the moon in the water, / are not carried away by views. (YS 45)

The key term is "dependent entities" which are composed like a clay pot or a rope made from munja grass. By analogy, the clay and munja grass are real; what is constructed or made from them is not real or nishsvabhâva. Likewise our mundane world is unreal lacking svabhâva. But this is not to say there is no svabhâva or that there is no true unconditioned reality. N says:

Quote
That which is of the nature of coming and going, arising and perishing, in its conditioned (mundane) nature is itself Nirana in its unconditioned (ultimate) nature. ~ MK, XXV: 9

There is a limit to conditionality. It is the Buddha's awakening which is unconditioned and ineffable; which is beyond the pale of existence (bhava) and non-existence (abhava). The problem with Rangtong, it goes too far. It makes a black hole positing universal negation (sarva-abhâvât).
Title: Re: Zhentong
Post by: namumahaparinirvanasvaha on June 25, 2013, 12:27:16 pm
Hey Songhill

I've never read Nāgārjuna’s Shunyavada thought so i wouldn't know anything about possible misinterpretation.
Title: Re: Zhentong
Post by: songhill on June 25, 2013, 01:00:11 pm
Hey Songhill

I've never read Nāgārjuna’s Shunyavada thought so i wouldn't know anything about possible misinterpretation.


Something you might be interested in is Lamotte's translation of N's Maha-prajnaparamita-shastra. It's on Scribd at: Maha-prajnaparamita-sastra-Vol-1-by-Nagarjuna (http://www.scribd.com/doc/53288920/Maha-prajnaparamita-sastra-Vol-1-by-Nagarjuna#)

There are five volumes to download. It has more of a Mahayana flavor than his other shorter works. Here are some passages.


Quote
The true nature (tathatâ), the nature of phenomena (dharmatâ), the summit of existence (bhûtakoti), do not exist from the mundane point of view, but they do exist from the absolute point of view.  In the same way, individuals exist from the mundane point of view, but do not exist from the absolute point of view. ~ Maha-prajnaparamita-shastra Lamotte

Mental discursiveness is not the Path, Non-discursiveness is the seal of the Dharma (dharmamudrâ).  ~ Maha-prajnaparamita-shastra Lamotte

Like the moon reflected in water, like the water of a mirage, Like attainments in a dream, death and birth are like that.
The person who wants to really secure them
Is a fool whom the arayas ridicule. ~ Maha-prajnaparamita-shastra Lamotte

People who understand the meaning (artha) of the Buddhist doctrine and know the designation (prajñapti) say that the âtman exists. People who do not understand the meaning of the Buddhist doctrine and do not know the designation say that the âtman does not exist. ~ T. 1509, vol XXV, 253c ~ Maha-prajnaparamita-shastra Lamotte


Some scholars don't believe N composed this Shastra; others believe he did. The Chinese, like Chih-i studied the Shastra. There are a lot of useful gems in it.
Title: Re: Zhentong
Post by: namumahaparinirvanasvaha on June 25, 2013, 01:08:47 pm
yea i did see a discussion on it by a Chinese guy and a Tibetan once.
I remember one didn't want to accept it as his writing......
the other was using it mercilessly.

I generally went from Theravada to 3rd turning Tathagatagarbha
I kinda skipped the entire 2nd tuning(I studied the diamond sutra though)

but that is realitively small part of the entire sutra it comes from.
Title: Re: Zhentong
Post by: songhill on June 25, 2013, 04:10:03 pm
By the way, Nagarjuna never used the term "Mâdhyamika" and, in addition, refers to "the proponets of emptiness" (shunyatâvâdin). This is according to David Burton (Emptiness Appraised: A Critical Study of Nagarjuna's Philosophy, p. 6). N's main claims is that 'emptiness"means that entities lack svabhâva insofar as entities are dependently originated (nirvana is not dependently originated). Svabhâva, meaning roughly 'own-nature', is a techinal term that is never used by the Buddha in the early canon although in the commentarial literature (Pali) it is used, which in Pali is sabhâva. According to N,

Quote
"That is really svabhâva which is not brought about by anything else, unproduced (akritrimah), that which is not dependent on, not relative to any thing other than itself, non-contigent, unconditioned (nirapeksah paratra ca)" (MK XV: 2).

It might be true that N paves the way for Mind-only/Tathagatagarbha which is a full-blow essence or substance theory suggesting that all dependently originated things are based (prat-îtya) on [something else, thus not themselves] i.e., the substance of pure and absolute Mind. Personally, I go with this. This is really what the Lankavatara Sutra is all about.

Quote
35. The world is the same as a dream, and so are the multiplicities of things in it; [the
wise] see property, touch, death, a world-teacher, and work as of the same nature.
36. This mind is the source of the triple world; when the mind goes astray there appears this world and that; (269) recognising the world as such, as it is non-existent, [a
wise man] does not discriminate a world.
37. The ignorant because of their stupidity see [an objective world] as taking its rise
and disappearing, but he who has transcendental knowledge sees it neither rising nor disappearing.
Title: Re: Zhentong
Post by: namumahaparinirvanasvaha on June 26, 2013, 09:07:37 am
Good stuff I'm going to post a Zhentong teaching based on the 5 aggregates when  I get a chance also.

feel free anyone to add any Zhentong teachings you like or ask any questions related to the topic.
Title: Re: Zhentong
Post by: songhill on June 26, 2013, 09:44:47 am
Good stuff I'm going to post a Zhentong teaching based on the 5 aggregates when  I get a chance also.

feel free anyone to add any Zhentong teachings you like or ask any questions related to the topic.

In my own mind, to be fair to both, I always see Rangtong as positing "all things are empty of own-nature (svabhâva), whereas for Shentong it's, the absolute is empty of conditionality. The main problem with Rangtong, it's emptiness without positive implication which, in a nutshell, is nihilism. Shengtong, on the other hand can agree that conditioned or composed things are empty of own-nature. But this doesn't preclude the unconditioned or the same, the absolute which, in this case, would be empty of conditionality. Shentong has it right. Rangtong falls into nihilism.
Title: Re: Zhentong
Post by: namumahaparinirvanasvaha on June 26, 2013, 12:01:27 pm
Hey I havent found the quotes yet.

But it has to do with saying the 5 aggregates which are not the Self however are purified and used as the Nirmikaya body.

This kinda caused me to cock my eye,cause I thought the 5 aggregates were from mara.
But at the same time it did make sense cause the Buddhas manifested Body essential does contain the 5 aggregates while it is in the samsaric plane.

(ill track down the actual quote when I get a chance)
Title: Re: Zhentong
Post by: songhill on June 26, 2013, 02:54:41 pm
Hey I havent found the quotes yet.

But it has to do with saying the 5 aggregates which are not the Self however are purified and used as the Nirmikaya body.

This kinda caused me to cock my eye,cause I thought the 5 aggregates were from mara.
But at the same time it did make sense cause the Buddhas manifested Body essential does contain the 5 aggregates while it is in the samsaric plane.

(ill track down the actual quote when I get a chance)


Here is the Mara quote. For some odd reason Accesstoinsight seems not to deem this passage worthy. Gosh, I wonder why? :D

Quote
When there is form, Radha, there might be Mara, or the killer, or the one who is killed.  Therefore, Radha, see form as Mara, see it as the killer, see it as the one who is killed.  See it as a disease, as a tumor, as a dart, as misery, as really misery.  Those who see it thus see rightly.  When there if feeling ... When there is perception ... When there are volitional formations ... When there is consciousness, Radha, there might be Mara, or the killer, or the one who is killed. — S.iii.189


By the way, this is Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation. Here is the original Pali: http://suttacentral.net/sn23.1-10/pi/#sn23.2 (http://suttacentral.net/sn23.1-10/pi/#sn23.2) It starts: Rūpe kho, rādha

Quote
Māra Sutta

Sāvatthinidānaṃ. Atha kho āyasmā rādho yena bhagavā tenupasaṅkami; upasaṅkamitvā bhagavantaṃ abhivādetvā ekamantaṃ nisīdi. Ekamantaṃ nisinno kho āyasmā rādho bhagavantaṃ etadavoca:

“‘Māro, māro’ti, bhante, vuccati. Kittāvatā nu kho, bhante, māro”ti? “Rūpe kho, rādha, sati māro vā assa māretā vā yo vā pana mīyati. Tasmātiha tvaṃ, rādha, rūpaṃ māroti passa, māretāti passa, mīyatīti passa, rogoti passa, gaṇḍoti passa, sallanti passa, aghanti passa, aghabhūtanti passa. Ye naṃ evaṃ passanti te sammā passanti. Vedanāya sati … saññāya sati … saṅkhāresu sati … viññāṇe sati māro vā assa māretā vā yo vā pana mīyati. Tasmātiha tvaṃ, rādha, viññāṇaṃ māroti passa, māretāti passa, mīyatīti passa, rogoti passa, gaṇḍoti passa, sallanti passa, aghanti passa, aghabhūtanti passa. Ye naṃ evaṃ passanti, te sammā passantī”ti.

“Sammādassanaṃ pana, bhante, kimatthiyan”ti? “Sammādassanaṃ kho, rādha, nibbidatthaṃ”. “Nibbidā pana, bhante, kimatthiyā”ti? “Nibbidā kho, rādha, virāgatthā”. “Virāgo pana, bhante, kimatthiyo”ti? “Virāgo kho, rādha, vimuttattho”. “Vimutti pana, bhante, kimatthiyā”ti? “Vimutti kho, rādha, nibbānatthā”. “Nibbānaṃ pana, bhante, kimatthiyan”ti? “Accayāsi, rādha, pañhaṃ, nāsakkhi pañhassa pariyantaṃ gahetuṃ. Nibbānogadhañhi, rādha, brahmacariyaṃ vussati, nibbānaparāyanaṃ nibbānapariyosānan”ti.

Title: Re: Zhentong
Post by: namumahaparinirvanasvaha on June 27, 2013, 08:36:15 pm
I compiled some quotes from the Nirvana sutra concerning the 5 Skandhas

"Also Emancipation is giving up the actions of ones childhood days.It is the same with Emancipation. It does away with the 5 skanghas. abandoning the 5 skandhas is true emancipation, true emancipation is the Tathagata."

"he subdues the mara of illusion, the mara of the 5 skandhas"

"he is no skandha, sphere or realm and yet he is the skandha sphere and realm"

"The Buddha nature is strong and vigorous. It is hard to destroy. Therefore there is nothing that can kill it. If there were something that could indeed kill it, Buddha nature would die. But nothing can ever destroy such Buddha nature. Nothing of this nature can ever be cut"
"The Buddha nature of beings rests withing the 5 skandhas." If the 5 skandhas are destroyed this is killing of those Skanghas"

"If a person sees the expedient body of the Tathagata and says that it belongs to the 5 skandhas, the 18 realms and the 12 spheres, and that it arises from feeding, such is not to be depended upon. This means that even consciousness is not to be depended upon. If a sutra says thus, it cannot be depended upon."

with this said however Dolpopa speak of the 5 pure aggregates on page 319 of the mountain doctrine(sorry for lack of quote due to everyone getting copy rights put on everything you cant even find translations of Buddhist texts these days for free on the internet,so to post the information  I would have to hand right the entire chapter and I would rather meditate)
Title: Re: Zhentong
Post by: songhill on June 27, 2013, 10:31:10 pm

with this said however Dolpopa speak of the 5 pure aggregates on page 319 of the mountain doctrine(sorry for lack of quote due to everyone getting copy rights put on everything you cant even find translations of Buddhist texts these days for free on the internet,so to post the information  I would have to hand right the entire chapter and I would rather meditate)

There are the five pure khandhas  viz., sîla-kkhandha, samâdhi-kkhandha, pañña-kkhandha, vimutti-kkhandha, ñâ.nadassana-kkhandha.  However, these are not to be confused with the five khandhas of form, feeling, perception, habitual tendencies, and consciousness. You can find them at S.i.139.

So the five pure aggregates (dharmaskandha) are: virtue, concentration, wisdom, liberation, and knowledge.
Title: Re: Zhentong
Post by: santamonicacj on June 27, 2013, 11:30:43 pm
2 questions:

1. In Hookam's book she says that she is describing Sutra Shentong, and that Tantric Shentong is different. Anybody know what the difference is?

2. What is the difference in Dharmakaya and Dharmadhatu?
Title: Re: Zhentong
Post by: namumahaparinirvanasvaha on June 28, 2013, 08:36:31 am
2 questions:

1. In Hookam's book she says that she is describing Sutra Shentong, and that Tantric Shentong is different. Anybody know what the difference is?

2. What is the difference in Dharmakaya and Dharmadhatu?

(1)there really is no difference between Sutra Shentong and Tantric Shentong
althought if I had my guess, I would say she is trying to say Sutra Shentong brings the explaniation/right view and the Tantric Shentong actually is the practice itself.
(although this is how I have heard it I generally find you can also derive practice from the sutra also,although Tantric texts are generally more practice oriented than information oriented)

(2)there is no difference.
(of course a difference of description may apply between different sects, Shentong positing Inherent qualities, while Rantong positing nothing saying not even Dharmakaya has Inherent qualities)
Title: Re: Zhentong
Post by: Lobster on July 02, 2013, 05:57:33 pm
"The Buddha nature is strong and vigorous. It is hard to destroy. Therefore there is nothing that can kill it. If there were something that could indeed kill it, Buddha nature would die. But nothing can ever destroy such Buddha nature. Nothing of this nature can ever be cut"

It is sometimes noticeable how the 'self righteous' or 'Self is Buddha' natures arise unskilfully. The 'go with the flow' Buddhist nature teaching are sometimes just 'being in the zone'. So in a sense we have to keep returning, retuning and following the simplest beginnings and the deepest even ostensibly 'other' dharma.
Getting comfortable is often stagnation.

'Movement is Life' as Brad Pitt said in 'World War Z' (not recommended viewing)
Title: Re: Zhentong
Post by: songhill on July 02, 2013, 06:36:29 pm
"The Buddha nature is strong and vigorous. It is hard to destroy. Therefore there is nothing that can kill it. If there were something that could indeed kill it, Buddha nature would die. But nothing can ever destroy such Buddha nature. Nothing of this nature can ever be cut"

It is sometimes noticeable how the 'self righteous' or 'Self is Buddha' natures arise unskilfully. The 'go with the flow' Buddhist nature teaching are sometimes just 'being in the zone'. So in a sense we have to keep returning, retuning and following the simplest beginnings and the deepest even ostensibly 'other' dharma.
Getting comfortable is often stagnation.

'Movement is Life' as Brad Pitt said in 'World War Z' (not recommended viewing)

That is about what the Buddha said with the word "attakara". In one discourse a Brahmin asserted to the Buddha that there is “no animator who is self or another.”  To this the Buddha replied: “I have never heard or seen anything of the sort.  When you move forward or backward, stand or sit or lie down, are you not self-animating (attakara)?  Well, isn’t that self-animation?” (A. iii. 337).
Title: Re: Zhentong
Post by: namumahaparinirvanasvaha on July 08, 2013, 07:21:45 am
http://jarungkhashor.blogspot.com/2011/01/lions-roar-proclaiming-extrinsic.html (http://jarungkhashor.blogspot.com/2011/01/lions-roar-proclaiming-extrinsic.html)

here is a Link to a teaching by a Jonang Rinpoche.
Title: Re: Zhentong
Post by: namumahaparinirvanasvaha on July 08, 2013, 09:55:36 am

with this said however Dolpopa speak of the 5 pure aggregates on page 319 of the mountain doctrine(sorry for lack of quote due to everyone getting copy rights put on everything you cant even find translations of Buddhist texts these days for free on the internet,so to post the information  I would have to hand right the entire chapter and I would rather meditate)

There are the five pure khandhas  viz., sîla-kkhandha, samâdhi-kkhandha, pañña-kkhandha, vimutti-kkhandha, ñâ.nadassana-kkhandha.  However, these are not to be confused with the five khandhas of form, feeling, perception, habitual tendencies, and consciousness. You can find them at S.i.139.

So the five pure aggregates (dharmaskandha) are: virtue, concentration, wisdom, liberation, and knowledge.
hey Song Hill what is the name of the Nikaya and the sutta this is found in???
Title: Re: Zhentong
Post by: songhill on July 08, 2013, 09:57:13 am
Speaking of Shentong, I just came across this tidbit from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddha-nature#Jonangpa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddha-nature#Jonangpa)). The bold is mine.

Quote
The Jonangpa School of Tibetan Buddhism, whose foremost historical figure was the Tibetan scholar-monk Dolpopa, sees the Buddha-nature as the very ground of the Buddha himself, as the "permanent indwelling of the Buddha in the basal state".[52] Dolpopa comments that certain key tathāgatagarbha sutras indicate this truth.
Moreover, the Buddhist tantric scripture entitled Chanting the Names of Mañjuśrī (Mañjuśrī-nāma-saṅgīti), repeatedly exalts, as portrayed by Dolpopa, not the non-Self but the Self, and applies the following terms to this ultimate reality : 'The Buddha-Self, the beginningless Self, the solid Self, the diamond Self'. These terms are applied in a manner which reflects the cataphatic approach to Buddhism, typical of much of Dolpopa's writings.[53]
Dolpopa further expressed the viewpoint that the Buddha-nature transcends the chain of dependent origination. It is not empty of its own ultimately real essence, but only of extraneous, transitory and relative phenomena.
Dr. Cyrus Stearns writes on Dolpopa's attitude to the 'third turning of the wheel' doctrines (i.e. the Buddha-nature teachings):
The Third Turning of the Dharma Wheel presented the teachings on the Buddha nature, which are the final definitive statements on the nature of ultimate reality, the primordial ground or substratum beyond the chain of dependent origination, and which is only empty of other, relative phenomena.'[54]
In the Ghanavyuha Sutra (as quoted by Longchenpa) this Buddha essence is said to be the ground of all things:
... the ultimate universal ground also has always been with the Buddha-Essence (Tathagatagarbha), and this essence in terms of the universal ground has been taught by the Tathagata. The fools who do not know it, because of their habits, see even the universal ground as (having) various happiness and suffering and actions and emotional defilements. Its nature is pure and immaculate, its qualities are as wishing-jewels; there are neither changes nor cessations. Whoever realizes it attains Liberation ...[55]


Rangtong only deals with conceivable mundane reality which is empty of svabhâva, or true nature. On the other hand, Shengtong, which Jonangpa champions, deals with inconceivable ultimate reality that is empty of adventitious maculate things.
Title: Re: Zhentong
Post by: namumahaparinirvanasvaha on July 08, 2013, 10:19:32 am
Speaking of Shentong, I just came across this tidbit from Wikipedia ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddha-nature#Jonangpa[/url] ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddha-nature#Jonangpa[/url])). The bold is mine.

Quote
The Jonangpa School of Tibetan Buddhism, whose foremost historical figure was the Tibetan scholar-monk Dolpopa, sees the Buddha-nature as the very ground of the Buddha himself, as the "permanent indwelling of the Buddha in the basal state".[52] Dolpopa comments that certain key tathāgatagarbha sutras indicate this truth.
Moreover, the Buddhist tantric scripture entitled Chanting the Names of Mañjuśrī (Mañjuśrī-nāma-saṅgīti), repeatedly exalts, as portrayed by Dolpopa, not the non-Self but the Self, and applies the following terms to this ultimate reality : 'The Buddha-Self, the beginningless Self, the solid Self, the diamond Self'. These terms are applied in a manner which reflects the cataphatic approach to Buddhism, typical of much of Dolpopa's writings.[53]
Dolpopa further expressed the viewpoint that the Buddha-nature transcends the chain of dependent origination. It is not empty of its own ultimately real essence, but only of extraneous, transitory and relative phenomena.
Dr. Cyrus Stearns writes on Dolpopa's attitude to the 'third turning of the wheel' doctrines (i.e. the Buddha-nature teachings):
The Third Turning of the Dharma Wheel presented the teachings on the Buddha nature, which are the final definitive statements on the nature of ultimate reality, the primordial ground or substratum beyond the chain of dependent origination, and which is only empty of other, relative phenomena.'[54]
In the Ghanavyuha Sutra (as quoted by Longchenpa) this Buddha essence is said to be the ground of all things:
... the ultimate universal ground also has always been with the Buddha-Essence (Tathagatagarbha), and this essence in terms of the universal ground has been taught by the Tathagata. The fools who do not know it, because of their habits, see even the universal ground as (having) various happiness and suffering and actions and emotional defilements. Its nature is pure and immaculate, its qualities are as wishing-jewels; there are neither changes nor cessations. Whoever realizes it attains Liberation ...[55]


Rangtong only deals with conceivable mundane reality which is empty of svabhâva, or true nature. On the other hand, Shengtong, which Jonangpa champions, deals with inconceivable ultimate reality that is empty of adventitious maculate things.


yea all that is 100% True if there was a PDF of the Mountian doctrine I could provide you with literally thousands of references made to the True Self by Dolpopa(I think he collected the largest quotation on the subject thus far,the mountain doctrine is roughly 3/4 quotations and 1/4 commentary by Dolpopa)

he literally let the sutras/tantras speak for themselves and only added his commentary to sweeten the pot of explain in detail or add commentary to connect passages from different texts as one.

(His book was BANNED and made illegal to own by the guluks for a reason) :D

hey do you have the sutta name where the 5 pure aggregates are found. (I don't know anything about that topic) and I don't want to quote it unless I have done my homework on it.
Title: Re: Zhentong
Post by: songhill on July 08, 2013, 10:55:37 am

hey do you have the sutta name where the 5 pure aggregates are found. (I don't know anything about that topic) and I don't want to quote it unless I have done my homework on it.

They are:  M.i.145; S.i.139, S.v.162 (this one uses the term "aggregate"). 
Title: Re: Zhentong
Post by: namumahaparinirvanasvaha on July 16, 2013, 03:44:09 am
The primordial wisdom of emptiness is free of contrivance. It is truly and naturally present within our impure perception and consciousness. When dharmata is covered, obscured consciousness remains as temporary and removable, and the defilements are unreal. Therefore, it is said that ultimate truth is also freed from both extremes.

Because emptiness is truly established and all dharmas —like concepts within the range of subject and object— are unreal, ultimate truth is beyond the extremes of ‘is’ and ‘is not,’ eternalism and nihilism. Therefore, subjective and objective duality of the relative level is only deluded appearance. Because nothing is independently established, it is empty of self-nature. When divided into self and other, it is not possible to be another’s nature. Therefore, it is never non-emptiness. The nature of primordial wisdom is ever-present and never changes. For that reason, it is not empty of its nature; it is permanent.

Generally, if it is empty and emptiness, it need not be empty of its own nature. Primordial wisdom is empty of all contrivance and dualism which is other than its own nature. That is why it is empty.
Title: Re: Zhentong
Post by: songhill on July 16, 2013, 06:55:55 am
The primordial wisdom of emptiness is free of contrivance. It is truly and naturally present within our impure perception and consciousness. When dharmata is covered, obscured consciousness remains as temporary and removable, and the defilements are unreal. Therefore, it is said that ultimate truth is also freed from both extremes.

Because emptiness is truly established and all dharmas —like concepts within the range of subject and object— are unreal, ultimate truth is beyond the extremes of ‘is’ and ‘is not,’ eternalism and nihilism. Therefore, subjective and objective duality of the relative level is only deluded appearance. Because nothing is independently established, it is empty of self-nature. When divided into self and other, it is not possible to be another’s nature. Therefore, it is never non-emptiness. The nature of primordial wisdom is ever-present and never changes. For that reason, it is not empty of its nature; it is permanent.

Generally, if it is empty and emptiness, it need not be empty of its own nature. Primordial wisdom is empty of all contrivance and dualism which is other than its own nature. That is why it is empty.

I guess you could say that inferior emptiness is the lack or emptiness of âtman in the five skandhas. The highest emptiness is not empty of âtman but is empty of anâtman or what is not the self. I say this because svabhâva gradually became a substitute for âtman. We see this in the Heart Sutra which is really saying the five skandha are empty of self. In the early discourses sabhâva (Pali) is never once mentioned by the Buddha.  It only appears in later commentarial literature.
Title: Re: Zhentong
Post by: heybai on July 29, 2013, 03:04:59 am
I am a little (or more than a little) confused.   If a^tman is (is is akin to) Buddha Nature, how can the highest form of emptiness be atman?


(Don't know how to type in the diacritical marks over "a" in "atman.)
Title: Re: Zhentong
Post by: namumahaparinirvanasvaha on July 29, 2013, 08:23:17 am
I am a little (or more than a little) confused.   If a^tman is (is is akin to) Buddha Nature, how can the highest form of emptiness be atman?


(Don't know how to type in the diacritical marks over "a" in "atman.)

Emptiness in Shentong is viewed as a Negation(hence "other" Emptiness)
which is why it is said Buddha Wisdom/Enlightenment/True Self is "empty" of all defilements but it is not empty of itself (the proper term used is Not-Empty or empty of other)

since emptiness is an negation it really isn't akin to anything(but the junk that is being gotten rid of)

Title: Re: Zhentong
Post by: BlueSky on July 29, 2013, 08:26:43 am
And this shentong view has a big drawback.

Why?

Because emptiness doesn't not negate anything.

Heart sutra has said that:

Form is not other than emptiness. Emptiness is not other than Form.

Similarly,

Defilements is not other than buddha nature. Buddha nature is not other than defilements. Why?

Because the nature of defilements is the buddha nature itself.

That is criticize heavily by Mipham.

Emptiness does not negate anything.

Why?

Because emptiness is the nature of everything.

Title: Re: Zhentong
Post by: namumahaparinirvanasvaha on July 29, 2013, 08:35:16 am
And this shentong view has a big drawback.

Why?

Because emptiness doesn't not negate anything.

Heart sutra has said that:

Form is not other than emptiness. Emptiness is not other than Form.

Similarly,

Defilements is not other than buddha nature. Buddha nature is not other than defilements. Why?

Because the nature of defilements is the buddha nature itself.

That is criticize heavily by Mipham.

Emptiness does not negate anything.

Why?

Because emptiness is the nature of everything.

okay and where is that taught??
Title: Re: Zhentong
Post by: BlueSky on July 29, 2013, 08:39:37 am
Which taught?

You shall study Beacon of Certainty.

Emptiness cannot become negation.

Why?
Because emptiness is the nature. It is not negation.

Form is empty. Emptiness is form.

Emptiness does not negate form. Form does not negate emptiness.

Title: Re: Zhentong
Post by: namumahaparinirvanasvaha on July 29, 2013, 08:41:26 am
Which taught?

You shall study Beacon of Certainty.

Emptiness cannot become negation.

Why?
Because emptiness is the nature. It is not negation.

Form is empty. Emptiness is form.

Emptiness does not negate form. Form does not negate emptiness.

yes and in what text is that taught?????
Title: Re: Zhentong
Post by: BlueSky on July 29, 2013, 08:45:08 am
Beacon of Certainty.
Title: Re: Zhentong
Post by: heybai on July 29, 2013, 08:56:25 am
Which taught?

You shall study Beacon of Certainty.

Emptiness cannot become negation.

Why?
Because emptiness is the nature. It is not negation.

Form is empty. Emptiness is form.

Emptiness does not negate form. Form does not negate emptiness.

I have no idea what the "Beacon of Certainty", but you seem to be quoting/paraphrasing the Heart Sutra, which teaches that the aggregates are empty -- i.e. this is the teaching on anatta, non-self.

As I understand it, Zhentong goes a step further (or simply underscores the point of emptiness teaches) by point to the an absolute beyond emptiness:

"What is relative is empty of other-nature as well as empty of self- nature. What is ultimate is empty only of other nature. This way of teaching is called the Great Middle Way." (Taranatha).

Title: Re: Zhentong
Post by: heybai on July 29, 2013, 08:58:08 am
I am a little (or more than a little) confused.   If a^tman is (is is akin to) Buddha Nature, how can the highest form of emptiness be atman?


(Don't know how to type in the diacritical marks over "a" in "atman.)

Emptiness in Shentong is viewed as a Negation(hence "other" Emptiness)
which is why it is said Buddha Wisdom/Enlightenment/True Self is "empty" of all defilements but it is not empty of itself (the proper term used is Not-Empty or empty of other)

since emptiness is an negation it really isn't akin to anything(but the junk that is being gotten rid of)

Thanks.  I guess I understood that, but songhill's unique way of expressing the idea (if that is what he is doing) disarmed me.  :)
Title: Re: Zhentong
Post by: namumahaparinirvanasvaha on July 29, 2013, 09:09:49 am
Beacon of Certainty.
yea i'm guessing you are quoting from the heart sutra or another 2nd turning sutra.
apparently you didn't get what i was saying when I mentioned the Lotus sutra(2nd and 3rd chapters)
as you can see
"that view/understanding of emptiness being the highest" was shown to be skillful means and NOT Enlightenment :cheesy:

In chapter 2 of the Lotus Sutra those five thousand monks left because of their arrogance. In the next chapter Shariputra says,

"Formerly, I was attached to false views
And was a teacher of brahmans.
The Bhagavat, knowing my mind,
Removed the false views and taught nirvana.
I got rid of false views completely
And attained the teaching of emptiness.
At that time I considered myself
To have attained nirvana.
But now I have become aware
That this was not the real nirvana.
When I become a buddha
I shall be endowed with the thirty-two marks,
And be honored by devas, humans, yakṣas, and nāgas.
Only then can it be said that I have
Permanently attained nirvana without residue."


now before you even decide to post 2nd turning texts you might want to read their current position and understand that you are quoting skillful means

Chapt 1 LS 21
And so I know that now this present Buddha
is about to preach the Lotus Sutra.
The signs now are like those of the earlier auspicious portent,
this is an expedient means used by the Buddhas.
Now when the Buddha emits this beam of brightness
he is helping to reveal the meaning of the true entity of
phenomena.
Human beings now will come to know it

CHAPT 2 LS 26

The world-honored One has long expounded his doctrines
and now must reveal the truth.

CHAPT 7 pg 142 LS
The Buddhas through the power of expedient means
make distinctions and preach three vehicles,
but there is only the single Buddha vehicle--
the other two nirvanas are preached to provide a resting place.
Now I expound the truth for you-
what you have attained is not extinction.

CHAPT 3 LS pg 55
"Now you turn the wheel of the most wonderful,
the unsurpassed great Dharma.
This Dharma is very profound and abstruse;
there are few who can believe it.
Since times past often we have heard
the World-Honored One's preaching,
but we have never heard this kind of profound, wonderful and superior Dharma"

CHAPT 4 LS pg 86
delighting in and clinging to lesser doctrines. But today the World-Honored One causes us to ponder carefully, to cast aside such doctrines, the filth of frivolous debate.

"We were diligent and exerted ourselves in this matter until we had attained nirvana, which is like one day's wages. And once we had attained it, our hearts were filled with great joy and we considered that this was enough. At once we said to ourselves, "Because we have been diligent and exerted ourselves with regard to the Buddhist Dharma, we have gained this breadth and wealth of understanding."

"But the World-Honored One, knowing from past times how our minds cling to unworthy desires and delight in lesser doctrines, pardoned us and let us be, not trying to explain to us by saying, You will come to possess the insight of the Tathagata, your portion of the store of treasures!' Instead the World-Honored One employed the power of expedient means, preaching to us the wisdom of the Tathagata in such a way that we might heed the Buddha and attain nirvana, which is only day's wages. And because we considered this to be a great gain, we had no wish to pursue the Great Vehicle.

"In addition, though we expounded and set forth the Buddha wisdom for the sake of the Bodhisattvas, we ourselves did not aspire to attain it. Why do I say this? Because the Buddha, knowing that our minds delight in lesser doctrines, employed the power of expedient means to preach in a way that was appropriate for us. So we did not know that we were in truth the sons of the Buddha. But now at least we know it.

(PS) sorry it took so long to reply this info takes time to find and present.
Title: Re: Zhentong
Post by: namumahaparinirvanasvaha on July 29, 2013, 09:12:06 am
Which taught?

You shall study Beacon of Certainty.

Emptiness cannot become negation.

Why?
Because emptiness is the nature. It is not negation.

Form is empty. Emptiness is form.

Emptiness does not negate form. Form does not negate emptiness.

I have no idea what the "Beacon of Certainty", but you seem to be quoting/paraphrasing the Heart Sutra, which teaches that the aggregates are empty -- i.e. this is the teaching on anatta, non-self.

As I understand it, Zhentong goes a step further (or simply underscores the point of emptiness teaches) by point to the an absolute beyond emptiness:

"What is relative is empty of other-nature as well as empty of self- nature. What is ultimate is empty only of other nature. This way of teaching is called the Great Middle Way." (Taranatha).

 :jinsyx: :jinsyx: :jinsyx:
Title: Re: Zhentong
Post by: namumahaparinirvanasvaha on July 29, 2013, 09:45:00 am
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. 


[Nirvana Sutra]
V224.   "How can the Tathagata be one eternal and unchanging?" O Kasyapa! One who reproaches me thus commits slander, which is wrong. O Kasyapa! You must not entertain such a notion and say that the nature of the Tathagata perishes. O Kasyapa! We do not place the annihilation of illusion in the category of matter [rupa]. Why not? Because of the fact of the ultimacy of Eternity. Hence, we say Eternal. [Nirvanic] quietude has nothing to supercede it. All phenomenal existences are done away with, with nothing remaining. This indicates what is fresh, clear, eternal, and unretrogressive. That is why we say that Nirvana is eternal. It is the same with the Tathagata. He is eternal, with no change. "Stars sweep". This refers to illusion. Once swept, all is gone and no trace remains of any existence. This indicates that all Tathagatas are those who have done away with illusion and are no longer in the five realms. This means that the Tathagata is one eternal and that there is no change [with him]. Also next, O Kasyapa! It is the Dharma which is the teacher of all Buddhas. Hence, the Tathagata respectfully makes offerings. As the Dharma is eternal, so too are all Buddhas eternal."

V225.   Bodhisattva Kasyapa said again to the Buddha: "If the flame of illusion dies out, the Tathagata must also die out. This indicates that there can be no ground where the Tathagata is eternal. This is similar to the situation in which hot iron slag can no longer be seen when the red colour disappears. The same with the Tathagata and illusion. Gone, there is no other pace to go to. And it is like the case of iron. The heat and the red colour gone, there remains nothing to be seen. The same with the Tathagata. Once extinguished, what remains is non-eternal. The fire of illusion done away with, he enters Nirvana. This tells us that the Tathagata is non-eternal." "O good man! The iron you speak of refers to common mortals. Illusion done away with, the common mortal comes about again. That is why we say non-eternal. This is not the case with the Tathagata. Gone, there is no coming about. Hence, eternal." Kasyapa further said to the Buddha: "If we place the colour-robbed iron back into the fire, the red colour will return. It it is thus with the Tathgata, illusion will again form. If illusion again forms, this is nothing but the non-eternal." V226.   The Buddha said: "O Kasyapa! Do not say that the Tathagata is non-eternal. Why not? Because the Tathagata is one Eternal. O good man! When wood is burnt, extinction comes about, and there remain behind the ashes. When illusion is done away with, there remains Nirvana. All such parables as of the torn garment, beheading and broken earthenware enunciate the same truth. All such things have such names as torn garment, beheading, and broken earthenware. O Kasyapa! The iron that has become cold can be made hot again. But this is not the case with the Tathagata. Illusion once done away with, what there is is utmost purity and coolness. The blazing flame never comes back again. O Kasyapa! Know that the situation of innumerable beings is like that of the iron. With the blazing fire of Wisdom free from the “asravas” [defilements], I now burn off the bonds of illusion of all beings."

V251.   Kasyapa said further: "O Tathagata! Why do we say eternal? You, the Buddha, say that when the light of a lamp has gone out, there is no direction or place to be named [as to where it has gone]. The same is the case with the Tathagata. Once dead, there can be no direction or place that can be named." The Buddha said: "O Kasyapa! You should not say: "When the light of a lamp has gone out, there is not direction or place to be named. The same is the case with the Tathagata. When there is extinction, there can be no direction or place to be named." O good man! When a lamp is lit by a man or woman, any lamp, big or small, [has to be] filled with oil. When there is oil [there], the lamp keeps alight. When the oil is spent, the light also disappears, along with it. That light going out can be compared to the extinction of illusion. Although the light has gone out, the utensil [vessel, lamp-holder] remains behind. The same is the case with the Tathagata. Although illusion has gone, the Dharma-Body remains forever. O good man! What does this mean? Does it mean that both the light and and the lamp disappear? Is it so?"

V291.   "Also, emancipation is the not-empty. For example, the body of bamboo and reed is empty inside. This is not the case with emancipation. Know that emancipation is the Tathagata.


V307.   "Moreover, emancipation is termed that which severs all conditioned phenomena [samskrta-dharmas], gives rise to all untainted [anasrava], wholseome qualities / phenomena and eliminates the various paths/ approaches, that is to say, Self, non-Self, not-Self and not non-Self. It merely severs attachment and does not sever the view of the Self/ the seeing of the Self/ the vision of the Self [atma-drsti]. The view of the Self is termed the 'Buddha-dhatu' [Buddha-Nature]. The Buddha-dhatu is true emancipation, and true emancipation is the Tathagata.
V308.   "Also, emancipation is the "not-empty-empty". "Empty-empty" is non-possession. Non-possession is the emancipation which the tirthikas and Nirgrantha Jnatiputras [Jains] presume upon [base themselves upon]. But, in truth, the Nirgranthas do not possess emancipation. So we say "empty-empty". Not-empty-empty is true emancipation. True emancipation is the Tathagata.
"Also, emancipation is the "not-empty". The pot in which we put water, drink, milk, cream, butter, honey, etc., can well be called the water pot and suchlike, even when there is no water, drink, cream, butter, honey or any other thing in it. And yet, we cannot say that the pot is either empty or not-empty. If we say empty, there cannot be any colour, smell, taste or touch. If we say not-empty, what we see is that there is nothing in it such as water, drink or any other thing. We can say neither matter ["rupa"] nor non-matter ["arupa"]; we can say neither empty nor not-empty. If we say empty, there can be no Eternity, Bliss, Self, and Purity. If not-empty, who is the one blessed with Eternity, Bliss, Self, and Purity? Thus, we should say neither empty nor not-empty. Empty will entail [the notion] that the 25 existences, all illusions, suffering, the phases of life, and all actual actions do not exist. When there is no cream in the pot, we may say empty. Not-empty points to Truth, to whatever is Good, Eternal, Bliss, Self, Pure, Immovable and Unchanging. It is as in the case of taste and touch regarding the pot. That is why we say not-empty. In consequence, we may say that emancipation is as in the case of the pot. The pot will break in certain circumstances. But this is not so with emancipation. It cannot break. What is indestructible is true emancipation. True emancipation is the Tathagata.

371.   "A person [might] say that all gets extinguished, implying that the entrance of the Tathagata into Nirvana constitutes extinction.
"A person [might] say that all is non-eternal, meaning that even Nirvana is non-eternal, and the same with suffering, void, and non-self too. That is why we say that such is non-grasping of the import of the sutras. One cannot depend upon such. O good man! There might be a person who says that the Tathagata, pitying all beings, looks to what is apt for the occasion. As he knows what is right for the occasion, he speaks of what is light as heavy and what is heavy as light.
Title: Re: Zhentong
Post by: songhill on July 29, 2013, 12:59:03 pm
The Buddha’s definition in the Small Emptiness Sutra (MA 191 {Chinese}) goes as follows:

Quote
Ananda, that which is not there, I view that [remainder] as empty [of it], but what remains there, I view that as really existing.  Ananda, this is called practising true emptiness. (Brackets are mine.)

Clearing this up a bit to make the notion of emptiness more concise and understandable, the Buddha is saying, for example, that in this lonely forest, that which is not there such as a village full of people, I view [the lonely forest] as really existing [the village doesn’t].  We learn from this that emptiness doesn’t mean absolutely nothing.  Asanga says of emptiness rightly understood:

Quote
“Wherever and in whatever place [e.g., a jar] something is not [cookies], one rightly observes that place [a jar] to be empty of that thing [cookies]. (Brackets and slight modifcation from the original are mine, Janice Dean Willis, On Knowing Reality, p. 117.)

Emptiness can only be correctly understood in relative terms. There is no emptiness without there first being something such as a plot of land, a wallet, or mind that can be empty of something, say a house, money or adventitioius defilements.  It is, therefore, impossible to negate everything away so that what remains is the impossibility of anything, including a real Buddha-nature and real nirvana.  This leads directly to nihilism in which a nihilist believes in the nothingness of everything.
Title: Re: Zhentong
Post by: BlueSky on July 29, 2013, 05:51:24 pm

"What is relative is empty of other-nature as well as empty of self- nature. What is ultimate is empty only of other nature. This way of teaching is called the Great Middle Way." (Taranatha).

As long as emptiness is proposed as negation, it is a mistake.

Form does not negate emptiness, emptiness does nit negate form.

What is ultimate cannot be eempty of only others, because the scope of ultimate also include those others.

That is why it can be called ultimate.
Title: Re: Zhentong
Post by: songhill on July 29, 2013, 06:26:09 pm

"What is relative is empty of other-nature as well as empty of self- nature. What is ultimate is empty only of other nature. This way of teaching is called the Great Middle Way." (Taranatha).

As long as emptiness is proposed as negation, it is a mistake.

Form does not negate emptiness, emptiness does nit negate form.

What is ultimate cannot be eempty of only others, because the scope of ultimate also include those others.

That is why it can be called ultimate.

Form is like the empty cookie jar, it is empty of peanut Buddha svabhâva cookies. :D In the commentary to this, according to Vimalamitra, emptiness of form means the emptiness of  the city of gandharvas, hence, also like the emptiness of a dream, or of the moon in the water. Positing emptiness as something in its own right would we reifying it. This is a no-no.
Title: Re: Zhentong
Post by: heybai on July 29, 2013, 11:03:33 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
Title: Re: Zhentong
Post by: Optimus Prime 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.
Title: Re: Zhentong
Post by: BlueSky 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.

Title: Re: Zhentong
Post by: namumahaparinirvanasvaha 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.
Title: Re: Zhentong
Post by: namumahaparinirvanasvaha 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 (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.
Title: Re: Zhentong
Post by: songhill 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.
Title: Re: Zhentong
Post by: BlueSky on July 31, 2013, 07:30:14 pm
Blue Sky you are also contradicting yourself concerning the topic of Emptiness.
[url]http://www.freesangha.com/forums/general-buddhism-discussion/sabbe-dhamma-anatta/msg64818/#msg64818[/url] ([url]http://www.freesangha.com/forums/general-buddhism-discussion/sabbe-dhamma-anatta/msg64818/#msg64818[/url])

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?


Title: Re: Zhentong
Post by: namumahaparinirvanasvaha 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?
Title: Re: Zhentong
Post by: santamonicacj 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.
Title: Re: Zhentong
Post by: songhill 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.
Title: Re: Zhentong
Post by: namumahaparinirvanasvaha 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)
Title: Re: Zhentong
Post by: Caz 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:
Title: Re: Zhentong
Post by: namumahaparinirvanasvaha 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?
Title: Re: Zhentong
Post by: namumahaparinirvanasvaha 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.

Title: Re: Zhentong
Post by: namumahaparinirvanasvaha 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.
Title: Re: Zhentong
Post by: heybai on August 19, 2013, 05:11:16 am
Time for a Rime?
http://www.rimebuddhism.com/tradition_rime.html (http://www.rimebuddhism.com/tradition_rime.html)
Title: Re: Zhentong
Post by: Caz on August 20, 2013, 01:59:48 pm
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?

Yes I stated that the mode of existence is being negated...The mode of existence being Inherent existence.
The Second quote follows in suit that enlightenment exists but not Inherently.

For enlightenment to exist Inherently as suggested is maddening, Nothing can exist Inherently/ from its own side. A phenomena being permanent and Inherent are two totally different things as is often the case for confusion.

If Enlightenment is Inherent & subsequently grasped at as Inherent it is a cause for the arising of Self grasping & mistaken awareness. How can such a view be a cause of enlightenment when its very foundation is a cause for the development of delusion ?

 
Title: Re: Zhentong
Post by: Caz on August 20, 2013, 02:02:07 pm
Time for a Rime?
[url]http://www.rimebuddhism.com/tradition_rime.html[/url] ([url]http://www.rimebuddhism.com/tradition_rime.html[/url])


Practicing different lineages is fine if one wants to but as an attempt to denigrate the view of Je Tsongkhapa to fall in line with the rest would be a corruption !  :ishift:
Title: Re: Zhentong
Post by: namumahaparinirvanasvaha on August 20, 2013, 06:42:18 pm
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?

Yes I stated that the mode of existence is being negated...The mode of existence being Inherent existence.
The Second quote follows in suit that enlightenment exists but not Inherently.

For enlightenment to exist Inherently as suggested is maddening, Nothing can exist Inherently/ from its own side. A phenomena being permanent and Inherent are two totally different things as is often the case for confusion.

If Enlightenment is Inherent & subsequently grasped at as Inherent it is a cause for the arising of Self grasping & mistaken awareness. How can such a view be a cause of enlightenment when its very foundation is a cause for the development of delusion ?
I asked you earlier if Enlightenment was dependently originated.....so is it?

(remember whatever does not inherently exist,....only exists based on its dependence of something else.
However if its existence is unborn,and does not arise from anything else it is termed unconditioned and known as That which is inherently existant.)
Title: Re: Zhentong
Post by: heybai on August 20, 2013, 10:54:38 pm
Time for a Rime?
[url]http://www.rimebuddhism.com/tradition_rime.html[/url] ([url]http://www.rimebuddhism.com/tradition_rime.html[/url])


Practicing different lineages is fine if one wants to but as an attempt to denigrate the view of Je Tsongkhapa to fall in line with the rest would be a corruption !  :ishift:


The point of the nineteenth-century Rime movement was too discover common ground.  As I understand it, it is an approach that is meant to be respectful of all views.

Re:

Quote
Most scholars of Buddhism explain Rimé as an "eclectic movement",[4][5][6] however one scholar has suggested that this is an inadequate rendering, saying "In fact this Rimé movement was not exactly eclectic but universalistic (and encyclopaedic), rimed (pa) (the antonym of risu ch'edpa) meaning unbounded, all-embracing, unlimited, and also impartial."[7] One of the most prominent contemporary Rimé masters, Ringu Tulku, emphasizes the message of the original Rimé founders, that Rimé is not a new school.[8] It is simply an approach allowing freedom of choice which was always the majority practice within the history of Tibetan Buddhism. The Karmapas, Je Tsongkhapa, the Dalai Lamas, Sakya lineage heads and major Nyingma and Kagyu figures took teachings and empowerments from various schools and lineages.
The movement's name is derived from two Tibetan words: Ris (bias, side) and Med (lack), which combined expresses the idea of openness to other Tibetan Buddhist traditions, as opposed to sectarianism. The Rimé movement therefore is often misunderstood as trying to unite the various sects through their similarities, which was not the case. Rimé was intended to recognize the differences between traditions and appreciate them, while also establishing a dialogue which would create common ground. It is considered important that variety be preserved, and therefore Rimé teachers are generally quite careful to emphasize differences in thought, giving students many options as to how to proceed in their spiritual training.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rim%C3%A9_movement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rim%C3%A9_movement)
Title: Re: Zhentong
Post by: namumahaparinirvanasvaha on August 21, 2013, 10:14:29 am
Rime teachers always pick one view either Rantong or Shentong
the common ground they find is the obvious which both views agree on and that is that Realitive Phenomena is empty of its own inherent existence.

where both views cannot reach common ground on is that they have opposite views concering Enlightenment.
One claims Enlightenment has no inherent existence(its existence is dependent upon something else).......The Other claims Enlightenment has an Inherent existence(it has always existed inherent unto itself)

in my meager experience Rime teachers have not found a common ground but instead have argued and heard argued both positions so many times that they already know the answers that are going to be given by their opponents,so they see arguments on the position as futile.................But in the end the Rime teacher always picks one view.(either Rantong or Shentong)

otherwise there would be a new view called RAsentong that only Rimes follow.

now if a person is Rime cause he disagrees with another Buddhists view but still accepts them as Buddhists and brothers then we are all Rime
Title: Re: Zhentong
Post by: Caz on August 21, 2013, 11:42:03 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?

Yes I stated that the mode of existence is being negated...The mode of existence being Inherent existence.
The Second quote follows in suit that enlightenment exists but not Inherently.

For enlightenment to exist Inherently as suggested is maddening, Nothing can exist Inherently/ from its own side. A phenomena being permanent and Inherent are two totally different things as is often the case for confusion.

If Enlightenment is Inherent & subsequently grasped at as Inherent it is a cause for the arising of Self grasping & mistaken awareness. How can such a view be a cause of enlightenment when its very foundation is a cause for the development of delusion ?
I asked you earlier if Enlightenment was dependently originated.....so is it?

(remember whatever does not inherently exist,....only exists based on its dependence of something else.
However if its existence is unborn,and does not arise from anything else it is termed unconditioned and known as That which is inherently existant.)

Engaging in these discussions is always a good way to refine my own understanding I took the question to my Sangha and had a good response.

Enlightenment, once attained, is permanent. i.e. we cannot become unenlightened. However enlightenment is a state of mind. mind is dependent related, and is therefore empty of inherent existence.. In fact nothing at all is inherently existent. Even if there were inherently existent things we would not be able to interact with them as interaction is dependent related (empty)
Title: Re: Zhentong
Post by: namumahaparinirvanasvaha on August 22, 2013, 08:11:36 pm
Okay Caz so Enlightenment as you say is dependently related/dependently originated.

(1)So can you now please tell me what is the root of the 12 links of dependent origination.

(2)is Enlightenment conditioned or unconditioned.?
Title: Re: Zhentong
Post by: Caz on August 23, 2013, 05:10:32 pm
Okay Caz so Enlightenment as you say is dependently related/dependently originated.

(1)So can you now please tell me what is the root of the 12 links of dependent origination.

(2)is Enlightenment conditioned or unconditioned.?

1. Ignorance gives rise to Samsara :) Key word being Samsara.
2. Let me ask and I'll get back to you on that one.

:)
Title: Re: Zhentong
Post by: heybai on August 23, 2013, 05:32:08 pm
Unconditioned, Caz.
Title: Re: Zhentong
Post by: BlueSky on August 23, 2013, 08:09:06 pm
Quote from: namumahaparinirvanasvaha
(2)is Enlightenment conditioned or unconditioned.?

Conditioned is extreme.
Unconditioned is extreme.

Only when you can be beyond these 2, your enquiry will be stop and everything runs in harmony without the dirt of conditioned or unconditioned.
Title: Re: Zhentong
Post by: heybai on August 23, 2013, 08:46:09 pm
Unconditioned is not extreme.  It is the transcendent value of the Middle Way:

"If everything were empty, there would be no arising and perishing. From the
letting go of and ceasing of what could one assert nirvana?

If everything were not empty, there would be no arising and perishing. From the
letting go of and ceasing of what could one assert nirvana?

No letting go, no attainment, no annihilation, no permanence, no cessation, no
birth: that is spoken of as nirvana.

 Nirvana is not a thing. Then it would follow that it would have the characteristics
of aging and death. There does not exist any thing that is without aging and death.

If nirvana were a thing, nirvana would be a conditioned phenomenon. There does
not exist any thing anywhere that is not a conditioned phenomenon.

If nirvana were a thing, how would nirvana not be dependent? There does not
exists any thing at all that is not dependent.

If nirvana were not a thing, how could it possibly be nothing? The one for whom
nirvana is not a thing, for him it is not nothing.

If nirvana were nothing, how could nirvana possibly be not dependent? There
does not exist any nothing which is not dependent.

Whatever things come and go are dependent or caused. Not being dependent and
not being caused is taught to be Nirvana. "

-- Nagarjuna, "Investigation of Nirvana," verses 1-9, Fundamental Verses on the Middle Way (trans. Stephen A. Batchelor)


 :dharma:
Title: Re: Zhentong
Post by: BlueSky on August 23, 2013, 08:58:46 pm
THe problem with unconditioned is people conditioned the unconditioned.

How do people conditioned the unconditioned?
1. By giving names to it - this is unconditioned.
2. By giving definition to it - unconditioned is not affecting by anything.

If you truly know the meaning of unconditioned, you shall know that actually unconditioned does not have a name, and cannot be given a name even as unconditioned.

Because if you do so, you have conditioned the unconditioned with name and definition.

It means the unconditioned can by affected with name or definition or description.

Go beyond samsara and nirvana.
Go beyond conditioned and unconditioned.

THese 4 are concepts:
THe concept of samsara.
THe concept of nirvana.
The concept of conditioned.
The concept of unconditioned.

As long as it can be discussed, it is concept.

As long as you are within the domain of concept, you are not beyond that one.

But once you are beyond the domain of concept, you are free from:
the concept of samsara,
The concept of nirvana,
The concept of conditioned.
the concept of unconditioned.

Gate gate paragate parasamgata bodhi svaha.

Go beyond everything without any stains no matter how holly it looks like.

Everything will be crystal clear without the swing of what is this, what is that?

Clear, stable, crazy, and peace.
Title: Re: Zhentong
Post by: heybai on August 23, 2013, 10:14:15 pm
Yes, the unconditioned is beyond language and concepts and fabrication, but as we have implicitly agreed to discuss it on an internet forum, words (and youtube?) are the best we can do.

In any case, we have strayed long from the OP -- zhentong.
Title: Re: Zhentong
Post by: Caz on August 24, 2013, 06:34:15 am
Unconditioned, Caz.

Indeed.

I think it depends on how you look at it. From the point of view of the Wisdom Truth Body, which is Buddha's omniscient mind, it's a functioning thing and conditioned. If it weren't, living beings wouldn't receive help and blessings from Buddha. From the point of view of the Nature Body, which is an ultimate true cessation and the emptiness of Buddha's mind, it's unconditioned.
Title: Re: Zhentong
Post by: songhill on August 24, 2013, 09:21:43 am
Speaking of the unconditioned (asamskrita) let's see what the Lankavatara Sutra has to say on this important subject.

Quote
"That which is neither an effect nor a cause is something unconditioned. That which is unconditioned goes beyond all idle reasonings. That which goes beyond all idle reasonings, that is the Tathagata."



Title: Re: Zhentong
Post by: namumahaparinirvanasvaha on August 24, 2013, 02:32:40 pm
Quote
Caz
1. Ignorance gives rise to Samsara :) Key word being Samsara.
Ignorance gives rise to ALL of dependent origination,so if Enlightenment is dependently originated then it would have to arise from Ignorance

So does Enlightenment arise from Ignorance?

(if it doesnt then its not dependently arisen,and if its not dependently arisen/conditioned then it is not arisen at all,hence its existience is not dependent upon anything other than itself= Inherent existence)

Quote
Caz
2. Unconditioned
Enlightenment is Unconditioned which means it is not conditioned/dependent on anything else.

If Enlightenment is not inherently existent then its existence would be dependent upon something else........so what does everything that is dependently originated arise from?
Everything that is dependently originated arises from ignorance.
So again does Enlightenment arise from ignorance?(one of the 3 poisons the Buddha doesnt have)?

If the Enlightenment doesnt dependently arise from ignorance then Enlightenments existence is inherent upon itself.



Title: Re: Zhentong
Post by: BlueSky on August 25, 2013, 11:21:53 pm
Quote from: namumahaparinirvanasvaha
Ignorance gives rise to ALL of dependent origination,so if Enlightenment is dependently originated then it would have to arise from Ignorance

Ignorance gives rise to dependent origination???

Whether you are ignorant or not, the tree still grows from the seed.

And the tree still grows from the seed after you realize your enlightenment.

Title: Re: Zhentong
Post by: namumahaparinirvanasvaha on August 26, 2013, 03:27:20 am
Quote from: namumahaparinirvanasvaha
Ignorance gives rise to ALL of dependent origination,so if Enlightenment is dependently originated then it would have to arise from Ignorance

Ignorance gives rise to dependent origination???

Whether you are ignorant or not, the tree still grows from the seed.

And the tree still grows from the seed after you realize your enlightenment.

Yes Ignorance gives rise to dependent origination......this is actually one of the few things both Mahayana and Thervadan canons agree on.
Title: Re: Zhentong
Post by: songhill on August 26, 2013, 08:19:16 am
Quote from: namumahaparinirvanasvaha
Ignorance gives rise to ALL of dependent origination,so if Enlightenment is dependently originated then it would have to arise from Ignorance

Ignorance gives rise to dependent origination???

Whether you are ignorant or not, the tree still grows from the seed.

And the tree still grows from the seed after you realize your enlightenment.

Yes Ignorance gives rise to dependent origination......this is actually one of the few things both Mahayana and Thervadan canons agree on.

A few years ago I came across this passage which is from the Avatamsaka Sutra: “everything in the Triple Realm is due to Mind” and “the twelve links of conditioned origination are all dependent on the One Mind (Cheng Chien, Manifestation of a Tathagata, ix). (Emphasis is mine.)

Title: Re: Zhentong
Post by: BlueSky on August 26, 2013, 07:40:35 pm
Depending on your realization.

If you want to say that ignorance give rise to dependent arising, this also can.

However, those who understand such statement, will not see enlightenment or ordinary.
They won't see nirvana nor samsara.
They won't see buddha nor ordinary.
They won't see mind nor non-mind.
They won't see cause and effect.

If we can say ignorance gives rise to dependent arising, but still have those notion of mind, nirvana, samsara, enlightenment, cause, effect and so on, then they do not understand what they are talking about.

Reality by nature has no cause and effect even right now.
There is no mind and no reality even right now.
There is never ever been an ignorance even for an instant.

But, if you are disagree with this, you are not yet at the level that can say ignorance give rise to dependent arising.
Title: Re: Zhentong
Post by: namumahaparinirvanasvaha on August 27, 2013, 01:25:24 pm
Quote from: namumahaparinirvanasvaha
Ignorance gives rise to ALL of dependent origination,so if Enlightenment is dependently originated then it would have to arise from Ignorance

Ignorance gives rise to dependent origination???

Whether you are ignorant or not, the tree still grows from the seed.

And the tree still grows from the seed after you realize your enlightenment.

Yes Ignorance gives rise to dependent origination......this is actually one of the few things both Mahayana and Thervadan canons agree on.

A few years ago I came across this passage which is from the Avatamsaka Sutra: “everything in the Triple Realm is due to Mind” and “the twelve links of conditioned origination are all dependent on the One Mind (Cheng Chien, Manifestation of a Tathagata, ix). (Emphasis is mine.)

yea other sutras say the same thing Surangama sutra states everything arises/originates from suchness

the Infinite life sutra states everything arises from the Tathagata.
Title: Re: Zhentong
Post by: namumahaparinirvanasvaha on August 27, 2013, 01:31:38 pm
Depending on your realization.

If you want to say that ignorance give rise to dependent arising, this also can.

However, those who understand such statement, will not see enlightenment or ordinary.
They won't see nirvana nor samsara.
They won't see buddha nor ordinary.
They won't see mind nor non-mind.
They won't see cause and effect.

If we can say ignorance gives rise to dependent arising, but still have those notion of mind, nirvana, samsara, enlightenment, cause, effect and so on, then they do not understand what they are talking about.

Reality by nature has no cause and effect even right now.
There is no mind and no reality even right now.
There is never ever been an ignorance even for an instant.

But, if you are disagree with this, you are not yet at the level that can say ignorance give rise to dependent arising.

 "you are not yet at the level"
So when the Buddha said this in numerous Suttas and Sutras he must of not been at that level right? :lmfao:

yea good luck with that.

I know I have already asked you to prove your statements in the past to no avail........but I will ask again you got any proof for anything you post??
Title: Re: Zhentong
Post by: heybai on August 28, 2013, 06:26:18 am
But, if you are disagree with this, you are not yet at the level that can say ignorance give rise to dependent arising.

I am clearly no where near your level, Blue Sky.

 :)
Title: Re: Zhentong
Post by: Matibhadra on July 29, 2016, 06:13:28 pm
Quote
The main problem with Rangtong, it's emptiness without positive implication

“Emptiness without positive implication” means that something's emptiness does not imply something else's non-emptiness, not something's non-existence.

Quote
which, in a nutshell, is nihilism.

Rather, it is just your faulty understanding.

Quote
Shengtong, on the other hand can agree that conditioned or composed things are empty of own-nature. But this doesn't preclude the unconditioned or the same, the absolute which, in this case, would be empty of conditionality.

If an unconditioned, or an absolute, is empty of conditionality, it cannot be different from the conditioned, or the relative, because being different is a relative condition, and conditional on what it is different from.

Since an unconditioned, or an absolute, is neither the same as nor different from the conditioned, or the relative, it follows that is does not exist, like the child of the barren woman, or the rabbit's horn, or the turtle's hair.

Quote
Shentong has it right. Rangtong falls into nihilism.

Other-emptiness falls both into the extreme of eternalism, with its ludicrous notion of an absolute or unconditioned, and into the extreme nihilism, with its faulty understanding of the emptiness of the conditioned.
SimplePortal 2.3.3 © 2008-2010, SimplePortal