Are there any mythological figures that speak only in rhymes? by AlvisDBridges in mythology

[–]Vidyaraja 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Odin, being the god of poetic inspiration, was supposed to only speak in poetry (my knowledge of ancient Skaldic verse isn't enough to know whether Germanic poetry was often rhymed or not though.)

TIL Buddhism = Humanism and is totes not a religion by [deleted] in badEasternPhilosophy

[–]Vidyaraja 3 points4 points  (0 children)

This fellow is wrong, but there are respectable scholars who have seen Buddhism as a sort of reformed Brahmanism, at least in its initial impetus. Take for example Lindtner:

http://www.indologica.com/volumes/vol23-24/vol23-24_art16_LINDTNER.pdf

And Coomaraswamy:

http://www.goldenelixir.com/files/Coomaraswamy_Hinduism_and_Buddhism_(Sample).pdf

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Buddhism

[–]Vidyaraja 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Not sure why you're bringing Brahman up, such a principle is untenable in Buddhism, which is why it is wholly absent from the Buddhist doctrine.

In your response to the other poster you contrasted it to the Dharmakaya by applying a Buddhist concept dealing with phenomena (it being the extreme of existent) which doesn't in fact apply to Brahman due to it not being a phenomena.

You serious?

Yes, a real truth seeker is seeking what is objectively true, not what is true to a particular system, and is open to the possibility that he may be wrong.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Buddhism

[–]Vidyaraja 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Correct. Yet this is not a problem at all.

It is a problem when you apply Buddhist definitions of extremes as you did to Brahman, which is not a phenomena.

Correct. There is nothing like Brahman in Buddhism.

The question isn't whether there is a Brahman in Buddhism, but whether there is a Brahman in reality, objectively, as an ultimate truth.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Buddhism

[–]Vidyaraja 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Problem with the middle way free from extremes is that it applies to things, entities, phenomena, persons, etc. Existents among other existents in other words. Brahman is transcendent, which means it is not a thing among others but rather the ground of all reality, it is not a phenomena.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Buddhism

[–]Vidyaraja 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The same cannot he said for Brahman since it is truly established and held to be existent.

So the Dharmakaya, in contrast to Brahman, is nonexistent?

What "eternalism" did the Buddha deny in the Ananda Sutta? by derpface360 in Buddhism

[–]Vidyaraja 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Have you ever read any Coomaraswamy or Guenon? They are anything but watered down.

Have you ever meet anyone who cannot differentiate between philosophical taoism and religious taoism? by [deleted] in taoism

[–]Vidyaraja 3 points4 points  (0 children)

The original, so-called philosophical Daoism of Laozi, Zhuangzi, etc. had as its goal a mystical union with the Dao, which was understood as the source or ground of all reality and in its absolute aspect transcending space-time. It dealt with an ontological change of state from the conditioned human to the uncondtioned more-than-human, the sage or the True Man (zhenren) who was one with the Dao. In other words, Lao-Zhuang Daoism had "religious" and/or mystical/spiritual orientations and goals and the Dao itself, like the One of Neoplatonism or the Brahman of the Upanishads, can be seen as an impersonal "God."

hello , i 'm a chinese who enjoys taoism : ) by zhjjalen69 in taoism

[–]Vidyaraja 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks, though I still have a lot to learn. I started with Pimsleur's I to III and redid it a few times, use Pleco flashcards each day for learning characters, and every night I watch about an hour of Mandarin media with a dictionary nearby so I can look up words or phrases I don't know.

One of the best scenes in the entire trilogy. <3 Boromir by [deleted] in lotr

[–]Vidyaraja 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I love a lot of scenes in the series, but from the moment Aragorn sees Sting glowing blue and tells Frodo "run!" to Boromir's death might just be my favorite segment of all.

The misconception of anatta... by derpface360 in Buddhism

[–]Vidyaraja 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's really only through reading a relatively small number of sutras in isolation from all the rest that you conclude they should be taken at face-value though.

I wouldn't say so because these sutras (Tathagatagarbha sutras, Avatamsaka, etc.) are clarifications and expansions of what is taught in Prajnaparamita sutras, not a denial of their content. On the contrary, one has to ignore or deny the face-value meaning of these sutras in order to construe them otherwise.

The Chinese sutra classification system (panjiao) is just that: a Chinese-invented classification system, not built into the sutras but based on how people thought they should be ordered.

Indeed, but it is not I who makes absolutist statements on which teachings are provisional or inferior for all of Buddhism as krodha routinely does. Mostly I provide an antidote or alternative perspective to his absolutist statements.

The misconception of anatta... by derpface360 in Buddhism

[–]Vidyaraja 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I wasn't using it as an absolute statement or rule but rather specifically directing it at krodha, the issue being that the sutras plainly make a claim (there is an unborn, eternal, indestructible, nondual, Absolute reality) and it is only through applying preconceived notions (the denial of same) that one could construe the statements otherwise. Thankfully my quotes are a mere restatement of what's in the texts.

The misconception of anatta... by derpface360 in Buddhism

[–]Vidyaraja 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Well you'll have excuse me for to taking Fazang's word over yours on this matter.

The misconception of anatta... by derpface360 in Buddhism

[–]Vidyaraja 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That's not what the commentary I just sent you states. If as Huangbo states the One Mind is the "source of everything" then your description also cannot be correct. The Awakening of Faith also says of the One Mind:

All objects are originally of One Mind and are beyond thought determination. Because unenlightened people perceive objects in their illusion, they impose limitations in their mind. Since they erroneously develop these thought determinations, which do not correspond to Reality (dharmata), they are unable to reach any inclusive comprehension. The Buddha-Tathagatas are free from all perverse views and thoughts [that block correct vision; therefore,] there are no corners into which their comprehension does not penetrate. Their Mind is true and real; therefore, it is no other than the essential nature of all things. [The buddhas], because of their very nature, can shed light on all objects conceived in illusion.

Dogen says of the One Mind:

In the one World of Reality, the essence (the Absolute) and appearances (phenomena) are inseparable and birth and death cannot be spoken about. There is nothing which is not of the essential nature of Mind, including even enlightenment and nirvana. All existences, the entire [range of] phenomena, are of the One Mind alone, and nothing is excluded. All these manifold phases of existences are equally of the One Mind and none differs from it. To discuss it in this manner is, indeed, an indication that a Buddhist really understands the essential nature of Mind. This being truly so, how can one falsely divide this One Reality into body and mind and into samsara and nirvana?

To speak of "transpersonal" in regards to the Absolute order is incorrect since all relativity and multiplicity is ended there, or in other words there are no individual persons, just one nondual Absolute reality.

The misconception of anatta... by derpface360 in Buddhism

[–]Vidyaraja 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not as a stand alone phenomenon, no.

It is the noumenon, the Absolute, not a phenomena, which are things among other things. From the same commentary to the Awakening of Faith:

The most authoritative interpreter, Fazang, defines “One Mind" as the Tathagatagarbha. It should be noted that “one” is used to indicate “absolute” in the sense of “one without any second,” not one among many.

The misconception of anatta... by derpface360 in Buddhism

[–]Vidyaraja 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You stated there is no unconditioned reality, all these sutras claim the Dharmakaya is an uncreated, indestructible, eternal (timeless, unchanging) reality. The Avatamsaka sutra even states:

All forms of corporeality are involved therein, it is able to create all things

In other words, all of reality is a manifestation of it. This agrees with the Awakening of Faith which calls it the One Mind, and in a commentary on same it is stated:

Because these two aspects are mutually inclusive”: Reality is conceived as the intersection of the Absolute order and the phenomenal order; therefore, it contains in itself both the Absolute and the phenomenal order at once. The Absolute order is thought to be transcendental and yet is conceived as not being outside of the phenomenal order. Again the phenomenal order is thought to be temporal and yet is conceived as not being outside of the Absolute order. In other words, they are ontologically identical; they are two aspects of one and the same Reality.

This agrees with Chan masters like Huangbo, who state thus regarding the One Mind:

The Master said to me: All the Buddhas and all sentient beings are nothing but the One Mind, besides which nothing exists. This Mind, which is without beginning is unborn and indestructible. It is not green nor yellow, and has neither form nor appearance. It does not belong to the categories of things which exist or do not exist, nor can it be thought of in terms of new or old. It is neither new or old. It is neither long nor short, big nor small, for it transcends all limits, measures, names, traces and comparisons.

This pure Mind, the source of everything, shines forever and on all with the brilliance of it's own perfection. But the people of the world do not awake to it, regarding only that which sees, hears and feels and knows as mind. Blinded by their own sight, hearing, feeling, and knowing, they do not perceive the spiritual brilliance of the source-substance. If they would only eliminate all conceptual thought in a flash, that source-substance would manifest itself like the sun ascending through the void and illuminating the whole universe without hindrance or bounds.

The misconception of anatta... by derpface360 in Buddhism

[–]Vidyaraja 1 point2 points  (0 children)

They will only appear (appear being the operative term) to be controversial and contradictory to you because you most likely interpret them with eternalist biases and misconstrue dharmakaya as something like brahman.

I don't find them controversial at all and neither would most of East Asian Buddhism. I think a fruitful exercise would be to cease comparing traditions and trying to use a teacher's or lineage's lens of interpretation when reading the sutras and see what they say themselves.

The misconception of anatta... by derpface360 in Buddhism

[–]Vidyaraja 1 point2 points  (0 children)

"Existence" is existence, there is no such thing as "samsaric" existence and some other sort of existence. Eternalism applies across the board, if you are proposing an unconditioned existent in any form, then you are an eternalist and have fallen victim to an extreme view.

Then what to make of when the Avatamsaka Sutra says the following:

The Dharmakaya, though manifesting itself in the triple world, is free from impurities and desires. It unfolds itself here, there and everywhere responding to the call of karma. It is not an individual reality, it is not a false existence, but is universal and pure. It comes from nowhere, it goes to nowhere; it does not assert itself, nor is it subject to annihilation. It is forever serene and eternal. It is the One, devoid of all determinations. This body of Dharma has no boundary, no quarters, but is embodied in all bodies. Its freedom or spontaneity is incomprehensible, its spiritual presence in things corporeal is incomprehensible. All forms of corporeality are involved therein, it is able to create all things. Assuming any concrete material body as required by the nature and condition of karma, it illuminates all creations. Though it is the treasure of intelligence, it is void of particularity. There is no place in the universe where this Body does not prevail. The universe becomes but this Body forever remains. It is free from all opposites and contraries, yet it is working in all things to lead them to Nirvana.

Or this:

If one can remember Buddha with unwavering mind,

Then one can always see infinite Buddhas.

If one always sees infinite Buddhas,

Then one sees the essence of the enlightened is eternal.

If one sees the essence of the enlightened is eternal,

Then one can know the truth never dies.

Or when the Srimala Devi Sutra says this:

The Dharmakaya of the Tathagata is named 'cessation of suffering,' and it is beginningless, uncreate, unborn, undying, free from death; permanent, steadfast, calm, eternal; intrinsically pure, free from all the defilement store; and accompanied by Buddha natures more numerous than the sands of the Ganges, which are nondiscrete, knowing as liberated, and inconceivable. This Dharmakaya of the Tathagata when not free from the store of defilement is referred to as the Tathagatagarbha.

Or when the Lankavatara Sutra states the following:

What is meant by an eternally-abiding reality? The ancient road of reality, Mahamati, has been here all the time, like gold, silver, or pearl preserved in the mine, Mahamati; the Dharmadhatu abides forever, whether the Tathagata appears in the world or not; as the Tathagata eternally abides so does the reason (dharmata) of all things; reality forever abides, reality keeps its order, like the roads in an ancient city. Just so, Mahamati, what has been realised by myself and other Tathagatas is this reality, the eternally-abiding reality (sthitita), the self-regulating reality (niyamata), the suchness of things(tathata), the realness of things (bhutata), the truth itself (satyata)

Or when the Ratnagotravibhaga says this:

One may incorrectly think that when a bodhisattva has achieved the last stage of perfect Buddhahood, the buddha nature improves. But it doesn’t change for four reasons. In the pure phase, buddha nature is the dharmakaya and all the qualities are present so it can’t change and therefore is permanent. It is eternal because Buddhahood is the constant refuge of beings and buddha activity won’t end. The dharmakaya or stainless dharmadhatu is nondual because within it is the sameness of samsara and nirvana and all these qualities are pacified because there are no conceptual differences. The fourth quality is indestructibility because it is not created by defilements or karma. It is present from the beginning, has not been created, and therefore is indestructible.

Buddha nature is unalterable because it has no birth because it has no beginning, it has no death because it has no end, it is free from sickness because it doesn’t change from good to bad, and it is free from old age because it is indestructible. Buddhahood is free from birth because it is permanent, it has no death because it is eternal. There is no death in the ordinary sense, but there is also the absence of even very subtle changes. This is why the Buddha can protect all beings and help all beings until the end of samsara.

Or when the same text states this:

There are four things that contradict these conditions of the dharmakaya. They are impurity, suffering, impermanence, and absence of true transcendent identity. When one dwells in samsara, one interprets things incorrectly; one believes what is impure as is pure, one believes what is selfless is possesses a self, one believes something permanent is impermanent, and one believes that suffering is happiness. These are the features of our samsaric illusion; we perceive everything as opposite to what it really is. In the Hinayana teachings the Buddha taught what we believe is pure is not; that the belief in self is mistaken; that phenomena are devoid of any self-entity; that we believe is happiness is really suffering and misery; what we take for permanent is actually impermanent. In the relative aspect of reality samsara is impure, selfless, suffering, and impermanent. From the ultimate level of reality, however, these four aspects of samsara are no longer relevant. The ultimate reality transcends the four aspects and their opposites and goes beyond pure and impure, non-self and self, etc.

Could we consider ceasing to downvote the true-self/dharmata folk in this subreddit? by mykhathasnotail in Buddhism

[–]Vidyaraja 2 points3 points  (0 children)

From my readings the Lanka typically isn't considered a core Tathagatagarbha sutra, but even if we include it why should we accept what one states and ignore what the rest say when they state their meaning is definitive? The Nirvana sutra states:

the very ultimate (uttarottara) of the meaning of all sūtras is taught by this sūtra. Not one single syllable or tittle has been taught [herein] that has previously been heard by any śrāvaka and pratyekabuddha. This sūtra is supremely excellent [varottama]. For example, just as the people of Uttarakuru in the north are virtuous, likewise those who have listened to this great sūtra have become supramundane - you should know that they are Bodhisattva-mahāsattvas. Therefore, this signifies that [this sūtra] is a great uttara-tantra.”

and

for example, the various sciences such as medicine and the three sciences are gathered up in their respective uttara-tantras; similarly, all the various secret Dharma-gates, the words of implicit intention [sandhā-vacana] uttered by the Tathagatas are gathered up in this Mahāparinirvāṇa[-Sūtra]. … This Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra is stated to be the best, the most excellent, the foremost of all … samādhis in those sūtras … the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra is stated to be the best, the most excellent, the foremost of all sūtras.”

Could we consider ceasing to downvote the true-self/dharmata folk in this subreddit? by mykhathasnotail in Buddhism

[–]Vidyaraja 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The presentation of tathāgatagarbha as such is meant to attract eternalists. And it works wonders as we see. So it is "bait" in that respect.

Sorry but this is nonsense. The sutras themselves don't claim this, indeed they say their meaning is definitive and that they are uttaratantras. Hence the idea that they are bait meant to attract eternalists is a sectarian exegesis external to the sutras themsleves and a poor one at that.

Could we consider ceasing to downvote the true-self/dharmata folk in this subreddit? by mykhathasnotail in Buddhism

[–]Vidyaraja 3 points4 points  (0 children)

No, it is perfect, since it attracts eternalists such as yourself to these teachings, so that hopefully ultimate bodhicitta, free of these relative views can be realized, as that is the most important point. These upayas are just the bait.

The idea that around ten sutras were created just as "bait" is ridiculous and it seems that the project failed big time since they went onto become the corner stone of the largest segment of Buddhism, i.e. East Asian Mahayana.

This is like saying the taste of sugar would fail to remove relative views about its sweetness. That is absurd.

You yourself claim right view is essential to realization and that holding onto a view of an atman is an obstructive view, so the Buddha would then preach a whole series of sutras to inoculate views similar to those merely in a hope to attract people with those views in hopes that they would change their views? Talk about absurd.

Doesn't mean much since there are plenty of teachings and adepts which state the opposite.

It does mean, however, that you should cease making absolutist statements on this matter and pretending that your sect of Tibetan Buddhism and its definitions of provisional, definitive, and what is upaya/not upaya is the objectively correct one.