09 Apr 18
Originally posted by @black-beetleMy thesis was on Engaged Buddhism.
Your Master is in Buddhism, but I see that both Zen and the Middle Way are Greek to you. Why is that? And on what Buddhist tradition is your Master based?
😵
... I do not know why you would make such a statement. Care to explain what I am failing to understand?
Originally posted by @sonshipYou sound to me like you are trying to convince yourself more than anyone else.
Here's the deal. Something like Zen will always be more attractive to some people than the Christian faith. It will always be more desireable....
I have to figure out why Krishna is preferable to Jesus.
09 Apr 18
Originally posted by @philokaliaOh, Engaged Buddhism! Very well, but this is just a movement of social activism by Buddhists, not a Buddhist tradition per se.
My thesis was on Engaged Buddhism.
... I do not know why you would make such a statement. Care to explain what I am failing to understand?
That being said, I think the problem is the following: Since all the Buddhist schools propagate the very same teaching through different means in order to be understood at every level of awareness, a person that meditates deeply in the realm of a specific tradition (say, Zen/ Ch'an of the linage of Bodhidharma) understands, for example, Sunyata and the Two Truths, etc., etc., does not negate reality and is well balanced on the mental approach of all the dharmas. A koan is merely a specific way to ease specific practitioners to refrain from all the speculative theses definable in terms of dualist conceptual thinking polarized into binary or quaternary sets of constructs and from postulating any absolutely real entity (bhava) in terms of these positions.
So, when you say at the second page of this thread that “For instance, the famous "Sound of one hand clapping"'s actual right answer only simply has to divulge that it represents non-duality, or the total absence of self, thus interpenetration”, you are wrong. The koan does not represent non-duality. The answer of the koan is related to a specific point of attention of the mind of the practitioner, a point that is not yet perceived by this person due to specific reasons acknowledged by his teacher. The koan, as is the case with all of them, points to somewhere, just as a finger could point to somewhere. It does not point to the total absence of the self, for the practitioner knows already well that his self neither exists, nor does not exist, nor both, nor neither. The koan is an advanced exercise beyond conceptualization for trained monks of a certain order, not a riddle for a person who knows next to nothing about a specific Buddhist tradition. To see Zen, one must first pass from Madhyamaka.
😵
09 Apr 18
Originally posted by @philokaliaNo. You simply do not understand the Middle Way.
There's also the question of Buddhism asking you to totally sacrifice the individuality that you have and become non-dual.
A Christian has a soul; a Christian is distinguished; a Christian, in Heaven, is rejoined with God and the Saints. To a Christian, Theosis means becomign like God, but it implies retaining the aspects of ourselves that are indivi ...[text shortened]... wn and loved by God.
In Buddhism... "Soullessness" is one of the most fundamental teachings.
😵
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
09 Apr 18
2 edits
Originally posted by @black-beetleThanks for that explanation.
Oh, Engaged Buddhism! Very well, but this is just a movement of social activism by Buddhists, not a Buddhist tradition per se.
That being said, I think the problem is the following: Since all the Buddhist schools propagate the very same teaching through different means in order to be understood at every level of awareness, a person that meditates de ...[text shortened]... othing about a specific Buddhist tradition. To see Zen, one must first pass from Madhyamaka.
😵
How would you explain why there arose the need to "pass from Madhyamaka" to begin with?
Is "Madhyamaka" that something I got trapped in somehow, but should not have?
09 Apr 18
Originally posted by @philokaliaNo.
This would go back to the idea that Chrsitians believe that man is fundamentally differentiated from God and were created by Him. Since we are creatures, and we are individuals that are separate from Him, our theosis and process of becoming more Godlike involves merely partaking in the divine nature of God (as God partook in the nature of man).
The i ...[text shortened]... d more about theosis because this is a massive and fascinating topic that isn't explored enough.
Nirvana and all dharmas pertaining to Samsara are sunya, so there is no differentiating point between Samsara and Nirvana. You are not talking about Buddhism, but about whatever you imagine as Buddhism;
😵
09 Apr 18
Originally posted by @sonshipZen is grounded on the Madhyamaka tradition. If you ignore Madhyamaka, you cannot proceed with Zen😵
Thanks for that explanation.
How would you explain why there arose the need to "pass from Madhyamaka" to begin with?
Is "Madhyamaka" that something I got trapped in somehow, but should not have?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
09 Apr 18
Originally posted by @black-beetleI see. Thanks.
Zen is grounded on the Madhyamaka tradition. If you ignore Madhyamaka, you cannot proceed with Zen😵
09 Apr 18
Originally posted by @black-beetle(1) It is relatively new and is an extremely important part of Buddhism.
Oh, Engaged Buddhism! Very well, but this is just a movement of social activism by Buddhists, not a Buddhist tradition per se.
That being said, I think the problem is the following: Since all the Buddhist schools propagate the very same teaching through different means in order to be understood at every level of awareness, a person that meditates de ...[text shortened]... othing about a specific Buddhist tradition. To see Zen, one must first pass from Madhyamaka.
😵
(2) SO a Koan is some form of skillful means for introducing an idea. I do not believe I contradicted that at all but rather affirmed it.
(3) These sorts of Zen koans are also given to laypersons who are scarcely initiates.
(4) I do not really get the passive aggression you are putting forward here where you are dismissing what I had explained and then going off into something about how I must truly understand the madhyamaka, etc., to understand Zen; this is just a lot of posturing and I do not really even know how to respond since we are not greatly in conflict and you are merely asserting things.
(5) Here is a link that basically explains the koan in a similar way to how I did:
http://taosangha-na.com/blog/the-sound-of-one-hand-clapping/
09 Apr 18
Originally posted by @black-beetleSaying that this is the total foundation of it is off:
Zen is grounded on the Madhyamaka tradition. If you ignore Madhyamaka, you cannot proceed with Zen😵
The teachings of Zen include various sources of Mahayana thought, especially Yogachara, the Tathāgatagarbha sūtras and the Huayan school, with their emphasis on Buddha-nature, totality, and the Bodhisattva-ideal.[8][9] The Prajñāpāramitā literature[10] and, to a lesser extent, Madhyamaka have also been influential in the shaping of the "paradoxical language" of the Zen-tradition.
There would even be some argumentation that there is a foundation within this that is a bit contrary to madhyamaka thought:
According to Tibetan sources, this school was in protracted dialectic with the Madhyamaka. However, there is disagreement among contemporary Western and traditional Buddhist scholars about the degree to which they were opposed, if at all.[13] To summarize the main difference: while the Madhyamaka held that asserting the existence or non-existence of any ultimately real thing was inappropriate, some later exponents of Yogācāra asserted that the mind (or in the more sophisticated variations, primordial wisdom) and only the mind is ultimately real. This is, however, a later interpretation of Yogācāra, and Vasubandhu and Asaṅga in particular did not assert that mind was truly inherently existent. According to some interpretations, .[14]
The position that Yogācāra and Madhyamaka were in dialectic was expounded by Xuanzang in the 7th century. After a suite of debates with exponents of the Madhyamaka school in India, Xuanzang composed in Sanskrit the no longer extant three-thousand verse treatise The Non-difference of Madhyamaka and Yogācāra.[15]
Some later Yogācāra exponents also synthesized the two views, particularly Śāntarakṣita in the 8th century, whose view was later called "Yogācāra-Svatantrika-Madhyamaka" by the Tibetan tradition. In his view the Mādhyamika position is ultimately true and at the same time the mind-only view is a useful way to relate to conventionalities and progress students more skillfully toward the ultimate.[16] This synthesized view between the two positions, which also incorporated views of valid cognition from Dignāga and Dharmakīrti, was one of the last developments of Indian Buddhism before it was extinguished in the 11th century during the Muslim incursion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yogachara
09 Apr 18
Originally posted by @divegeesterThe jedi analogy is close to the mark actually
😵
I can read most of you a mile away
😵
09 Apr 18
Originally posted by @black-beetleDo not mistake the finger pointing to the moon for the moon itself, indeed
Oh, Engaged Buddhism! Very well, but this is just a movement of social activism by Buddhists, not a Buddhist tradition per se.
That being said, I think the problem is the following: Since all the Buddhist schools propagate the very same teaching through different means in order to be understood at every level of awareness, a person that meditates de ...[text shortened]... othing about a specific Buddhist tradition. To see Zen, one must first pass from Madhyamaka.
😵
Cheers bro
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29597
09 Apr 18
Originally posted by @karoly-aczelJust not Zen.
Life is good for the righteous and attentive
They absorb the lessons and make them their own
I'm so happy , no , I'm estatic!
(Life is an illusion).