John Tan and I will join this course
Also, some previous discussions about Robert Thurman: Dogen, Gorampa, Tsongkhapa, +A and -A Emptiness
John Tan
Om1hc24tt11oSber 28 00at t4i5612:3so7 P1arfeMd ·
I wonder why I can't find any article on the internet comparing Dogen's and Tsongkhapa's thoughts.
If both masters were to meet to discuss their practice philosophies of
"mere existence" and total exertion, a gem masterpiece on non-dual
epistemology of the 3 times will surely emerge.
I maybe completely wrong 🤣 but if anyone can find any article linking both of their thoughts, pls leave a note here.
43 Comments
Liu Zhi Guan
No fan of Gorampa?🤔
1
·
Reply
· 1d
John Tan
Gorampa is more on the exhaustion of the conventional into freedom from
all elaborations. I classified it under the -A of emptiness in ATR
context.
2
·
Reply
· 1d
Liu Zhi Guan
John Tan I see,though afaik Gorampa's presentation of Madhyamika
adheres more to the original Nagarjuna's Madhyamika, whereas Gelug or
prasangika Madhyamika is more of Tibetan formulation by Tsongkhapa
·
Reply
· 1d
John Tan
Liu Zhi Guan True in certain sense but Nagarjuna's Madhyamaka also
evolved over time from India toTibet before it became the present day
Prasangika Madhyamaka. So imo we should also not undermine the
creativity and insights of Tsongkhapa.
1
·
Reply
· 1d
·
Edited
Liu Zhi Guan
John Tan I concur. Tsongkhapa was certainly a great Buddhist meditator and scholar.
1
·
Reply
· 1d
Liu Zhi Guan
John Tan one question I have in mind:Is the purpose of koan to achieve
the exhaustion of the conventional into freedom from all
elaborations,albeit with different approach from Madhyamika?
·
Reply
· 10h
John Tan
Liu Zhi Guan Zen koans relate more to the direct pointing of one's
radiance clarity whereas mmk is abt letting the mind sees it's own
fabrications and allowing it to free itself from all elaborations (non
Gelug) or free itself from all fabrications (Gelug). The most crucial
insight of both Gelug and non Gelug (imo) is to let the mind realizes
the primordial purity (emptiness) nature of both mind/phenomena.
Although Mipham treated gelug's freedom from self nature as categorized
ultimate, I can only tell u I disagree. Both are able to achieve their
objectives (imo). In fact if u were to ask for my sincere opinion, I
prefer freedom from self nature (Gelug) as if understood properly and
with experiential insight, it will lead to both +A and -A of emptiness.
If we were to treat the conventional (conceptuality) as the cause of
ignorance, it prevents some very valuable insights that will take
probably a lot of time to detail out. I will not go too detail into
that.
In short seeing through intrinsic existence will similarly
allow practitioners to see through conceptual constructs
(non-conceptualities), see through duality (non-dual) and substantiality
(essencelessness). Phenomena lack of self-nature also lacks sameness or
difference, therefore their primordially purity will likewise be
realized and selflessness also results in natural spontaneity; yet
because practitioners put freedom from self-nature at a higher order,
they will not be bounded by either conceptualities or
non-conceptualities and are free to explore both.
1
·
Reply
· 7h
·
Edited
Liu Zhi Guan
John Tan I see,perhaps what I had in mind earlier was actually huatou,which afaik is meant to break mental profilerations?
Also may you elaborate on the diff btw free from all elaboration and
fabrications? Is it that the former break all forms of conceptualities
to realize the ineffable state,while the latter still allows for
conceptualities but utilizes it to break conceptualities itself?
·
Reply
· 3h
John Tan
Liu Zhi Guan Huatou does not actually "break" as in "seeing through"
mental proliferations imo but it does immobilizes the conceptual mind
and allows a sudden leap from the conceptual into the non-conceptual
where one authenticates the original face directly. Realising how one's
mind proliferates is different from realizing our original face.
U
can take freedom from all elaborations as freedom from conceptualities
and free from fabrications as freedom from superimposing
self-nature/intrinsic existence on mind/phenomena.
1
·
Reply
· 3h
·
Edited
Edmond Cigale
Now that would be an interesting discussion for sure. A tantric and a zen master...
👍👍
1
·
Reply
· 1d
John Tan
Edmond Cigale indeed. 👍 But definitely beyond me. I just hope there r articles abt it.
1
·
Reply
· 1d
Edmond Cigale
John Robert Thurman is a great scholar and writes about Je Tsongkhapa.
He does write (or talk) about Mahayana, maybe about zen as well...
1
·
Reply
· 1d
John Tan
Edmond Cigale Definitely will be interesting if he publishes a book on
them since he is so well-versed in Zen and Tsongkhapa's philosophy.👍
1
·
Reply
· 1d
·
Edited
Edmond Cigale
John write him.
🙂
2
·
Reply
· 1d
John Tan
Edmond Cigale lol..
1
·
Reply
· 1d
Michael Hernandez
John Tan I'll write him. I've written to presidents, house speakers ECT.
What exactly would you want me to ask?
1
·
Reply
· 1d
Edmond Cigale
Michael very good!
Actually, I wasn't joking. It would be worth while exploring the topics, especially with your empirical background, John.
👍👍
2
·
Reply
· 1d
Michael Hernandez
Edmond Cigale
Yes, I'm not joking either.
1
·
Reply
· 1d
Edmond Cigale
Michael 👍👍👍
·
Reply
· 1d
John Tan
Michael Hernandez sorry let me finish my candy crush first. Too many rewards.😁🤣
2
·
Reply
· 1d
Michael Hernandez
Edmond Cigale I wrote President Trump in the spring around 2017 advising him to take action on North Korea.
However the action taken wasn't what I had in mind.
1
·
Reply
· 1d
John Tan
Michael Hernandez Actually nothing in particular...lol. I believe u
know ATR well and probably about the +A and -A version of emptiness in
ATR.
To me, Gorampa and Mipham are more on exhaustion of the
conventional into freedom from all elaborations. I classify it under the
-A of emptiness in ATR context.
Tsongkhapa on the other hand
embraced the conventional wholeheartedly into freedom from all
fabrications (fabrication as in attachment to intrinsic existence). I
classify it under the +A of emptiness in ATR context. This is very
similar to Dogen's total exertion.
Ippo-gujin (total exertion), I
will define here as wholehearted engagement in the mundane activities
of everydayness of everyday, essentially no different from bahiya sutta
of in the seen just the seen. In this actualisation, entire "body mind
environment universe" is one participation without any need to subsume
into an all encompassing substantial non-dual awareness; instead all
conventional diversities are fully intact yet miraculously involved in a
harmonious unity.
When I read Tsongkhapa's thought somehow I can
relate quite easily with my ATR background, from his "one nature
different isolates" to "mere existence" to non-dual espistemology via
just simply focusing on understanding "lack of intrinsic existence"
thoroughly.
Dogen's total exertion is the mystical and zen-ish
approach of epistemic non-dual and often presented in a cryptic manner
😁 whereas Tsongkhapa's is the rational, logical and systematic way
towards epistemic non-dual. I think they make good complements.
Unfortunately I know too little of Tsongkhapa's tantric teachings to
understand how his views are being integrated into his tantric
practices.
Robert Thurman came to my mind when Edmond Cigale
mentioned about him. Since he was the Je Tsongkhapa Professor of
Indo-Tibetan Buddhist Studies at Columbia University and once commented
that Dogen's Zen is very tantric. I think it will be interesting if he
has an article on it. In case u write to him, pls don't mention abt ATR,
Soh Wei Yu will create havoc out of it.🤣
3
·
Reply
· 1d
·
Edited
Michael Hernandez
John Tan there are a number of books that on commentaries on Tsongkhapa's Six Yogas of Naropa from Gelupa view.
I've never read them.
"Tantra" if course is an interesting word. We can define and categorize
it the historical sense or as you indicated more in a broad spiritual
sense experience from other mystic zennish traditions.
In this
sense is there a difference between the Indian yogi living in a cave or
an ancient practitioner of chan living in a cave?
In Jodo Shinshu Amida Buddha "becomes me".
Completely misunderstood even by most practitioner of Jodo Shinshu who
do not understand the Name is the Buddha they believe the Buddha is out
there someplace. No. Amida Buddha IS the Name not something said to get
to a Pure Land. Misunderstood because this Buddha is not a Buddha until
all else are first.
It is said that one does not become Amida Buddha but "Amida Buddha becomes me".
That the sound of "AH" was of particular importance.
So much so that Japanese esoteric Buddhism placed this practice very
highly. While Japanese esoteric Buddhism never developed a
Dzogchen/Mahamudra like practice they did have something like the
generation and completion practices.
Certainly Zen might be the
next "extension" or "expansion" in practice after the completion phase.
The way Zen is being practiced as in some American Jodo Shinshu
certainly.
Tantra would though have an element of utilizing
visualization in any cultural practice. We might call voodoo Tantric or
even some witch craft. However if I draw an imaginary line in the sand I
would have to say the goal needs to be (A) "expansion" towards an
infinite unlimited ultimate "ineffable" rather than (😎 contraction
toward a narrowly defined conventional designation i.e "money", "love"
or "revenge".
Nowadays in India however any tantra is indeed pointed towards the conventionally mundane as "black magic".
#1 How is Zen like or unlike Tantra?
Or # 2 are some Zen practices tantric like in nature?
(I've read it argued Zen is nothing like Dzogchen/Mahamudra. Well
certainly the explicit meaning of the word Zen as transliteration of
dhyana wouldn't be for sure.
However when we refer to the
ineffability of so named "Buddha Nature" exactly to designate
conventional nature would not then make that experience "ineffable"
ultimate but like more as Tsongkhapa?)
So I would if you could John or Edmond Cigale, have the quote from Robert Thurman about Dogen's Zen being very tantric?
This way I can ask him directly how his meaning this was from the quotation and place and date he quoted it.
He might not recall exactly without a prompt.
I can let you proofread the letter first to add or correct any errors.
Thanks
1
·
Reply
· 1d
Tyler Jones
John Tan Jay Garfield comes to my mind, he is very versed in
cross-cultural philosophical dialogue, sees connections that others
don't, and is an expert on Tsongkhapa, not sure if he knows about Dogen
specifically though.
2
·
Reply
· 22h
·
Edited
Tyler Jones
Probably easier to get ahold of Garfield than Thurman 😅.
1
·
Reply
· 22h
Michael Hernandez
John Tan Edmond Cigale
Here's the quote and possibly the answer. The entire article is of
interest really in context with your conventional question.
If we
play out the imagination as the Tantric vehicle the as how Robert
Thurman puts it then as he says earlier in the interview about zen:
"RT: In a literal sense, yes. However, I think Zen is very tantric.
Take Dogen’s Zen, a practice which says that when you sit you are
Buddha. You don’t meditate as a “means-end” practice of trying to attain
a buddhahood which is remote from you in time and space. When you sit,
you are Buddha. And if you don’t happen to feel like Buddha that’s just a
bad habit which you have to pierce or break through.
IM: So tantra is really a creation and projection of a purified state of mind.
RT: That’s right. Tantric initiation is an opening of imaginative space
where you have a vision of potential perfection. You may still feel
like a “schmo,” but that’s the dynamic tension. Your habitual
imagination of yourself as an unenlightened schmo is brought into
tension with an artificially constructed imagination of yourself as a
perfected being."
https://www.inquiringmind.com/article/0801_01_thurman/
Interview with Robert A. F. Thurman: Talking Tantra - Inquiring Mind
INQUIRINGMIND.COM
Interview with Robert A. F. Thurman: Talking Tantra - Inquiring Mind
Interview with Robert A. F. Thurman: Talking Tantra - Inquiring Mind
1
·
Reply
· 21h
Michael Hernandez
In Jodo Shinshu "Amida Buddha becomes me just as I am" i.e a foolish ordinary person "bombu"
·
Reply
· 21h
John Tan
Tyler Jones Oh yes! Jay Garfield without doubt will be another one. He
too is very well versed with both Dogen's and Tsongkhapa's philosophies.
·
Reply
· 20h
John Tan
Michael Hernandez As Tyler Jones suggested, Jay Garfield is another
scholar that is well equipped with both masters' philosophies.
1
·
Reply
· 20h
John Tan
Michael Hernandez also when u asked, remember it is not about "Zen and
Tantra" but "Dogen and Tsongkhapa"😆. The reason is both r based on
essencelessness and embracement of the conventional, therefore buddha
nature is a buddha nature in ceaseless dynamism, in a matrix of
diversities that interpenetrates.
I have "Tsongkhapa's Six Yoga's
of Naropa" in my collection but Robert Thurman "Brilliantly
Illuminating the Lamp of the Five Stages" is a better read if we not
into the actual practice of tantra (imo) but a great book if u want to
know about Tsongkhapa's trantric experiences and achievements.
Ok back to sleep Zzzzz😁.
2
·
Reply
· 20h
·
Edited
Tyler Jones
It's quite possible that no one has seen the potential benefit of such a
comparison/exchange. On the surface they would seem quite alien to each
other for sectarian reasons, eg. Tsongkhapa's view of Chan. Also, how
widely appreciated is it that Dogen is one of very few famous Chan/Zen
masters with a non-substaintialist view?
1
·
Reply
· 1d
·
Edited
Tyler Jones
Even to make such a distinction is rare in comments on Zen writings.
·
Reply
· 1d
John Tan
Tyler Jones that is true too, just my wild wish as I like both masters.
·
Reply
· 1d
·
Edited
Tyler Jones
Have you seen any East Asian masters with as strong of a potential
dialogue with Tsongkhapa as Dogen, for instance from the Huayan or
Tiantai traditions?
·
Reply
· 1d
Tyler Jones
Also, maybe you could entice some scholars into taking up such a dialogue if you first published an MMK commentary 😄.
1
·
Reply
· 1d
John Tan
Tyler Jones modern one yes like Hong Wen Liang or Hui Lui but rare.
Many masters I read will present with cetain scent of substantialist
non-dual even ancient masters of Huayan or Tiantai. There is nothing
wrong with it but seldom do I see masters like Tsongkhapa and Dogen. But
my respect for these 2 masters goes beyond just their philosophies, I
feel "connected"🤣. Anyway I do not want to talk about it.
4
·
Reply
· 1d
·
Edited
John Tan
Tyler Jones pls, I m way out of the league. 😓
·
Reply
· 1d
André A. Pais
Jay Garfield indeed is an educated gelugpa with a seemingly zen
practice running on the side. At least that's what it sounded like from
some in-between the lines comments in his series of videos on yogacara.
Anyway, he does have an article called Mountains are just Mountains, in
a book called Pointing at the Moon - all zen references. I haven't read
the book nor the article, but I'll put some sections here:
1
·
Reply
· 7h
André A. Pais
May be an image of text that says '6 Mountains Are Just Mountains Jay
L. Garfield Graham Priest Before studied mountains After studying
mountains, water longer mountains and vater Nagărjuna just vater.'
Catușkoți both. proposition philosophy Aristotle, ofequally
possibilities. traditional viewi ancestry,is ony). catușkoți. deployed
catușkoți Nagărjuna famously ways. 11fou the Everythingis real and not
not Neither unreal real. Buddha's teaching. POINTING The second
negative. such cases, Thus, argues none four that rgues none four hold.
applies the proposition "empty." They nor only for purpose
fdesignation.? standardly, common the four possibilities the supposed
Nagărjuna's prima facie. positive applied reality, thecontradictions
various possibilities need disambiguatedwith'
·
Reply
· 7h
André A. Pais
May be an image of text
·
Reply
· 7h
André A. Pais
May be an image of text that says '69% Pointing the 76 POINTING THE
MOON More emptiness. does from (This why Dögen can insist that practice
chapter. Prior world; awaken most helpfully the that dently that
inspired water- ssubstantially existent, independent things those Some
impermanent. ontologically indepen- analysis, however, shows these
phenomena andt fail things mately. Were one while error would would with
he stop both his deprecate mountains Hence, mountains and be just from
them therefore the two identity forming the existence as apprehension
trans We connect dialectic and mans each catuş™koÈis semantic lattice
(figure represents Zen dialectic. language, (represented (such the the
squiggly truth values'
·
Reply
· 7h
André A. Pais
No photo description available.
·
Reply
· 7h
André A. Pais
May be an image of text that says 'Cogent Inconsistency isght puzzlinga
assertion wac practice But practice initially Buddhist philosophy, And
disparaged Madhyamaka despite knowh merely following Nagărjuna
apprehends ignorance primor- things that fifth made positive system most
external, dentification emptiness negation. POINTING THE extent,
vindicated Hakuin's account identity dattainment xplained ox-herding
that mountains mountains could eybe?'
·
Reply
· 7h
...........
Malcolm wrote: ↑Wed Oct 27, 2021 4:09 am
Well, actually the I-making habit, the basic knowledge obscuration, has no real existence as a self, but it functions as an agent of karma and a recipient of karma, so there is that, even though the "I" it imputes does not exist at all.
...
No, it is an imagined, nonexistent self that causes and experiences everything, for example, when a car is in accident, it is the imagined car for which one pays the damages, not the wrong view of the imagined car. But perhaps this is a special point of Candrakīrti's Madhyamaka, unlikely to be found the Visuddhimagga.
John Tan:
This part was explained by Tsongkhapa why nominality can have causal efficacy
oic..
in fact all assertions of causal efficacy is based on nominality isnt it
John Tan:
Yes as well as all functionalities just like fiat money facilitates international trade and international financial system but they can cause countries to collapse even though fiat money has only nominal existence.
I wonder why I can't find any article on the internet comparing Dogen's and Tsongkhapa's thoughts.
If both masters were to meet to discuss their practice philosophies of "mere existence" and total exertion, a gem masterpiece on non-dual epistemology of the 3 times will surely emerge.
I maybe completely wrong 🤣 but if anyone can find any article linking both their thoughts, pls leave a note here.
Oic.. saw your msg
I think dogen is more experiential and anatta, and you said tsongkhapa more on view?
[2:15 pm, 28/10/2021] John Tan: U can say so but their view are the same abt +A of emptiness. Though I find Tsongkhapa more rational in his approach whereas dogen is more poetic, intuitive and experiential carries +A much further.
[2:17 pm, 28/10/2021] John Tan: However it is not easy to present +A in such a rational and systematic way like Tsongkhapa did.
[2:21 pm, 28/10/2021] John Tan: Who is liu Zhi Guan? Change name?
Soh:
Oic..
I dunno him seems like a singaporean
John Tan:
Michael Hernandez Actually nothing in particular...lol. I believe u
know ATR well and probably about the +A and -A version of emptiness in
ATR.
To me, Gorampa and Mipham are more on exhaustion of the
conventional into freedom from all elaborations. I classify it under the
-A of emptiness in ATR context.
Tsongkhapa on the other hand
embraced the conventional wholeheartedly into freedom from all
fabrications (fabrication as in attachment to intrinsic existence). I
classify it under the +A of emptiness in ATR context. This is very
similar to Dogen's total exertion.
Ippo-gujin (total
exertion), I will define here as wholehearted engagement in the mundane
activities of everydayness of everyday, essentially no different from
bahiya sutta of in the seen just the seen. In this actualisation,
entire "body mind environment universe" is one participation without any
need to subsume into an all encompassing substantial non-dual
awareness; instead all conventional diversities are fully intact yet
miraculously involved in a harmonious unity.
When I read
Tsongkhapa's thought somehow I can relate quite easily with my ATR
background, from his "one nature different isolates" to "mere existence"
to non-dual espistemology via just simply focusing on understanding
"intrinsic existence" thoroughly.
Dogen's total exertion is
the mystical and zen-ish approach of epistemic non-dual and often
presented in a cryptic manner 😁 whereas Tsongkhapa's is the rational,
logical and systematic way towards epistemic non-dual. I think they
make good complements. Unfortunately I know too little of Tsongkhapa's
tantric teachings to understand how his views are being integrated into
his tantric practices.
Robert Thurman came to my mind when
Edmond Cigale mentioned about him. Since he was the Je Tsongkhapa
Professor of Indo-Tibetan Buddhist Studies at Columbia Universits and
once commented that Dogen's Zen is very tantric, I think it will be
interesting if he has an article on it. In case u write to him, pls
don't mention abt ATR, Soh Wei Yu will create havoc out of it.🤣
Liu Zhi Guan Zen koans relate more to the direct pointing of one's
radiance clarity whereas mmk is abt letting the mind sees it's own
fabrications and allowing it to free itself from all elaborations (non
Gelug) or free itself from all fabrications (Gelug). The most crucial
insight of both Gelug and non Gelug (imo) is to let the mind realizes
the primordial purity (emptiness) nature of both mind/phenomena.
Although Mipham treated gelug's freedom from self nature as categorized
ultimate, I can only tell u I disagree. Both are able to achieve their
objectives (imo). In fact if u were to ask for my sincere opinion, I
prefer freedom from self nature (Gelug) as if understood properly and
with experiential insight, it will lead to both +A and -A of emptiness.
If we were to treat the conventional (conceptuality) as the cause of
ignorance, it prevents some very valuable insights that will take
probably a lot of time to detail out. I will not go too detail into
that.
In short seeing through intrinsic existence will
similarly allow practitioners to see through conceptual constructs
(non-conceptualities), see through duality (non-dual) and substantiality
(essencelessness). Phenomena lack of self-nature also lacks sameness
or difference, therefore their primordially purity will likewise be
realized and selflessness also results in natural spontaneity; yet
because practitioners put freedom from self-nature at a higher order,
they will not be bounded by conceptualities and can embrace the
conventional fully.
Soh:
Oic..
Yeah like even my
initial insight into anatta i would say is more of seeing through
intrinsic existence. Non conceptuality is more like side effect
[11:16 pm, 29/10/2021] John Tan: Yes
[11:19 pm, 29/10/2021] John Tan: ATR insight is seeing through self
nature except the praxis as in way of practice is direct approach via
vipassana -- special insight. The seeing through of self as a
background is not through analysis.
Soh: Oic.. thrangu rinpoche also said thats the diff between mahamudra and madhyamika
[11:20 pm, 29/10/2021] John Tan: When that is seen through, one becomes
effortlessly non-dual in experience as there is no subject to "dual".
[11:22 pm, 29/10/2021] John Tan: Both essencelessness and non-dual dawn
in a single leap but that doesn't mean one has thoroughly eradicated
proliferation. Hence mmk helps to do that.
[11:24 pm,
29/10/2021] John Tan: So it is not about doing away with conceptualities
but a special insight that sees through self nature.
Post
anatta and when we keep refining our view and eradicate proliferations,
we will realize the supreme purity that free both poles of dualities.
That is not simply a collapse of subject-object duality, but a freedom
from all dualities. This too can be realized through contemplating
freedom from self nature. Experiences do turn non-conceptual but that
is simply a by-product that comes along with the arising Prajna.
Overtime when anatta matures, conceptualities become no more an issue.
[11:32 pm, 29/10/2021] John Tan: Then total exertion becomes
effortless. Whether conceptual or non-conceptual, the taste of no-self
and open spaciousness remain for the practitioner.
[11:36 pm, 29/10/2021] John Tan: Negation is always not simply negation. There r 3 main functions:
1. It points to groundlessness.
2. It takes us right back to appearances.
3. It points to presence in dynamism.
......................
Soh: Malcolm said:
Yes, according to the Gelukpas, Buddhas have concepts and perceptions.
But this is very disputed point, and in general all the other schools
disagree.
[7:42 am, 14/11/2021] John Tan: Yes because to the gelug, everything is conceptual as I told u.
[8:42 am, 14/11/2021] John Tan: Tsongkhapa's insight is very deep, profound and fully anatta. He is so clear that he can rationalize "spontaneous presence" into stepwise refinement in terms view and praxis and developed a full systematic and rational approach towards liberation. That is y I say that is an act of compassion rather than lack of full insight of the ultimate.
That said, over emphasis on reasoning and analysis approach in expense of the direct and esoteric approach is a major minus point also. To understand Tsongkhapa, u need to understand his emphasis of "mere" into the conventional. Conventional here refers to appearances -- both tainted (reified) and untainted (unreified). Because of this, there is no need to talk about presence and awareness.
[9:08 am, 14/11/2021] John Tan: Because the conventional is treated as the root cause of ignorance by the old schools from start, Tsongkhapa saw a flaw there. If one can see through self-nature thoroughly, does he/she need to do away with conceptualities and the conventional at all? U have to understand Tsongkhapa is no ordinary being, a bodhisattva that is a billion times our insights and he is already well versed with the old schools' view and praxis in his early period, so it is extremely naive to make ignorance comments.
It is like Buddha teaching the 4 noble truths, 3 seals, vipassana, shamatha...If a practitioner wants to understand Tsongkhapa, he must understand from the standpoint of a buddha teaching those to open the eyes of anatta step by step to full integration without the need to sacrifice the conventional and conceptual from start. That is y it is very easy to mis-understand Tsongkhapa.
Also see: How should we understand Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra?
John Tan:
I believe this is from khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso Rinpoche? But it is neither the view of Longchenpa nor Mipham nor the founder of Nyingma Nubchen Sangye Yeshe. I supposed u have read enough of Malcolm conversations in dharmawheel abt Shentong and Rangtong and difference between Shentong and Dzogchen 😜.
Soh:
yeah longchenpa doesn't agree with shentong but he accepts tathagatagarbha as definitive
Malcolm: It also explains why, for example, Longchenpa is not a gzhan stong pa. He considers tathāgatagarbha definitive, but places the teaching of the three natures within Yogacara and never uses them to explicate the meaning of the tathāgatagarba, since they are not necessary. There is no discussion of these in the Uttaratantra, per se. The Yogacara masters were not that interested in tathagatagarbha, quite frankly.
John Lane wrote in AtR group:
John Tan:
Tathagatagarbha has always been accepted as definitive, just the interpretation.
Soh: [pasting more]
Soh Wei YuAuthor
Admin
Longchenpa’s definition of buddha nature as the union of emptiness and clarity and rejection of non buddhist views is consistent with what I have said above about the provisional vs definitive meaning of buddha nature.
Also, Malcolm wrote before:
“In general, it (Soh: Mahaparinirvana Sutra) should be considered provisional even by Longchenpa since it contains the doctrine of the icchantika. It is also considered provisional because it uses intentional language to discuss a self, permanence, and so on.
What Longchenpa holds to be definitive is the doctrine of tathāgatagarbha, but there are some problems if we take the whole of those ten sūtras to be "definitive."
Then of course, there is the issue of whether the tathāgatagarbha doctrine is actually definitive. Arguably, the Uttaratantra itself holds the tathāgatagarbha doctrine to be provisional.”
· Reply
· 1w
Soh Wei YuAuthor
Admin
Malcolm also wrote:
“They are for Gorampa as well, providing tathāgatagarbha is properly understood. But if for example the nine examples are not correctly understood, he states the TTG sūtras are provisional.
Also, the reason Longchenpa claims the TTG sūtras are definitive has to do with how he understands them in relation to Dzogchen. He also defines Prasanga Madhyamaka as the definitive view.
In general, however, the Buddha himself declares the tathāgatagarbha doctrine provisional, that is interpretable, in the Lanka Sūtra.”
· Reply
· 1w
Soh Wei YuAuthor
Admin
Malcolm:
“Longchenpa had no problem reconciling Prasanga Madhyamaka, which he maintains is the definitive view, with tathāgatagarbha sūtras, which he maintains are the definitive sūtras. Likewise Gorampa asserts that properly understood the tathāgatagarbha doctrine is definitive and does not contradict Madhyamaka, but wrongly understood leads to a wrong view. Thus, these are not examples of squeezing tathāgatagarbha into Madhyamaka, if anyone is doing any squeezing, it is the gzhan stong pas who try to squeeze Madhyamaka, Yogacāra and tathātagatagarbha all into the same box, without much success, frankly.”
· Reply
· 1w
....
Acarya Malcolm Smith:
"The term bdag nyid, atman, just means, in this case, "nature", i.e. referring to the nature of reality free from extremes as being permanent, blissful, pure and self. The luminosity of the mind is understood to be this.
There are various ways to interpret the Uttaratantra and tathāgatagarbha doctrine, one way is definitive in meaning, the other is provisional, according to Gorampa Sonam Senge, thus the tathāgatagarbha sutras become definitive or provisional depending on how they are understood. He states:
In the context of showing the faults of a literal [interpretation] – it's equivalence with the Non-Buddhist Self is that the assertion of unique eternal all pervading cognizing awareness of the Saṃkhya, the unique eternal pristine clarity of the Pashupattis, the unique all pervading intellect of the Vaiśnavas, the impermanent condition, the measure of one’s body, in the permanent self-nature of the Jains, and the white, brilliant, shining pellet the size of an atom, existing in each individual’s heart of the Vedantins are the same.
The definitive interpretation he renders as follows:
Therefor, the Sugatagarbha is defined as the union of clarity and emptiness but not simply emptiness without clarity, because that [kind of emptiness] is not suitable to be a basis for bondage and liberation. Also it is not simple clarity without emptiness, that is the conditioned part, because the Sugatagarbha is taught as unconditioned.
Khyentse Wangpo, often cited as a gzhan stong pa, basically says that the treatises of Maitreya elucidate the luminosity of the mind, i.e. its purity, whereas Nāgarjuna's treatises illustrate the empty nature of the mind, and that these two together, luminosity and emptiness free from extremes are to be understood as noncontradictory, which we can understand from the famous Prajñāpāramita citation "There is no mind in the mind, the nature of the mind is luminosity"."
i think Tsongkhapa treats it as provisional
but most understand it to be either provisional or definitive depending on how it is understood
shentong also seems to have many interpreters.. when thrangu rinpoche explained shentong, he emphasized empty nature of luminosity although there are qualities. so i dont find his explanation any way veering into extremes. but when i look at the originator Dolpopa, i cant differentiate his teachings from advaita 😂
i havent read very indepth into tsultrim gyamptso writings but i dont think he holds substantialist view either
John Tan:
Tsongkhapa has different definition with regards to perception and therefore context is different. He doesn't accept pure perception of dharmakirti and dignaga and therefore all phenomena dependent originate. U see many like to say Tsongkhapa doesn't know freedom from all elaborations and started talking about this and that, do u think this is possible? Tsongkhapa is an accomplished yogi and scholar. His thoughts r very deep and profound so don't make comments that u don't understand and when u din read enough about him.
Soh:
oic.. yeah i think even malcolm has a more respectful tone about tsongkhapa these days
"
You seem to really get off on relating stories about teachers and their unconventional conduct.
I prefer stories about truly great beings like Sapan, Longchenpa, Ngorchen, Tsongkhapa, etc. "
"
Tsongkhapa is a wonderful teacher, but you should not imagine that his presentation is by any means the definitive one. It is not even the definitive one in Geluk, since there are many different trends in Geluk, and not even all famous Geluk scholars agree with everything Tsongkhapa wrote.
"
" Tsongkhapa was a nonsectarian master. And there are many others in the history of the Geluk schools. Indeed, in Geluk, rivalry amongst different colleges was far more intense than extra-sectarian impulses."
" Consciousness is a dependently arising dharma. So not, it does not ultimately exist.
..
Whatever is dependently originated, that is empty, that is dependently designated, and that is the middle way.
That which arises dependently is free from the extremes of permanence and annihilation. You might try reading Tsongkhapa's Praise to Dependent Origination. Many people consider it Tsongkhapa's final statement on his realization of emptiness. "
" Tsongkhapa’s approach to Madhyamaka is ok, it just has some holes, and one of those is the monopole negation. No Gelugpa has ever successfully rebutted Gorampa’s critique of Tsongkhapa’s novelties, but we’ve had this discussion before. And Tsongkhapa has even been challenged within his own school.
Mipham largely bases his arguments on Gorampa.
"
John Tan:
In Ocean of Reasoning, Tsongkhapa clearly talk about freedom of extremes and freedom from all elaborations.
Gorampa is very fierce in his criticisms about Tsongkhapa as if he was in the same period but they never met. Gorampa was borned like 20 years after Tsongkhapa's death.
For freedom from all elaborations, yes Mipham largely based his arguments on Gorampa. But Gorampa din mention abt appearances as far as I know that Mipham emphasized a lot, Mipham thought is very much influenced by Rongzom, in fact he self claimed as Rongzom disciple.🤣
Soh:
ic... yeah Rongzom sounds very resonating for those who go through anatta
John Tan:
Indeed. 👍
- · Reply
- ·
- · Reply
- · 12h
- ·
- · Reply
- · Remove Preview
- · 12h
- · Edited
- ·
- · Reply
- · Remove Preview
- · 12h
- ·
- · Reply
- ·
- · 8h
- · Reply
- ·
- · 8h
- · Reply
- ·
- · 8h
- · Reply
- ·
- · 6h
- · Reply
- ·
- · 4h
- · Edited
- · Reply
- · 29m
- ·
- · Reply
- · 7m
- · Edited
- · Reply
- ·
- · 35m
- · Reply
- ·
- · 31m
André A. PaisAuthorAdminThe nature of mind is utter openness and complete relaxation. Thus, any fixation on existence or non-existence works as a point of closedness and tension. Keeping that in mind, we should exercise some plasticity when it comes to means of expression and linguistic conventions; they will always be dualistic and context-dependent. Rangtong can be seen as a methodology; shentong as a celebratory description. If handled carelessly, both are prone to strayings into non-existence and existence, respectively. Skillfully utilized, I think both can tread on the tightrope that is the Middle Way free from extremes.1André A. PaisAuthorAdminThe aspiration to realize the wisdom mind of the unity that defies the intellectInconceivable and free of all superimposition, one-sided fixationOn things being either existent or non-existent completely dissolves.The full import of this turns back even the tongue of the victors.Without beginning, middle, or end, it is a great expanse of deep clarity.May all realize this Great Perfection, the true nature of the ground!To the conceptual mind, with its characteristic mind and mental states, the precise nature of this ground is inconceivable. The object, the sphere of reality, is free of all conceptual projections. Although the conventions "primordial purity" and "spontaneous presence" are used in order to communicate, if one latches onto the existence or non-existence of the sphere of reality, the mind will fall prey to superimposition and its basic nature will not be seen.The same holds for the subject as well, meaning wisdom, since this causes all one-sided fixation on things being either existent or non-existent to completely dissolve into the expanse of reality. This realization, in which subject and object are of one taste, can be put into conventional terms, yet its full import defies such expressions; it turns back even the tongue of the victors, who reign supreme when it comes to using positive affirmations to describe the true nature of things.This inherent pure awareness is without birth in the beginning, abiding in the middle, or cessation in the end; it is a great and spontaneously present expanse of deep, radiant clarity. May all realize the unified Great Perfection, the true nature of the ground—an inconceivable reality that defies the intellect!1p.s. found a post by Kyle Dixon from 5 years ago:level 1Gzhan stong (Shentong) simply says that buddha qualities are innate and fully formed from the very beginning. For instance they hold the three kāyas to be fully formed at all times, something that no other system believes.
Their view consists of mapping the three nature scheme of Yogācāra over the two truths of Madhyamaka, some argue that this view doesn't really work.
The adept who started gzhan stong, named Dolbupa, belonged to the Jonang school of Tibetan Buddhism and is widely considered to have a very extreme view (in terms of being quite eternalistic). Nowadays there are more moderate forms of gzhan stong such as that of Shakya Chögden and Jamgon Köngtrul, who are both considered to be much more agreeable.
Gzhan stong is found in most every school of Tibetan Buddhism, but only moderately. It is not found in the Gelug school at all.
The three major Tibetan views are (i) gzhan stong, (ii) spros bral, (iii) gelug. The Kagyu, Nyingma and Sakya schools contain a mixture of spros bral and gzhan stong. The Jonang is mainly Dolbupa's gzhan stong, and the Gelug practice Tsongkhapa's Prasanga Madhyamaka.
5
"Mind itself and the true nature of
objects have no reality whatsoever
and are beyond intellect and
inexpressible. This one point could
well be the synopsis of all teachings."
- Jamgon Kongtrul Lodro Thaye