Simple_Jack Posted February 14, 2014 Anyone read this guy ..? http://jayarava.blogspot.com.au/2011/08/not-two-truths.html I can safely conclude, that the author of this article, is a realist (Buddhist definition). Which is why he's unable to look beyond the limitations of 'early Buddhism'. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
yabyum24 Posted February 14, 2014 I can safely conclude, that the author of this article, is a realist (Buddhist definition). Which is why he's unable to look beyond the limitations of 'early Buddhism'. That must be why I like his stuff so much, being a realist (Simple_Jack definition) myself. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Songtsan Posted February 14, 2014 (edited) 'Superior' for whom? Some would not be able to handle the Tantric path, and so thus it's not superior for them. They would do fine using Sutras, learning at a more gradual rate...think 'best fit' model. If you are more inclined towards Tantra, and it and you gel together like peas in a pod, don't get arrogant. You should be happy! So do your work and quit trying to say that you are cooler than everyone else because you can handle Tantra and others can't. From one arrogant brother to another, let people be! What did they ever do to you? chillax peeps - all paths lead 'up there' or 'whereever' - if yours is faster than most (and I know that mine is), who cares? You aren't special! It's all been done before...Maybe some people are in the rush that we are.... Edited February 14, 2014 by Songtsan 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Simple_Jack Posted February 14, 2014 That must be why I like his stuff so much, being a realist (Simple_Jack definition) myself. That's okay if you ascribe to realism (Buddhist definition), as long as you recognize that you carry this view, but as long you carry this view: then you won't be able to appreciate the explication of 2-fold emptiness in Mahayana. You will also be bound by this view, unable to drop the limitations of "early Buddhism", therefore hampering your progression towards realization of emptiness in the long haul. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RongzomFan Posted February 14, 2014 Can you recommend something where these principles are explained in detail and how are they applied ? I think that's the only book on Rongzom Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Songtsan Posted February 14, 2014 These are beautiful arguments however! I am sorry I butted in. I myself think that my own path is superior quite often. Then I realize it's superior for me, but not everyone else. It reminds me of this principle: "The best path is the one that you are willing and able to take, that meets your wants/needs most efficiently." - me. It is as simple as that. If you are unable, or not inclined to a path, it is not the best path for you at that time. That is why there are best paths, yet not best paths. In duality, there is self and other. This is the Tao. Yin/Yang, Good/Bad, etc. etc. Silver linings reside in all clouds. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RongzomFan Posted February 14, 2014 Spot on. Here's a guys who has the balls to point out that the Emperor is naked. This has been a major gripe of mine for ages too. He's summed it up perfectly. Absolutely nailed it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Simple_Jack Posted February 14, 2014 That must be why I like his stuff so much, being a realist (Simple_Jack definition) myself. Just read the Prajnaparamita Sutras if you don't want to bother with expositions of the "two truths". Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
yabyum24 Posted February 14, 2014 Just read the Prajnaparamita Sutras if you don't want to bother with expositions of the "two truths". No, I like expositions of the two truths - it's a perfectly valid notion, as long as one doesn't consider it has anything to do with ontology. I don't think you get where I'm at on this at all. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RongzomFan Posted February 14, 2014 If you don't like the 2 truths you are with Rongzom and Dzogchen tantras. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
yabyum24 Posted February 14, 2014 If you don't like the 2 truths you are with Rongzom and Dzogchen tantras. It all depends on how they're interpreted IMHO. I don't like ontology, which according to Simple_Jack makes me a Buddhist realist - whatever that is... ... as opposed to an Unrealist? Idealist? Space Cadetist? No idea. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RongzomFan Posted February 14, 2014 It all depends on how they're interpreted IMHO. I just throw them out ala Rongzom and the Dzogchen tantras Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
yabyum24 Posted February 14, 2014 I just throw them out ala Rongzom and the Dzogchen tantras Oh. Okay then. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Simple_Jack Posted February 14, 2014 No, I like expositions of the two truths - it's a perfectly valid notion, as long as one doesn't consider it has anything to do with ontology. I don't think you get where I'm at on this at all. In Madhyamaka, on a conventional level, consciousness arises only if there is a meeting of a sense organ and sense object. Expositions of the "two truths" are for deluded sentient beings. If you don't like the 2 truths you are with Rongzom and Dzogchen tantras. Technically, Mahamudra can be included, right? I don't like ontology, which according to Simple_Jack makes me a Buddhist realist - whatever that is... If you don't like ontology, then you should have no problem, with the basic premise of Madhyamaka. Anyways, I think I can safely conclude that you're a realist (Buddhist definition). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
yabyum24 Posted February 14, 2014 In Madhyamaka, on a conventional level, consciousness arises only if there is a meeting of a sense organ and sense object. That's the irrelevant bit of the whole thing. What difference does any of that make at all. If you don't like ontology, then you should have no problem, with the basic premise of Madhyamaka. Anyways, I think I can safely conclude that you're a realist (Buddhist definition). I don't understand any of that but if I fit neatly into one of your conceptual boxes, then good for you. It's one less loose-end to resolve. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Simple_Jack Posted February 14, 2014 (edited) That's the irrelevant bit of the whole thing. What difference does any of that make at all. You said you didn't like ontology, positing an undifferentiated "awareness" is an ontology, so is positing an actual state free from dualities a la Advaita Vedanta or Kashmiri Shaivism. All ontological views stem from grasping onto imputations of an entity or non-entity into sensate experience. This is what Madhyamaka seeks to cut with its expositions of the 2-truths. Edited February 14, 2014 by Simple_Jack Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
yabyum24 Posted February 14, 2014 You said you didn't like ontology, positing an undifferentiated "awareness" is an ontology, so is positing an actual state free from dualities a la Advaita Vedanta or Kashmiri Shaivism. All ontological views stem from grasping onto imputations of an entity or non-entity into sensate experience. This is what Madhyamaka seeks to cut with its expositions of the 2-truths. I love it. I posited an undifferentiated awareness! That bugger must have just slipped out. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Simple_Jack Posted February 14, 2014 I love it. I posited an undifferentiated awareness! That bugger must have just slipped out. That's besides the point. The point is that ontological views such as the above is what Dzogchen, Mahamudra, and Prajnaparamita seek to put an end to. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
asunthatneversets Posted February 14, 2014 In Madhyamaka, on a conventional level, consciousness arises only if there is a meeting of a sense organ and sense object. The same is true for Dzogchen. Consciousness is dependently originated and arises in accordance with the afflicted nidānas, the root of which is avidyā [ma rig pa]. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
asunthatneversets Posted February 14, 2014 Which is another reason that a decent understanding of Madhyamaka (or dependent origination) is helpful. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
yabyum24 Posted February 14, 2014 ontological views such as the above is what Dzogchen, Mahamudra, and Prajnaparamita seek to put an end to. But you can't "put an end to them" with better or even more refined views. You either engage in view-making/negating of one kind or another, or drop the whole shebang. As I understand it, the advantage of Dzogchen etc. is that they don't entertain ontological views. They have no need to. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Simple_Jack Posted February 14, 2014 You either engage in view-making/negating of one kind or another, or drop the whole shebang. Actually, the whole point of the non-affirming negations in Madhymaka, is just that, to "drop the whole shebang". In this case, it's views stemming from "is" or "is not", especially if someone is trained in a non-buddhist tenet system. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
yabyum24 Posted February 14, 2014 Actually, the whole point of the non-affirming negations in Madhymaka, is just that, to "drop the whole shebang". In this case, it's views stemming from "is" or "is not", especially if someone is trained in a non-buddhist tenet system. I know, but does it quite cut it for you personally? Non-affirming negations? It's still in some way playing the ontology game it seems. Perhaps, it genuinely does for some people but for most, it's just a "better view" than those they refute. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gatito Posted February 15, 2014 Anyone read this guy ..? http://jayarava.blogspot.com.au/2011/08/not-two-truths.html Spot on. Here's a guys who has the balls to point out that the Emperor is naked. This has been a major gripe of mine for ages too. He's summed it up perfectly. Absolutely nailed it. Yes. He absolutely does nail it and his demolition of the false counter arguments is a masterpiece. Nice to see the false premises in todays institutionalised, pseudoacademic "Buddhism" being demolished. Perhaps it will lead to a renaissance of the actual teachings. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RongzomFan Posted February 15, 2014 Perhaps it will lead to a renaissance of the actual teachings. Which is John Levy's NeoAdvaita right? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
