The Problem with Gelugpa Vajrayana Buddhist School-of-Thought Philosophy

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Viveka
Posts: 370
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:06 pm

The Problem with Gelugpa Vajrayana Buddhist School-of-Thought Philosophy

Post by Viveka » Fri Sep 29, 2017 10:09 pm

Gelugpas have no room for the Buddha or his teachings in their philosophy nor are they free from error in their own philosophy:... If dependent arising is emptiness, and emptiness the lack of independence, then what more does emptiness add to dependent arising other than dependent arising itself? Thus there is emptiness that is nothing new to be added to dependent arising; it would be a tautology to call emptiness something non-different from dependent arising; It is still left as a the case of rabbit with horns (non-existence not existing in the colloquial manner of something versus nothing) as the emptiness of emptiness would render the emptiness non-efficacious and therefore one is left only with dependent arising...
if one finds the emptiness of the chair, and then searches for emptiness of emptiness--one does not find--or does one find emptiness? If one did find that emptiness, then is there an emptiness of that emptiness, and so on? And if there are multiple emptinesses, are there also multiple afflictions that are pacified as such? . If that which is refuted in the path to emptiness is wrong conventional conception, which are inherent existence and inherent non-existence, are they or are they not truly existing objects within our experience which have three sense spheres of the senses--conventionally or ultimately-- then how exactly does this affliction occur within anything or anyone? To explain the emptiness of emptiness means that what you are trying to find (emptiness without elaboration), through the problem of inherent existence and inherent non-existence, and by such, the affliction existed before, before and after the search due to emptiness of emptiness. Inherent existence and inherent non-existence would then present itself as both a conventional affliction as well as a final state in the ultimate truth, unless there is a never-ending spectrum of affliction and emptinesses. If the affliction disappears when emptiness is meditated upon, then there is no need for emptiness of emptiness.

If I examine the emptiness of emptiness and then find that it disappears only to give the conventional truth, then what exactly is the ultimate truth, and how can we attain Nirvana if there is no ultimate truth? This leads into wrong views about enlightenment:

Even Buddhists have wrong views about Buddhism, and thus create 'false gods.' What is enlightenment? According to most vajrayana and mahayana buddhists it is knowing both conventional and ultimate truth at the same time. However, how is that enlightenment? It's not even relenquishment from all suffering! As a gelugpa against gelugpa would say:" How can one handle suffering if one has conventional truth? How can one handle conventional truth if one has no suffering? If there is conventional truth, there is suffering. To have both is to have suffering and happiness at the same time." Is enlightenment good or bad karma if it is both conventional and ultimate truth? The Kalachakra is about removing the cycles of time that are the planets and the zodiac, but what about cycles that are above that? And above those cycles?

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 10658
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: The Problem with Gelugpa Vajrayana Buddhist School-of-Thought Philosophy

Post by Arising_uk » Mon Oct 02, 2017 3:35 am

Just saying the name seems a fair old problem for starters.

Still, I think you should be chatting to dontaskme upon this subject as I think you'll understand each other.

Dalek Prime
Posts: 4197
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:48 am

Re: The Problem with Gelugpa Vajrayana Buddhist School-of-Thought Philosophy

Post by Dalek Prime » Tue Oct 03, 2017 3:30 pm

The real problem is, you think there are problems with other sects, preferring your own doctrine that you've swallowed. Seriously, you know better for towing someone else's line?

Viveka
Posts: 370
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:06 pm

Re: The Problem with Gelugpa Vajrayana Buddhist School-of-Thought Philosophy

Post by Viveka » Tue Oct 03, 2017 10:53 pm

Dalek Prime wrote:
Tue Oct 03, 2017 3:30 pm
The real problem is, you think there are problems with other sects, preferring your own doctrine that you've swallowed. Seriously, you know better for towing someone else's line?
Of course I prefer other sects because I have experienced them, and know some of some sects' philosophy. I can can Gelugpa because it is philosophically inadequate and practically ungraspable. There is no one meaning to it that one can set as their view and method and meditate upon it, as it is supposedly 'viewless' and, as Nagarjuna when interpreted by Gelugpa says 'Those who say there is a view are wrong.'

Dalek Prime
Posts: 4197
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:48 am

Re: The Problem with Gelugpa Vajrayana Buddhist School-of-Thought Philosophy

Post by Dalek Prime » Tue Oct 03, 2017 10:56 pm

Viveka wrote:
Tue Oct 03, 2017 10:53 pm
Dalek Prime wrote:
Tue Oct 03, 2017 3:30 pm
The real problem is, you think there are problems with other sects, preferring your own doctrine that you've swallowed. Seriously, you know better for towing someone else's line?
Of course I prefer other sects because I have experienced them, and know some of some sects' philosophy. I can can Gelugpa because it is philosophically inadequate and practically ungraspable. There is no one meaning to it that one can set as their view and method and meditate upon it, as it is supposedly 'viewless' and, as Nagarjuna when interpreted by Gelugpa says 'Those who say there is a view are wrong.'
That you doing it out of knowledge and experience is fair enough for me.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 555
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: The Problem with Gelugpa Vajrayana Buddhist School-of-Thought Philosophy

Post by -1- » Tue Oct 17, 2017 10:32 am

Viveka wrote:
Tue Oct 03, 2017 10:53 pm
Of course I prefer other sects because I have experienced them, and know some of some sects' philosophy. I can can Gelugpa because it is philosophically inadequate and practically ungraspable. There is no one meaning to it that one can set as their view and method and meditate upon it, as it is supposedly 'viewless' and, as Nagarjuna when interpreted by Gelugpa says 'Those who say there is a view are wrong.'
It must be a wonderful philosophy, which shifts meaning when cornered to make a stand, and which denies even the right to have views, as all views are wrong. A philosophy which is nihilist beyond nihilism: it confuses its followers and practitioners to the point where even thought, any practical and solid, sane thought, is immediately discarded, or reversed, or denied, or annihilated.

This is the bread-and-butter of philosophical chaos, it is the sophisticated and much more complex version of "newspeak" Orwell introduced to the Western cultures. Chaos has its merits, basically in the effect that it has the potential birth of any elementary development of structures.

Viveka
Posts: 370
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:06 pm

Re: The Problem with Gelugpa Vajrayana Buddhist School-of-Thought Philosophy

Post by Viveka » Wed Oct 18, 2017 9:04 pm

-1- wrote:
Tue Oct 17, 2017 10:32 am
Viveka wrote:
Tue Oct 03, 2017 10:53 pm
Of course I prefer other sects because I have experienced them, and know some of some sects' philosophy. I can can Gelugpa because it is philosophically inadequate and practically ungraspable. There is no one meaning to it that one can set as their view and method and meditate upon it, as it is supposedly 'viewless' and, as Nagarjuna when interpreted by Gelugpa says 'Those who say there is a view are wrong.'
It must be a wonderful philosophy, which shifts meaning when cornered to make a stand, and which denies even the right to have views, as all views are wrong. A philosophy which is nihilist beyond nihilism: it confuses its followers and practitioners to the point where even thought, any practical and solid, sane thought, is immediately discarded, or reversed, or denied, or annihilated.

This is the bread-and-butter of philosophical chaos, it is the sophisticated and much more complex version of "newspeak" Orwell introduced to the Western cultures. Chaos has its merits, basically in the effect that it has the potential birth of any elementary development of structures.
I think you are mistaken. It does not 'change views' but it does have a certain view that is supposedly viewless, and yes, it does say that all views are wrong. It's not quite 'newspeak' just a philosophy that doesn't stand to scrutiny, and yes, I have never understood why thought is considered something to be rid of. I think the main gist of Gelugpa philosophy is 'viewless view, non-ultimate-findability, and denial of the two extremes. Interestingly enough, I have experienced infinity before, both contained and uncontained infnity, both at once, and it would prove that Gelugpa's two extremes can be grasped and mean something other than simply something to be denied reality. However, I am not sure what exactly it would entail if the two extremes are not extremes but something to be grokked on their own basis; in other words, regardless of proving that I experienced a mathematical contrivance, I wonder if it has any more merit to it.

EchoesOfTheHorizon
Posts: 375
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2017 6:08 am

Re: The Problem with Gelugpa Vajrayana Buddhist School-of-Thought Philosophy

Post by EchoesOfTheHorizon » Mon Oct 23, 2017 7:40 am

Have you studied Dignaga's Hetucakra? It is the Buddhist early work on first order logic, follows a similar pattern to Aristotle's Square of Opposites. You'll find trying to fit a Ontology into concepts of Emptiness is a largely meaningless endeavor. The error is less in the schools, and more in the application, as far as the ideological presumptions of Buddhist Emptiness is concerned. Obviously by default, every school is in error, as they assert. Duh. Is the truth of these schools suspect? Yes, but is their usefulness on a pragmatic level wrong? Not necessarily. At least in regards to the aims of the Buddha. It wasn't a language game for him, but a matter of just plain ole' sitting.

Viveka
Posts: 370
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:06 pm

Re: The Problem with Gelugpa Vajrayana Buddhist School-of-Thought Philosophy

Post by Viveka » Tue Oct 24, 2017 10:26 pm

EchoesOfTheHorizon wrote:
Mon Oct 23, 2017 7:40 am
Have you studied Dignaga's Hetucakra? It is the Buddhist early work on first order logic, follows a similar pattern to Aristotle's Square of Opposites. You'll find trying to fit a Ontology into concepts of Emptiness is a largely meaningless endeavor. The error is less in the schools, and more in the application, as far as the ideological presumptions of Buddhist Emptiness is concerned. Obviously by default, every school is in error, as they assert. Duh. Is the truth of these schools suspect? Yes, but is their usefulness on a pragmatic level wrong? Not necessarily. At least in regards to the aims of the Buddha. It wasn't a language game for him, but a matter of just plain ole' sitting.
There was certainly conceptuality as skillful means and methods that are different even though they do not bring enlightenment by themselves. Each method has a specific result, and each philosophy a specific view, so I would say that a good view, which is one of the Samayas of the Eightfold path, is necessary. A method is much like science: we observe our mental state while practicing this method, and its outcome is generated repeatedly with precision and accuracy every time the same. For instance, mindfulness of the impermanence of the body leads to tranquilizing the body, and so on. The view is always important, as one must remind oneself that one is meditating for one's own and other's happiness, and should meditate with a philosophical view that does not lead to a wrong method; view and method are not separate in Buddhism, as each philosophy has its own meditational view and that factors into their method which is explained by that view. In other words, philosophical ideas in Buddhism make for view and method.

EchoesOfTheHorizon
Posts: 375
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2017 6:08 am

Re: The Problem with Gelugpa Vajrayana Buddhist School-of-Thought Philosophy

Post by EchoesOfTheHorizon » Thu Oct 26, 2017 10:09 pm

Methods are built upon axiomatic knowledge, and knowledge at it's basest root is paradox, a duality, the observed induced into being. Operant and Operator emerges, and a universe of complexity unfolds.

Correct methodology can induce confusion and misunderstanding if we lend credence to the wrong side of a paradox. It is why you pay attention to epistemology' relation to ontology. Buddhist texts, as well as Vedanta who borrow from Buddhism, often examine the cognitive range of larger dualities, such as big and small, left and right, near or far.... the stuff that our knowing is processed through and made of. These larger constructs are triggered by lesser knowledge, and this knowledge is mnemonic as well as subliminal. A correct understanding can be repeated correctly and yet internally processed wrongly. This is the eternal riddle of consciousness, will always be present as long as someone thinks, embracing duality. Without paradox, nothing exists.

Correct methods are only as valid as the correctness of the observer. Pedagogy needs to be intuitve and selective. A bad school can offer crucial insight while a sublime school can turn out rotten if presented and used wrongly. How can a teacher always know the best way? Did not the Buddha offer many arguments? Did any great religious leader rest with just one simple argument? Jesus advocated faith and poverty, yet courted reasona nd skepticism in the case of The Doubting Thomas, and sound economical investment in his urging for wise investments and not keeping idle wealth. They identified 7 cognitive gifts of different kinds of men. Buddhist have run the gamut of approaching different kinds of men as well. Would you preach the samentroductory ideas to one burning in hell as to one bored in heaven? No, you would sooth the pain of the tortured, and exited and attract the heavenly with spectacle. The teleology can be the same when the methods significantly diverge in method as well as quality.

Didn't the Buddha warn against this sectarian thinking? What sangha preaches only us and our viewpoint, damn the others?

Viveka
Posts: 370
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:06 pm

Re: The Problem with Gelugpa Vajrayana Buddhist School-of-Thought Philosophy

Post by Viveka » Thu Oct 26, 2017 11:36 pm

EchoesOfTheHorizon wrote:
Thu Oct 26, 2017 10:09 pm
Methods are built upon axiomatic knowledge, and knowledge at it's basest root is paradox, a duality, the observed induced into being. Operant and Operator emerges, and a universe of complexity unfolds.

Correct methodology can induce confusion and misunderstanding if we lend credence to the wrong side of a paradox. It is why you pay attention to epistemology' relation to ontology. Buddhist texts, as well as Vedanta who borrow from Buddhism, often examine the cognitive range of larger dualities, such as big and small, left and right, near or far.... the stuff that our knowing is processed through and made of. These larger constructs are triggered by lesser knowledge, and this knowledge is mnemonic as well as subliminal. A correct understanding can be repeated correctly and yet internally processed wrongly. This is the eternal riddle of consciousness, will always be present as long as someone thinks, embracing duality. Without paradox, nothing exists.

Correct methods are only as valid as the correctness of the observer. Pedagogy needs to be intuitve and selective. A bad school can offer crucial insight while a sublime school can turn out rotten if presented and used wrongly. How can a teacher always know the best way? Did not the Buddha offer many arguments?

I agree. Like I said, the Buddha used skillful means and knew what each person needed for their advancement. However, if one 'vibes' well with a certain school, then why not use philosophy for view and method?
EchoesOfTheHorizon wrote:
Thu Oct 26, 2017 10:09 pm
Did any great religious leader rest with just one simple argument? Jesus advocated faith and poverty, yet courted reasona nd skepticism in the case of The Doubting Thomas, and sound economical investment in his urging for wise investments and not keeping idle wealth.
I'm pretty sure he was against usury in the Scourging of the Temple. His urging for 'wise investments' had to do with parables about the Kingdom of Heaven.
EchoesOfTheHorizon wrote:
Thu Oct 26, 2017 10:09 pm
They identified 7 cognitive gifts of different kinds of men. Buddhist have run the gamut of approaching different kinds of men as well. Would you preach the samentroductory ideas to one burning in hell as to one bored in heaven? No, you would sooth the pain of the tortured, and exited and attract the heavenly with spectacle. The teleology can be the same when the methods significantly diverge in method as well as quality.

Didn't the Buddha warn against this sectarian thinking? What sangha preaches only us and our viewpoint, damn the others?
I agree. This is why I am leaning towards plain ol' Theravada teachings when looking for methods or explanation on topics. The Buddha supposedly taught all Vajrayana schools, each school being a manifestation of certain Buddha(s). The Third Turning of the Wheel of Dharma is skillful means in that each school teaches a specific philosophy which entails view and method. If they are universal, then they should apply to all 6 realms of the desire world. Theravada did this, while I don't know if that criterion is met by all Vajrayana Schools. I don't know if Platonic Goodness is in all 6 realms, but I believe it is, simply in different forms, such as Contentment and Gnosis of Impermanence being good for the Preta realm, Intelligence for the Animal Realm, and so on.

EchoesOfTheHorizon
Posts: 375
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2017 6:08 am

Re: The Problem with Gelugpa Vajrayana Buddhist School-of-Thought Philosophy

Post by EchoesOfTheHorizon » Fri Oct 27, 2017 12:17 am

Given buddhists accept karma, not much reason to reject lethargy in sticking to a single school of thought. That's actually a very Stoic perspective to have, not inherently Buddhist other than encouraging people to just sit, like Dogen did.

Stoics believe that you should just pick a lifestyle, and stick to it, even though difficult in the beginning, you'll eventually adapt to it, and overtime will live it authentically. Preferably a Stoic lifestyle, don't like.... run around being a permanent psychopathic serial killer.

Problem is, ummm.... there is a teleological goal to Buddhism, and it isn't the sect itself, isn't a viewpoint, isn't contentment or attachment to things. As a Christian, I gotta get it right in one lifetime. This pushes me to constant revaluation as a philosopher, comparing my ethical presumptions of state and individual against that of Jesus, and his saints. Sometimes painful contradictions arise. Now if I accepted Tertullians concept of eternal return.... I could just say to myself like you, that it really doesn't matter, just stick to the external form and letter of things.

For example.... if you watch the news, a family from Canada and the US was recently released from Pakistan, held captive by the Haqanni Network. I was the one who tracked them down. Happened two or three days before Christmas, on another forum.... here is the link:

http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... Parachinar

Now you'll see in the link, it was a very random thread. But I cracked it. Did it in my underwear, but only because coincidentally I spent years tracking down Bergdalh, a guy from my old unit who deserted in Afghanistan. I left the unit before they deployed, only say him a handful of times, and spent years just staring at his picture. This paid off when I saw this family held. I could identify traits nobody else could in the picture, and did it stunningly well.

Now everyone in the thread mocked and fought me, the girl who started it was a anti-Semitic liberal, hated them. I tried first the CIA, website malfunctioned. Then I went through CSIS in Canada.... Prime Minister Trudeau did nothing. So I went through Breitbart to get Trump's attention, Breitbart did nothing. Then I started posting it in the comments of their craziest stories, hoping he might see it, nothing. Then I went through Senator Manchin's representative in the summer, and only after that did I see movement.

Now five people are back in the west, four grand parents have their children and grand children. I had to change my views about ethics considerably to get to the point to where I could help them. Had I kept with my formal schools I belong to, they never would of known compassion. In the end, I got the, free, they are safe, and the Haqqani network has been exposed as Swiss cheese. I'm pleased Trump seems to of taken some of my recommendations in playing the soft card.

The root of Buddhism is a evasion of being, a rejection of consciousness. If it recommends any emotion, it is one of compassion. Had I never changed who I was, five people would be facing a sure death. Four grand parents would of lost their child. Do you know how many people from my old unit would of gladly of killed Bergdalh, or of left him for dead? I had to significantly break a rift with the safe and accepted path. Nobody helped me. I was alone. I'm still alone, but I have a consolation I helped some other people. I help a lot of people and forget it, it is easier to remember the painful and think less of yourself, but it has been a little consoling the last few days knowing Mr. Nobody saved the world for a few people. If I believed in Karma, I could of been slothful and unchanging, hoping to slid through on regime and points. As a Christian, I have to be a worthy Christian, worthy of his attention, not undeserving of his mercy. Maybe my mercy to others will be enough for him? Perhaps not? I don't really know. But.... some people who don't know me have a chance for life again, and people who mocked me and my efforts are running around cross eyed, saying racist, hurtful, liberal things. Those kids will make kids, and grandkids. The shape of the tree of life has fundamentally changed.

In Buddhism, all the signs and signals are for progression to a new stage, to challenge. The presumption is most even in administrative positions aren't enlightened. They wouldn't be around to talk to you if they did gain true enlightenment. They are messed up, talking of higher buddhas in heavenly realms that extinguished consciousness in amazing ways, or expanded it. They didn't remain stagnant, content with a few gains or concepts. They pushed the borders, didn't accept limitations. Why they pulled it off while so many others lagged behind. Seems to be the moral of the stories behind all the saints I've read. They made that effort to push farther. Sects don't push farther, they farm individuals in the basics, pushing a few to intermediary. Not designed for graduates. If you mess up, you'll figure it out in the next life. And that's the excuse you'll have in every life. Eventually you'll want that finality of breaking out, yes? Why not make that effort now? No sect encapsulates that actuality of doing so, it is all presumption, taught by the ignorant who can't pull it off themselves. That's the logical truth one must accept. You see a enlightened master, I see a guy struggling to make sense of what he has been doing for years, still not yet grasping what others before him struggled themselves with. I can't stand the glacier speed of such things, goes against my nature. I'm more of a lightning bold, would of named myself Voltaire had the name not been taken a few centuries earlier by a kindred spirit.

Viveka
Posts: 370
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:06 pm

Re: The Problem with Gelugpa Vajrayana Buddhist School-of-Thought Philosophy

Post by Viveka » Sun Nov 05, 2017 1:10 am

To applaud EchoesoftheHorizon's Heroics, and to keep on topic, I Shall present an understanding of Gelugpa Philosophy that has heretofore not occured to me until now. Let's give this a try:

Perhaps Inherent Existence and Inherent Non-existence are modes of reification. Each plumbing of the depths of these two ends up with mindfulness understanding the extent we reify reality through these two. However, what do these have to do with aversion, desire, and ignorance? We desire inherent existence as being eternal and unchanging, but we deny goodness to inherent nonexistence due to it being a 'nothingness' and thus aversion arises. Neutral phenomena are already propagating ignorance, but I do not see how this fits into the two extremes except both at once. When mindfulness tries to find this ignorance and aversion and desire, it ends up going back to its relative truth, which is aversion, desire, and ignorance. Thus, finding emptiness is a moot point since unless we reach the peak of mindfulness and peak of denial of the two extremes, we will always find more ignorance, desire, and aversion.

I hope this is correct, although someone else can possibly explain Gelugpa Philosophy better or understand its failures better.

BTW, EchoesoftheHorizon, I have saved the life of at least one person for sure. He was having a seizure and I promptly notified medical professionals to his predicament. I remember speaking to him afterwards, and he said 'thanks' and that he had seizures regularly for a while now. I'm glad I didn't waste time enough because he could have bitten his tongue off or something.

EchoesOfTheHorizon
Posts: 375
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2017 6:08 am

Re: The Problem with Gelugpa Vajrayana Buddhist School-of-Thought Philosophy

Post by EchoesOfTheHorizon » Sun Nov 05, 2017 6:02 am

I've "saved" the life of one of my final roommates in the army that way too. He was a drug user, I never used drugs, smoked or drink.... so didn't know how to identify it, always seemed distant from me. When people did room searches, looking for stuff, they would find history or strategy books hidden in the places drugs are usually kept.... so I got left alone and was accepted after a while as a bookish introvert, not a part of the drug culture.

My roommate was the biggest druggie around, and had severe life issues, like a stripper girlfriend and the constant need for abortions, from other men. I found some small white balloons, so stuck them in his desk, as they looked like midget condoms, saw some white pills, figured aspirin.

He went, got a bottle of synthetic morphine for some made up reason from the troop medical center, and claimed he dumped all 60 except for 9 in the toilet by accident when he opened it while peeing.

A little while later he was being attacked (not unusual at all in the infantry, you constantly get randomly attacked, must wrestle out of it or submit), so I went to secure his stuff, like his laptop, so it wouldn't break. I got over there, it was him alone, having a seizure on the floor, cracked his head off the metal bed frame on the sharp corner. I ran outside the room, couldn't talk.... was literally tongue tied, was pointing and morning at my door. Guys of higher rank told me to knock it off, if I knew what was best for me, but a medic figured it out after a while, rushed in. I told the ambulance about the pills. I then told the First Sargent and Captain, I knew sorta of the culture, never indulged, but a lot of the unit was okay and doing it. Didn't name names, but said I was quite prevalent. Guys would talk about it around me, but knew I wouldn't get involved.

He tried several times to OD again, or get caught trying to find drugs, and I begged the, to send him to jail where he couldn't kill himself. Eventually they had him under double guard, watched constantly, I was giving away all my books for the summer college course people were taking, and gave him my copy of Boethius, Consolations of Philosophy.

I don't know if he is alive now. He would of been dead, but I don't know if he is alive. A lot of people here where I am are dead as well. Similar. I feel a very deep responsibility to fix it. Compulsive, it keeps me up at night. Brain is constantly at it.




That being said, can you give me the root words for Inherent Existence and Inherent Non-Existence? Doe to the point I made about Buddhist logic above, I really would start with that and understand all the variabilities possible with this first, like Dignaga did, before applying a theory of knowledge to it. For example, how do I know what "inherent existence" is except it can be either eternal and unchanging, or temporary and changing, or perhaps eternal and changing (Aristotle thought that Unmoved Movers moved in circles eternally) or or temporary by unchanging. The last class brings up subject/object questions in how the observer quantifies, and this itself effects what I'm presuming to be Inherent Existence (a qualified standard for a thing to exist, vs a paradox, Imherent Non-Existence?)

If this is the case, are we arresting the sense of self, our self awareness has Inherent Existence, or things, This or That, have either class, in set qualities (Eternal, Temporsry, etc)

I don't know how to map your system and compare it to other systems. If a I had to root words, it would be easier. One can say Emptiness, and another can say Emptiness, and mean something quite different.

Viveka
Posts: 370
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:06 pm

Re: The Problem with Gelugpa Vajrayana Buddhist School-of-Thought Philosophy

Post by Viveka » Sun Nov 05, 2017 7:14 am

EchoesOfTheHorizon wrote:
Sun Nov 05, 2017 6:02 am
That being said, can you give me the root words for Inherent Existence and Inherent Non-Existence? Doe to the point I made about Buddhist logic above, I really would start with that and understand all the variabilities possible with this first, like Dignaga did, before applying a theory of knowledge to it. For example, how do I know what "inherent existence" is except it can be either eternal and unchanging, or temporary and changing, or perhaps eternal and changing (Aristotle thought that Unmoved Movers moved in circles eternally) or or temporary by unchanging. The last class brings up subject/object questions in how the observer quantifies, and this itself effects what I'm presuming to be Inherent Existence (a qualified standard for a thing to exist, vs a paradox, Imherent Non-Existence?)

If this is the case, are we arresting the sense of self, our self awareness has Inherent Existence, or things, This or That, have either class, in set qualities (Eternal, Temporsry, etc)

I don't know how to map your system and compare it to other systems. If a I had to root words, it would be easier. One can say Emptiness, and another can say Emptiness, and mean something quite different.
Inherent Existence is the illusion of an unchanging, eternal, and 'solid' experience of reailty as being 'out there' in that it is supposedly 'real' and appears from 'its own side.' Inherent Nonexistence is the illusion of an unchanging, blank, nothingness that is 'appearing from its own side' and is seemingly 'real.' Both of these are modes of 'reification' in that we grasp onto these when we want to make reality more 'real', which is supposed to alleviate our troubles, and in spite of our efforts we suffer more and more the more real we make it, and thus suffering builds up due to this wish and grasping of reificaton, while to meditate with the method of denying the two extremes is to get rid of reification. I imagine this is why they lack a view. Emptiness is defined as that which is without the two extremes. I imagine that the two extremes occur in a spectrum from every-day mind to Buddhahood. I still don't know what exactly is implied by 'conventional truth' in Buddhism, but it's all there is when there is 'Emptiness of Emptiness' which is a Gelugpa device and contention.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Greatest I am, Yahoo [Bot] and 7 guests