Path: typhoon.sonic.net!not-for-mail From: nagasiva@luckymojo.com (nagasiva yronwode) Newsgroups: alt.magick.tyagi,alt.magick.tantra,talk.religion.buddhism,alt.religion.buddhism.tibetan Subject: Sunyata and Illusion (was Is this a valid ...) Organization: Sonoma Interconnect,Santa Rosa,CA(us),http://www.sonic.net Lines: 186 Sender: yronwode@sonic.net Message-ID: <8f396e$vde@bolt.sonic.net> References: <390e4cab.26634835@news> Reply-To: spam@luckymojo.com X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.4 (NOV) Date: Sun, 07 May 2000 08:24:40 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 208.201.224.36 X-Complaints-To: abuse@sonic.net X-Trace: typhoon.sonic.net 957687880 208.201.224.36 (Sun, 07 May 2000 01:24:40 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 07 May 2000 01:24:40 PDT Xref: typhoon.sonic.net alt.magick.tyagi:22977 alt.magick.tantra:15702 talk.religion.buddhism:122599 alt.religion.buddhism.tibetan:72335 50000508 IVom Gnomedplume@aol.com (Gnome d Plume): >...There just might be some tradition of [vajrayana] that believes >everything is "real" (they must get heart-burn re-absorbing >Yidams!). my understanding (through brief exposure to Buddhist reflections and a few Buddhists, no lineage study) is that the term 'real' is a rough translation into English, and that the 'reality' to which many Buddhists refer varies. the most common understanding of 'real' that I've heard Buddhists use is 'lasting' or 'permanent'. following the traditional understanding of the Middle Way School as I have understood it (that is, following on Nagarjuna, rather than on a Theravada school which does not accept Mahayana alternatives), there is nothing which is 'real' in this sense. the principle which should be discussed with respect to this is what is translated as 'emptiness' or 'void' -- sunyata/shunyata/sunnata. here is a quote which explains the primary emphasis given to sunyata in Mahayana philosophy (please offer alternatives if you have them!): The Mahayana illustrates the difference between the Hinayana [Theravada] and Mahayana views with the following image: in the Hinayana, things are like empty vessels, whereas the Mahayana denies even the existence of the vessels and thus arrives at total insubstantiality. In the *prajnaparamita* [sutra, by Nagarjuna] texts *shunyata* is regarded as what is common to all contrary appearances; they stress the nondistinctness of emptiness and form (*Heart Sutra* [Prajnaparamita, same text]). --------------------------------------------------------- "The Shambhala Dictionary of Buddhism and Zen", edited by Fischer-Schreiber, Ehrhard, and Diener, translated by Kohn, Shambhala Publications, Inc., 1991; pp. 202-3. [my notes or paraphrase in [] square brackets -- n.] _________________________________________________________ as another person posted to this thread remarked regarding "universals", my impression is that there is no single perspective to be discovered in Tibetan Buddhist (and therefore for Tantric Buddhist) philosophy due to its variation and proliferation. the contentions are simply too numerous to generalize, as is the case for Buddhism as a whole. this is often the case with mystics and philosophers. what *can* be ascertained is the predominant instruction from the formal lineages which play a large role in promulgating the doctrines and philosophies associated with awakening and with the ostensible goals associated with this process (such as successful practice and fulfillment of the various eight folds in the 8-Fold Path -- right discrimination, right meditation, etc.). the same source above indicates something about the Tibetan (Tantric) Buddhist thoughts on sunyata: The concept of emptiness and the communication of this concept in such a way as to lead to a direct experience of it also played a central role in the introduction of the Madhyamika teachings to Tibet.... [In the Siddhanta literature, which is comprised of Indian philosophical arguments compiled for the purpose of establishing practical methods of philosophy], all the schools of the "middle teaching" [Madhyamika] take as their point of departure Nagarjuna's thesis of the two truths: (1) the apparent truth (also relative or conventional truth, *savriti-satya*), which ordinary people take to be real -- fundamentally it does not exist since it only appears through "interdependent arising" (*pratitya-samutpada*); and (2) the supreme truth (also ultimate or absolute truth, *paramartha-satya), the emptiness (beyond existence and nonexistence) of all phenomena, which cannot be expressed in words but only directly experienced. The differences among the individual Madhyamika schools lie in their differing views concerning the nature of the two truths and how experience of emptiness is to be attained. The realization of emptiness, which is seen as the goal of religious practice (enlightenment), does not come about through philosophical argumentation; however, it becomes directly experiencable in the symbology of the Tantras. The way to this experience is described especially in the teachings of *Mahamudra* and *dzogchen*. While emptiness is indicated in traditional Madhyamaka by saying what it is not, in Mahamudra and Dzogchen it is viewed in positive terms. *Shunyata* as supreme reality here becomes "openness" that is inseparable from clarity (luminosity). ------------------------------------------------------ Ibid., p. 203. _______________ Gnome's website: >>>...whereas they hold that everything, including the universe >>>itself, is illusion.... Sonam Tsering: >>This proves you are totally and completely ignorant of the >>Tantric, especially the Tibetan Tantric, viewpoint. What >>has been taught since Nagarjuna (about 150 C.E) is >>Madhyamika Prasangika, which contradicts what you attribute >>to us. this individual's contentions appear to be extreme, though I would agree that his dispute has merit. Gnome's website states more categorically than can be substantiated the ultimate nature of the cosmos (illusion), as I can see it. >>You should actually learn something about our system >>before you start pretending to represent it. with this of course I agree, but am not sure, from what has been quoted, that Gnome ever contended he was a representative of the Tibetan Buddhism of Sonam Tsering. >>I see that you fraudulently claim to have received >>instruction, but your mistake shows you have absolutely >>no understanding or knowledge of basic Tantric teaching, >>let alone Highest Yoga Tantra which is all Madhyamika >>Prasangika. my understanding is that this is contentious cheerleading, that the Madhyamika Prasangika was founded by Buddhapalita, a student of Nagarjuna, and does not represent the entirety of either the Madhyamaka or of Tibetan Buddhism, but I would love to be corrected. it is important, when examining Tibetan (Tantric) Buddhism, to realize that schools represent PREDOMINANT IDEAS AND INSTRUCTIONS, contain a variety of thought on numerous topics, and differ from one another as regards some quite important doctrines (including the application of Nagarjuna's Doctrines of Sunyata and Two Categories of Truth). to proclaim otherwise is to enter into arrogance. the Siddhanta literature is apparently an important focus of Tibetan Buddhism, and for those who take it as some kind of canon (literally *siddhanta* means "doctrinal view"), it should be important to note that it describes the 'highest school' of the Madhyamikas, asserting that appearances arise entirely and solely through the attribution of concepts and labels. This opinion is regarded as the correct one and thus represents the true way to expound the teachings of impermanence. ------------------------------------------------------- Ibid., p. 205. _______________ now if you accept the Siddhanta literature as authoritative, then, apparently, you might agree with Sonam Tsering that it is incorrect to say that "everything, including the universe itself, is illusion", because what is described as illusory here is APPEARANCES, not 'everything' or 'the universe (itself)'. if we are to accept the Doctrine of Two Categories of Truth as a reflection of the real, then effectively we might affirm that this "everything, including the universe itself" could refer to ordinary perception and, therefore, identify it as a relative and false truth, agreeing with Gnome. however, we might agree that 'everything' ought to contain even emptiness and the ultimate truth itself, and describing either or both of these as "illusion" seems to this neo- tantric a grave mistake, ascribing characteristics to the characterless, features to the featureless, and conditions to the unconditioned. I have always favoured the practice of conservatism in expressing negations so as to avoid the restraint of an ultimate truth which lies beyond expression, and so my capacity to analyze this dispute may be faulty. namaste nagasiva -- mailto:nagasiva@luckymojo.com ; http://www.luckymojo.com/nagasiva.html mailto:boboroshi@satanservice.org ; http://www.satanservice.org/ emailed replies may be posted; cc replies if response desired