If we refer to early buddhist texts , you can't find any elaborative affirmative description about the state of Nibanna , whereas , the Mahayana and Zen has . The Theravada teachings emphasized merely on the path . Mahayana , Zen and Vajrayana more on the liberation description .dharmacorps wrote: ↑Fri Feb 09, 2018 1:50 am Thanissaro Bhikkhu refers to "Buddhist religions". That would Theravada, Mahayana, and Vajrayana, could be considered different religions, but all Buddhist. I don't have a problem with that description. As a Thervadin, when I listen to a talk from a Mahayana, Zen, or Vajrayana teacher, I will sometimes feel very out of place because the teachings conflict with my understanding of dhamma. Then the next moment I will hear something that feels very familiar. It might permit us some sectarian discomfort if we think of Mahayana and Vajrayana as Buddhist Religions like ours, but perhaps sometimes fairly different in practice and method.
Theravada and Mahayana need each other
Re: Theravada and Mahayana need each other
-
- Posts: 2298
- Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2015 7:33 pm
Re: Theravada and Mahayana need each other
RIght, that's a example of what I was saying-- a description of the state of nibbana which is somewhat fundamentally ineffable in the Pali Canon IS described in other Buddhist religions. Sometimes they don't even seem like the same religion because of those vast differences.James Tan wrote: ↑Sat Feb 17, 2018 1:42 pm If we refer to early buddhist texts , you can't find any elaborative affirmative description about the state of Nibanna , whereas , the Mahayana and Zen has . The Theravada teachings emphasized merely on the path . Mahayana , Zen and Vajrayana more on the liberation description .
Re: Theravada and Mahayana need each other
Can you elaborate? Which interpretations of nibbāna do u refer to? Abiding and non-abiding?dharmacorps wrote: ↑Sat Feb 17, 2018 5:54 pmRIght, that's a example of what I was saying-- a description of the state of nibbana which is somewhat fundamentally ineffable in the Pali Canon IS described in other Buddhist religions. Sometimes they don't even seem like the same religion because of those vast differences.James Tan wrote: ↑Sat Feb 17, 2018 1:42 pm If we refer to early buddhist texts , you can't find any elaborative affirmative description about the state of Nibanna , whereas , the Mahayana and Zen has . The Theravada teachings emphasized merely on the path . Mahayana , Zen and Vajrayana more on the liberation description .
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
-
- Posts: 1350
- Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am
Re: Theravada and Mahayana need each other
It seems like ineffability is common throughout all religions when talking about a transcendent reality no matter what it is called.Coëmgenu wrote: ↑Sat Feb 17, 2018 10:42 pmCan you elaborate? Which interpretations of nibbāna do u refer to? Abiding and non-abiding?dharmacorps wrote: ↑Sat Feb 17, 2018 5:54 pmRIght, that's a example of what I was saying-- a description of the state of nibbana which is somewhat fundamentally ineffable in the Pali Canon IS described in other Buddhist religions. Sometimes they don't even seem like the same religion because of those vast differences.James Tan wrote: ↑Sat Feb 17, 2018 1:42 pm If we refer to early buddhist texts , you can't find any elaborative affirmative description about the state of Nibanna , whereas , the Mahayana and Zen has . The Theravada teachings emphasized merely on the path . Mahayana , Zen and Vajrayana more on the liberation description .
If we take Nagarjuna's writings as the definitive 'view' on Mahayana, does he talk about abiding or non-abiding as the descriptive for Nibbana?
Re: Theravada and Mahayana need each other
If we may say , what the main thing of Theravada buddhist is talking about is liken to primary , secondary education , tertiary education and the undergraduate and stop at that . They don't go further . Whereas , the Mahayana and Zen and Vajrayana is went further talking about postgraduate and doctorate !dharmacorps wrote: ↑Sat Feb 17, 2018 5:54 pmRIght, that's a example of what I was saying-- a description of the state of nibbana which is somewhat fundamentally ineffable in the Pali Canon IS described in other Buddhist religions. Sometimes they don't even seem like the same religion because of those vast differences.James Tan wrote: ↑Sat Feb 17, 2018 1:42 pm If we refer to early buddhist texts , you can't find any elaborative affirmative description about the state of Nibanna , whereas , the Mahayana and Zen has . The Theravada teachings emphasized merely on the path . Mahayana , Zen and Vajrayana more on the liberation description .
Therefore , what both focusing is totally different levels .
Re: Theravada and Mahayana need each other
I think he would argue along the lines of Ratnāvalī XLII or Mūlamadhyamakakārikā XXV:Saengnapha wrote: ↑Sun Feb 18, 2018 6:13 amIt seems like ineffability is common throughout all religions when talking about a transcendent reality no matter what it is called.Coëmgenu wrote: ↑Sat Feb 17, 2018 10:42 pmCan you elaborate? Which interpretations of nibbāna do u refer to? Abiding and non-abiding?dharmacorps wrote: ↑Sat Feb 17, 2018 5:54 pm
RIght, that's a example of what I was saying-- a description of the state of nibbana which is somewhat fundamentally ineffable in the Pali Canon IS described in other Buddhist religions. Sometimes they don't even seem like the same religion because of those vast differences.
If we take Nagarjuna's writings as the definitive 'view' on Mahayana, does he talk about abiding or non-abiding as the descriptive for Nibbana?
In liberation there is neither self nor are there aggregates.
If liberation is asserted thus,
Why is the removal here of the self
and of the aggregates not liked by you?
If nirvāṇa is not a non-thing,
Just how could it have thingness?
The extinction of the misconception
Of things and non-things is called nirvāṇa.
Mahāyāna proposes an apratiṣṭhitanirvāṇa (non-abiding extinguishment) in accordance with Nirvāṇaparīkṣā Nāgārjunasya, or the above-quoted MMKXXV.That which when dependent or conditioned comes into and goes out of existence,
that, when not conditioned or dependent, is called nirvāṇa.
Nirvāṇa does not have any qualities whatsoever, at least as far as Madhyamaka analysis goes. From there, it follows to the Mahāyānist that nirvāṇa cannot be pratiṣṭhita ('abiding', 'contained', 'situated'). The logic goes something like this:
"A-", in Sanskrit as well as numerous Indo-European languages, Greek, Latin, etc., has the property of negation. Kusala. Akusala. Pratiṣṭhita. Apratiṣṭhita.Thus have I heard: At one time, the Bhagavān was at Vulture’s Peak in Rājagṛiha, together with eighty-three fully-ordained bhikṣavaḥ, and many hundreds of thousands of millions of bodhisattvāḥ, who were all abiding together in one company.
Thereupon, at that time, at that moment, the Bhagavān gave teaching to the Venerable Ānanda thus:
“Ānanda! This is the Far-Reaching Perfection of Deep Insight in a Single Syllable. For the benefit and happiness of all sentient beings, you should retain this! And it goes thus: ཨཱ། [āḥ]."
The Bhagavān spoke those words, and the bhikṣavaḥ, bodhisattvāḥ, and all the assemblies of gods, humans, demigods and celestial spirits, along with the entire world, rejoiced: they deeply praised what had been spoken by the Bhagavān, the transcendent and accomplished Jina.
(The One-Syllable Wisdom-Perfection, Ākakasharamprajñāpāramitāsarvatathāgatamanāma)
This is the foundational interpretive difference that divides bodhisattvayāna & śrāvakayāna afaik. This is why Mahāyāna Buddhas get to run around emanating & whatnot while Theravāda Buddhas remain in an "abiding" extinguishment.
The obvious responce, to the above "Nirvāṇa does not have any qualities whatsoever, at least as far as Madhyamaka analysis goes." is the following: "Well, that's all fine and well, but, it does have a quality. You just said it. This 'apratiṣṭhitatā' business."
But it should be noted that, ideally, apratiṣṭhita is not an affirmation, it is simply an indication of freedom from an extreme.
IMO & afaik of course.
Last edited by Coëmgenu on Tue Feb 20, 2018 5:27 pm, edited 3 times in total.
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
Re: Theravada and Mahayana need each other
And this ties in with wider intersect relations. Keep in mind this is just my own thoughts on the matter. A Theravādin may well respond: "Nirvāṇa is already free of four extremes, apratiṣṭhita-pratiṣṭhita (constrained & unconstrained) is an invalid mode of inquiry with respect to this dhamma. (Pari-)Nirvāṇa leads to the cessation of activities, births, deaths, etc."Coëmgenu wrote: ↑Sun Feb 18, 2018 11:16 amThe obvious responce, to the above "Nirvāṇa does not have any qualities whatsoever, at least as far as Madhyamaka analysis goes." is the following: "Well, that's all fine and well, but, it does have a quality. You just said it. This 'apratiṣṭhitatā' business."Saengnapha wrote: ↑Sun Feb 18, 2018 6:13 amIt seems like ineffability is common throughout all religions when talking about a transcendent reality no matter what it is called.
If we take Nagarjuna's writings as the definitive 'view' on Mahayana, does he talk about abiding or non-abiding as the descriptive for Nibbana?
But it should be noted that, ideally, ["]apratiṣṭhita is not an affirmation, it is simply an indication of freedom from an extreme.["]
Activities, births, deaths, cyclic transmigration, or, in other words: saṃsāra.
This is where Theravādins are divided with regards to Venerable Nāgārjuna, from that same Nirvāṇaparīkṣā Nāgārjunasya ('Nirvāṇa-Analysis of Nāgārjuna', see MMK xxv/25, or p. 302 here if you do not have a copy on-hand), I'm sure you are familiar with this passage, so I'll quote a Chinese recension instead, from the Madhyamakaśāstra (中論, Zhōng lùn), T1564 @ 35c27:
涅槃與世間 無有少分別
nirvāna and this world not even slight disparity
世間與涅槃 亦無少分別
this world and nirvāṇa also no[t even] slight disparity
涅槃之實際 及與世間際
nirvāṇa's true apex [koṭi] towards this world's apex
如是二際者 無毫釐差別
like this there are two apices [like this there is] not the smallest sliver of disparity
This kind of not-two-theory (無二元) is part and parcel to Madhyamaka, but it does not always find a friendly reception in Theravādin circles, for right or wrong.
Last edited by Coëmgenu on Sun Feb 18, 2018 2:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
-
- Posts: 1350
- Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am
Re: Theravada and Mahayana need each other
The page 302 link doesn't work.Coëmgenu wrote: ↑Sun Feb 18, 2018 12:25 pmAnd this ties in with wider intersect relations. Keep in mind this is just my own thoughts on the matter. A Theravādin may well respond: "Nirvāṇa is already free of four extremes, apratiṣṭhita-pratiṣṭhita (constrained & unconstrained) is an invalid mode of inquiry with respect to this dhamma. (Pari-)Nirvāṇa leads to the cessation of activities, births, deaths, etc."Coëmgenu wrote: ↑Sun Feb 18, 2018 11:16 amThe obvious responce, to the above "Nirvāṇa does not have any qualities whatsoever, at least as far as Madhyamaka analysis goes." is the following: "Well, that's all fine and well, but, it does have a quality. You just said it. This 'apratiṣṭhitatā' business."Saengnapha wrote: ↑Sun Feb 18, 2018 6:13 am
It seems like ineffability is common throughout all religions when talking about a transcendent reality no matter what it is called.
If we take Nagarjuna's writings as the definitive 'view' on Mahayana, does he talk about abiding or non-abiding as the descriptive for Nibbana?
But it should be noted that, ideally, ["]apratiṣṭhita is not an affirmation, it is simply an indication of freedom from an extreme.["]
Activities, births, deaths, cyclic transmigration, or, in other words: saṃsāra.
This is where Theravādins are divided with regards to Venerable Nāgārjuna, from that same Nirvāṇaparīkṣā Nāgārjunasya ('Nirvāṇa-Analysis of Nāgārjuna', see MMK xxv/25, or p. 302 here if you do not have a copy on-hand), I'm sure you are familiar with this passage, so I'll quote a Chinese recension instead, from the Madhyamakaśāstra (中論, Zhōng lùn), T1564 @ 35c27:
涅槃與世間 無有少分別
nirvāna and this world not even small distinctions
世間與涅槃 亦無少分別
this world and nirvāṇa also no[t even] small distinctions
涅槃之實際 及與世間際
nirvāṇa's true apex [koṭi] towards this world's apex
如是二際者 無毫釐差別
like this there are two apices [like this there is] not the smallest sliver of disparity
This kind of not-two-theory (無二元) is part and parcel to Madhyamaka, but it does not always find a friendly reception in Theravādin circles, for right or wrong.
There seems to be a real disconnect when it comes to Theravada and its relationship to Nagarjuna and Madhyamaka, at least with many of the posters on this board. As you mentioned earlier, there is more of a connection with a path of purification such as we find in Christian mysticism and the writings of St. John Of The Cross. But Theravada is not really a 'via negativa'. It posits an affirmation. With Nagarjuna, there is no affirmation posited, yet it is not a nihilistic nothingness. It simply undermines the intellect in its desire to chain itself to a view of what reality really is. This failure of the intellect to know what is not 'knowable' is a key point in all religious and philosophical endeavors. Abiding/not abiding and all affirmations and negations are transcended through this dialectic.
Re: Theravada and Mahayana need each other
Apologies. Here. This one should work.Saengnapha wrote: ↑Sun Feb 18, 2018 1:27 pmThe page 302 link doesn't work.Coëmgenu wrote: ↑Sun Feb 18, 2018 12:25 pmNirvāṇaparīkṣā Nāgārjunasya ('Nirvāṇa-Analysis of Nāgārjuna', see MMK xxv/25, or p. 302 here if you do not have a copy on-hand)
I am not sure if I brought these things up. I'm not familiar with St. John of the Cross.Saengnapha wrote: ↑Sun Feb 18, 2018 1:27 pmThere seems to be a real disconnect when it comes to Theravada and its relationship to Nagarjuna and Madhyamaka, at least with many of the posters on this board. As you mentioned earlier, there is more of a connection with a path of purification such as we find in Christian mysticism and the writings of St. John Of The Cross.
What is the parallel you are noticing with Viśuddhimagga though? It could be interesting.
What, for you, is the 'affirmation' of Theravāda?Saengnapha wrote: ↑Sun Feb 18, 2018 1:27 pmTheravada is not really a 'via negativa'. It posits an affirmation. With Nagarjuna, there is no affirmation posited, yet it is not a nihilistic nothingness. It simply undermines the intellect in its desire to chain itself to a view of what reality really is. This failure of the intellect to know what is not 'knowable' is a key point in all religious and philosophical endeavors. Abiding/not abiding and all affirmations and negations are transcended through this dialectic.
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
-
- Posts: 1350
- Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am
Re: Theravada and Mahayana need each other
The affirmation is Nibbana.Coëmgenu wrote: ↑Sun Feb 18, 2018 1:57 pmApologies. Here. This one should work.Saengnapha wrote: ↑Sun Feb 18, 2018 1:27 pmThe page 302 link doesn't work.Coëmgenu wrote: ↑Sun Feb 18, 2018 12:25 pmNirvāṇaparīkṣā Nāgārjunasya ('Nirvāṇa-Analysis of Nāgārjuna', see MMK xxv/25, or p. 302 here if you do not have a copy on-hand)I am not sure if I brought these things up. I'm not familiar with St. John of the Cross.Saengnapha wrote: ↑Sun Feb 18, 2018 1:27 pmThere seems to be a real disconnect when it comes to Theravada and its relationship to Nagarjuna and Madhyamaka, at least with many of the posters on this board. As you mentioned earlier, there is more of a connection with a path of purification such as we find in Christian mysticism and the writings of St. John Of The Cross.
What is the parallel you are noticing with Viśuddhimagga though? It could be interesting.What, for you, is the 'affirmation' of Theravāda?Saengnapha wrote: ↑Sun Feb 18, 2018 1:27 pmTheravada is not really a 'via negativa'. It posits an affirmation. With Nagarjuna, there is no affirmation posited, yet it is not a nihilistic nothingness. It simply undermines the intellect in its desire to chain itself to a view of what reality really is. This failure of the intellect to know what is not 'knowable' is a key point in all religious and philosophical endeavors. Abiding/not abiding and all affirmations and negations are transcended through this dialectic.
I've never read Visuddhimagga.
-
- Posts: 1350
- Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am
Re: Theravada and Mahayana need each other
And therein lies the controverted point.Saengnapha wrote: ↑Sun Feb 18, 2018 4:04 pmThis verse from page 302:
There is no distinction whatsoever between saṃsāra and
nirvāṇa.
There is no distinction whatsoever between nirvāṇa and
saṃsāra
Is there any parallel to this in Theravada?
From earlier, p.296:
ya ājavaṃjavībhāva upādāya pratītya vā |
so ’pratītyānupādāya nirvāṇam upadiśyate ||
That which when dependent or conditioned comes into and goes out of existence,
that, when not conditioned or dependent, is called nirvāṇa
This is the foundation for the above statement: "there is no distinction whatsoever between saṃsāra and nirvāṇa" from later in the text. Especially when it is read in light of the text as a whole, from the Contemplation of Causality (MMKI, Pratyayaparīkṣā in Sanskrit, 'An Analysis of Conditions' in the translation we've been linked to):
不生亦不滅 不常亦不斷
Not arising but not ceasing not constant but not annihilated
不一亦不異 不來亦不出
not same but not other not coming but not going
能說是因緣 善滅諸戲論
There is one who speaks on this matter of cause and condition the auspicious cessation of all prapañca
我稽首禮佛
I lower my head in propriety before the Buddha
Some say that Theravāda does not have language like this. Some say that this is perfectly "in-line with the suttas", whatever that means, the meaning dependent as always on the speaker.
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
-
- Posts: 2298
- Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2015 7:33 pm
Re: Theravada and Mahayana need each other
So us hinayanists are just slumming it as less educated undergrads? Hmm.James Tan wrote: ↑Sun Feb 18, 2018 8:50 am If we may say , what the main thing of Theravada buddhist is talking about is liken to primary , secondary education , tertiary education and the undergraduate and stop at that . They don't go further . Whereas , the Mahayana and Zen and Vajrayana is went further talking about postgraduate and doctorate !
Therefore , what both focusing is totally different levels .
You could just as unfairly and divisively say mahayana, zen, and vajrayana are "going further" from the reality of what the Buddha actually taught.
-
- Posts: 1350
- Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am
Re: Theravada and Mahayana need each other
I have always found myself speechless after contemplating this.Coëmgenu wrote: ↑Sun Feb 18, 2018 4:21 pmAnd therein lies the controverted point.Saengnapha wrote: ↑Sun Feb 18, 2018 4:04 pmThis verse from page 302:
There is no distinction whatsoever between saṃsāra and
nirvāṇa.
There is no distinction whatsoever between nirvāṇa and
saṃsāra
Is there any parallel to this in Theravada?
From earlier, p.296:
ya ājavaṃjavībhāva upādāya pratītya vā |
so ’pratītyānupādāya nirvāṇam upadiśyate ||
That which when dependent or conditioned comes into and goes out of existence,
that, when not conditioned or dependent, is called nirvāṇa
This is the foundation for the above statement: "there is no distinction whatsoever between saṃsāra and nirvāṇa" from later in the text. Especially when it is read in light of the text as a whole, from the Contemplation of Causality (MMKI, Pratyayaparīkṣā in Sanskrit, 'An Analysis of Conditions' in the translation we've been linked to):
不生亦不滅 不常亦不斷
Not arising but not ceasing not constant but not annihilated
不一亦不異 不來亦不出
not same but not other not coming but not going
能說是因緣 善滅諸戲論
There is one who speaks on this matter of cause and condition the auspicious cessation of all prapañca
我稽首禮佛
I lower my head in propriety before the Buddha
Some say that Theravāda does not have language like this. Some say that this is perfectly "in-line with the suttas", whatever that means, the meaning dependent as always on the speaker.