Tenpay Nyima

"The world is tormented by words, and there is no one who does without them – but only in so far as one is free from words does one really understand them."                                                     Saraha

@Ethan124519 @rian_vlbt @VenetianGaucho2 Relatedly, in regard to the tathatagarbha teachings, the 8th Karmapa Mikyo Dorje wrote separate texts one of which strongly supported that particular view, while the other refuted it. But one would have to be very self-confident to accuse him of contradicting himself :)

@Ethan124519 @rian_vlbt @VenetianGaucho2 It seems to me thinkers on both sides tend to employ staw man arguments, or deliberately "misunderstand" the opposing position in order to claim superiority for their own. Unsurpringingly perhaps, since the very understanding being debated is beyond concept.

- there's nothing in the intellect that was not first in the senses (Aquinas) - was this proposition in the senses? 🤓 - any knowledge is either a relation of ideas or a matter of fact (Hume) - is this a relation of ideas or a matter of fact? 🤓 - we can know nothing about noumena (Kant) - do you know that? 🤓 - there are no facts, only interpretations (Nietzsche) - is that a fact? 🤓 - about what one cannot speak, one must remain silent (Wittgenstein) - what have you spoken about? 🤓 Follow for more refutations 🦖

@rian_vlbt @O1A2S3D ... Thus countering the non-affirming negation of ordinary madhayamika (emptiness) with the affirming negation (luminosity) of yogic experience.

@TenpayNyima @O1A2S3D How do you interpret tathāgatagarbha as not merely provisional, and not in the Rangtong way, while still avoiding being confounded with ātmavādins?

🤓👆

@rian_vlbt @O1A2S3D The buddha nature teachings address themselves specifically to the ordinary madhayamika from the a priori perspective of a distinctly Buddhist ontology ie: no creator/ creation, dependent origination...

@rian_vlbt @kiskebaka Yama is poetry. Karma is regulated by dependent origination.

@kiskebaka Yama in Buddhism is also a saṃsārin and is subject to karma, so he cannot be the intelligence that superintends karma.

That intelligence is the judge Yama, he literally judges people after their death, and records everyone's karma You have not even read Devadūta Sutta and the Questions Yama Asks If you haven't read Buddhist suttas then stop saying stupid stuff accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn…

@rian_vlbt @O1A2S3D Will get back to you on that...

@O1A2S3D @rian_vlbt I may be way off beam but might it have had something to do with the ascension to political power of the Gelugs in the 17th century?

@TenpayNyima @rian_vlbt And doesn’t it seem like that principle forms the background for basically all tantric method? If so, hard for me to understand the eventual de-emphasis of yogacara in Tibet. Maybe some sort of overcorrection.

@O1A2S3D @rian_vlbt Yes, the standard madhayamika refutation of yogacara seems to rest on the notion the latter posits mind as a truly existent substrate. Yet textual sources for the actual yc view eg. the Lankavatara Sutra state something like (iirc), ‘All is mind only, yet mind itself is empty’.

@TenpayNyima @rian_vlbt I think I agree. The idea that Buddha nature is provisional intuitively does not seem right. It seems to me that those discourses describe what is discovered after Madhyamaka has stripped away and purified errors.

@O1A2S3D @rian_vlbt It's always puzzled me that in the progessive schools of tenets the 3rd turning teachings are always presented prior to those of the 2nd as if they're just a softener for, whoah... emptiness. It seems to me the buddha nature teachings are actually yogacara properly understood :)

@rian_vlbt @TenpayNyima the 3rd Turning teachings (and really, the whole of Buddhist tantra), but one could go in the other direction and overformalize those elements too.

@rian_vlbt @VenetianGaucho2 That's interesting, thanks. That quote sounds like politics to me, but anyway.... As a Buddhist with an attraction to Shaivism etc I wish there could be some kind of a rapprochement to bring an end to a 1500 year long dick-waving competition.

Actually, the popular narrative that Śaṅkara "defeated Buddhism and drove it out of India" is widely regarded by historians as an exaggeration. By the time Śaṅkara likely lived, Buddhism was still present in India, but it had already entered a long process of decline in many regions. It was no longer a growing movement. One thing worth noting is that none of Śaṅkara's critiques seem to have received direct responses from Indian Buddhist authors. That is often taken as an indication that Buddhism was no longer the dominant intellectual force it had once been. The great age of Buddhist philosophical expansion and debate had largely passed, and the tradition no longer enjoyed the same level of cultural and institutional momentum it had in earlier centuries. And yes, Śaṅkara had complete contempt for Buddhism. A good example can be found in his Brahmasūtrabhāṣya. His attitude is nothing like the inclusivism and relative openness one finds in Gaudapada or, later, Abhinavagupta. While those thinkers could engage with Buddhist ideas in a more nuanced or even appreciative way at times, Śaṅkara consistently treated Buddhist doctrines as serious philosophical errors to be refuted rather than as alternative paths worthy of accommodation. In contrast, Gaudapāda seems to have believed that, when properly understood, certain Buddhist insights converged with Advaita. Although he ultimately framed his position within a Vedāntic context and did not accept core Buddhist doctrines wholesale, his tone is often far less polemical, and he appears willing to acknowledge a significant degree of philosophical overlap between Advaita and at least some strands of Mahāyāna Buddhism.

@rian_vlbt @VenetianGaucho2 You can't beat a bit of ironical ragebait!

@TenpayNyima @VenetianGaucho2 x.com/i/status/20575…

@rian_vlbt @VenetianGaucho2 If he did, Shankara might have despised Buddhism because he feared its growing influence. We also tend to resent those to whom we own a debt. But in general it seems to me both Buddhism and Advaita tend to try and refute each other on the basis of largely straw man arguments.

@TenpayNyima @VenetianGaucho2 Śaṅkara completely despised Buddhism and was nowhere near it. The figure in Advaita Vedānta who comes closest to showing any Mahāyāna influence is Gauḍapāda, and even then only in certain respects, some of which are arguably more terminological than substantive.

@O1A2S3D @rian_vlbt I think maybe the best approach here is to see rangtong/zhentong as looking at the same thing through opposite ends of a telescope. My own main teacher, for example, teaches from both perspectives depending on the specific text.

@rian_vlbt A contentious issue, but one could also say that the difference between Rangtong and Shentong is the furthest point in development in this direction, though Rangtongpas think Shentong is a regression.

@VenetianGaucho2 Nagarjuna dealt with all this stuff nearly two thousand years ago. Then rinsed it and hung it out to dry...

@VenetianGaucho2 @rian_vlbt Ignorance, according to the buddha, is the root of all suffering. Shankara... the man who revitalised advaita by introducing notions more akin, some might say, to Buddhist mahayana :)

@rian_vlbt buddha: stop desiring things, desire is the root of all suffering shankara: so you want me to desire to stop desiring?

@rian_vlbt @VenetianGaucho2 1. Only conditioned phenomena are impermanent. 2. Nothing has inherent existence or non-existence 3. *Deluded* consciousness arises etc… 4. Form is emptiness; emptiness form 5. Nirvana is the cessation of ignorance with regard to the nature of phenomena So many straw men :)

@VenetianGaucho2 🤓👆

@isjuustadream Well, of all people you observably haven't come close to being awed into silence :))

If you're so smart why haven't you been awed into silence

@tayyweer Well, people have been talking about if for nearly two thousand years :) But it seems we kind of agree after all. So that's good!

there’s a difference between core buddhism and the bodhisattva path that nobody wants to talk about. the original path is personal awakening- see suffering and liberate yourself. the bodhisattva path says once you hit full enlightenment, you choose to stay in the shit- fully feeling it, fighting for others, until every being is free. that’s not numb detachment. it takes fire, courage, and fierce compassion in action. what’s being sold online is the castrated version: detach from everything, transcend all ‘negativity,’ stay peaceful and compliant. basically, never rock the boat- just accept, meditate, keep the vibes high while reality gets forced into an open air prison. conveniently, a pacified population doesn’t stand up to oppression or elite control. other religions can and do this too. partial truths are the most effective form of manipulation. the average person won’t dig deep enough to notice what’s missing. calling this out doesn’t mean rejecting the philosophy, it means using actual pattern recognition. the buddha didn’t stay in the palace once he saw suffering- he left and acted. a real monk, a true spiritual warrior, wouldn’t stand by while people get conditioned into helplessness. the ones who stayed grounded during collective disorientation weren’t the ones consuming spiritual content. they were the ones with real anchors- lineage, memory, embodied practice, and people they actually trust. righteous anger from clear seeing isn’t ego. it’s information. suppressing it doesn’t make you enlightened, it makes you easy to manage.. check out the fallout tv show and their whole management plan, if you want to learn how real elitists play. true spirituality doesn’t sedate you into compliance. it wakes you up and arms you.

@Substantial6187 @kiskebaka Though it often seems to appeal to those whose minds remain bound by concepts :)

@TenpayNyima @kiskebaka says the heretic

Every religion has its “Ahmadis.” In Buddhism, it’s the Shentong school; in Hinduism, the Arya Samaj; in Christianity, perhaps The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.