Theism and Western atheism are on the same continuum. Both are realist.

[Falvlun]

The fundamental flaw with taking Nagarjuna's philosophy by itself is that all it does is deny the extremes of eternalism and annihilationism. The problem is, is that it doesn't answer any questions, which is why no Buddhist school subscribes solely to Madyamakha, and adds Yogacara, or Tathagatagarbha. If you just take Nagarjuna's philosophy by itself, you don't have buddhadharma, you have an extreme form of skepticism which negates anything the Buddha taught. Nagarjuna's philosophy is good for explaining why the extremes are illogical, but does nothing to explain anything else.

Hey dyan! Can you interpret what always' position is, minus the BS? Is it really just reality agnosticism?

 

[Willamena]

to me

So you're not part and parcel of subjectivity? Does that make sense? I meant in order to relate subjectivity, we contrast it to something it's not. (We can relate it to itself, but then we're talking identity rather than relativity.)

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Hey dyan! Can you interpret what always' position is, minus the BS? Is it really just reality agnosticism?

In an extreme form, yes. But what it is is just part of Buddhism, not the whole story. He's taken part of it, and believes it to be the whole.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Madhyamaka is the distilled essence of Buddhadharma. Its unfortunate you don't see that.

As you know Tibetan Buddhism holds Candrakirti paramount. So did Atisa.

And if you'll notice under my name, where it says "religion", it says "Zen". Vasubhandu and Asanga are of the utmost importance to Zen philosophy, as well as integrating Madyamakha and Tathagatagarbha.

What I see is someone taking part of Buddhism, and insisting that it's the whole, when this is not the case.

 

[alwayson]

And if you'll notice under my name, where it says "religion", it says "Zen". Vasubhandu and Asanga are of the utmost importance to Zen philosophy, as well as integrating Madyamakha and Tathagatagarbha.

What I see is someone taking part of Buddhism, and insisting that it's the whole, when this is not the case.

And we in Vajrayana consider Yogacara to be inferior to Madhyamaka.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

And we in Vajrayana consider Yogacara to be inferior to Madhyamaka.

To each their own, I guess.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

alwayson: Madyamakha is not the highest Buddhist philosophy, nor is it the be-all-end-all of Buddhist philosophy, it's the beginning of Buddhist philosophy. There's a reason why the Prajnaparamita sutras are not considered ekayana, but sutras such as the Lankavatara, the Lotus, and the Avatamsaka are. There's a reason why the Buddha spoke the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana sutra. Madyamakha philosophy is good for understanding the basics of why one shouldn't hold to one extreme view or the other, and for a basic understanding of shunyata, but it's nowhere near enough to take one all the way to enlightenment. If one takes the stance that the Madyamakha philosophy is the only way to understand Buddhism, you're missing the forest for the trees. You're missing the spirit of what the Buddha taught. Using upaya, he taught both non-self and self, he taught both non-existence and existence. The point, of course, is to transcend such dualistic ways of thinking.

A fundamentalist Buddhist. I've met some before, but normally either Theravada or Nichiren, but a Tibetan fundamentalist Buddhist? This is a first for me. I've never met a Tibetan Buddhist who holds to such extreme views as yours, nor have I ever read any of the Tibetan masters who did. But like I said, to each their own. If this is your path to enlightenment, then so be it. Just remember, the Buddha taught that there are 84,000 different dharma doors, not just one.

 

[crossfire]

In Madhyamaka, just because something has been negated does not mean there is nothing at all. Everything is interrelated.

 

[alwayson]

alwayson: Madyamakha is not the highest Buddhist philosophy, nor is it the be-all-end-all of Buddhist philosophy, it's the beginning of Buddhist philosophy. There's a reason why the Prajnaparamita sutras are not considered ekayana, but sutras such as the Lankavatara, the Lotus, and the Avatamsaka are. There's a reason why the Buddha spoke the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana sutra. Madyamakha philosophy is good for understanding the basics of why one shouldn't hold to one extreme view or the other, and for a basic understanding of shunyata, but it's nowhere near enough to take one all the way to enlightenment. If one takes the stance that the Madyamakha philosophy is the only way to understand Buddhism, you're missing the forest for the trees. You're missing the spirit of what the Buddha taught. Using upaya, he taught both non-self and self, he taught both non-existence and existence. The point, of course, is to transcend such dualistic ways of thinking.

A fundamentalist Buddhist. I've met some before, but normally either Theravada or Nichiren, but a Tibetan fundamentalist Buddhist? This is a first for me. I've never met a Tibetan Buddhist who holds to such extreme views as yours, nor have I ever read any of the Tibetan masters who did. But like I said, to each their own. If this is your path to enlightenment, then so be it. Just remember, the Buddha taught that there are 84,000 different dharma doors, not just one.

I follow what scholars call the Indo-Tibetan tradition. You follow the Chinese tradition.

Its very clear that the Indian tradition holds Madhyamaka paramount. This is the view of Atisa, Kamalaśīla etc.

 

[Koldo]

I follow what scholars call the Indo-Tibetan tradition. You follow the Chinese tradition.

Its very clear that the Indian tradition holds Madhyamaka paramount. This is the view of Atisa, Kamalaśīla etc.

Perhaps now you have the time to tell me how your OP's conclusion* is a non-affirming negation?

*="All we are left with is illusion. Things only seem real because of imputed identities."

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I charge you of being a realist and not knowing it. :thud:

See post 1

I charge YOU with being a realist and not knowing it. If you don't at least accept the existence of yourself, exactly what is this "I" you speak of and describe as doing things?

 

[Falvlun]

Theism and Western atheism are both based on the assumption that things exist. Thus both are on the same continuum of realism.

I also wonder why the OP decided to single out theism and atheism. I mean, if the only thing required to be on the same continuum is assuming that things exist, then 99.999% of worldviews and beliefs are on that same continuum. It would be like me announcing, specifically, that dogs and cats both (omgz!) breathe oxygen. Okay... and the point is?

 

[Freedomelf]

This discussion is thought provoking and confusing; I need a cookie.

 

[Freedomelf]

I also wonder why the OP decided to single out theism and atheism. I mean, if the only thing required to be on the same continuum is assuming that things exist, then 99.999% of worldviews and beliefs are on that same continuum. It would be like me announcing, specifically, that dogs and cats both (omgz!) breathe oxygen. Okay... and the point is?

My thoughts exactly. Thanks for putting it more succinctly.

 

[Quiddity]

I find it unavoidable and innate in humans to attach meaning, relate it to other things and then proceed to assemble and break it down to it's simplest parts. Whether one whishes to say universals, numbers, and/or propositions (realism) exist or not, is simply irrelevant to very reality that these objective/subjective things move us on a daily basis.

 

[crossfire]

I'm sorry, but I just can't resist quoting some Chuang Tzu here:

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The torch of chaos and doubt - this is what the sage steers by. So he does not use things but relegates all to the constant. This is what it means to use clarity.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Now I am going to make a statement here. I don't know whether it fits into the category of other people's statements or not. But whether it fits into their category or whether it doesn't, it obviously fits into some category. So in that respect it is no different from their statements. However, let me try making my statement.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]There is a beginning. There is a not yet beginning to be a beginning. There is a not yet beginning to be a not yet beginning to be a beginning. There is being. There is nonbeing. There is a not yet beginning to be nonbeing. There is a not yet beginning to be a not yet beginning to be nonbeing. Suddenly there is nonbeing. But I do not know, when it comes to nonbeing, which is really being and which is nonbeing. Now I have just said something. But I don't know whether what I have said has really said something or whether it hasn't said something.​

[/FONT]

 

[alwayson]

I also wonder why the OP decided to single out theism and atheism. I mean, if the only thing required to be on the same continuum is assuming that things exist, then 99.999% of worldviews and beliefs are on that same continuum.

It is true that 99.999% of worldviews and beliefs are realist.

I singled out atheism mainly because Muslims think they have nothing in common with atheists, and vice versa.

 

[alwayson]

I charge YOU with being a realist and not knowing it. If you don't at least accept the existence of yourself, exactly what is this "I" you speak of and describe as doing things?

I'm just a bundle of 5 aggregates (skandha), which are not established either.

Skandha - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[alwayson]

Madyamakha is not the highest Buddhist philosophy

According to Indian tradition it is. Look into Atisa, Kamalashila etc.

but sutras such as the Lankavatara, the Lotus, and the Avatamsaka are. There's a reason why the Buddha spoke the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana sutra.

The 2 major traditions of India were Madhyamaka and Yogacara. The Tathagatagarbha Sutras were never considered a tradition on par with Madhyamaka and Yogacara, let alone the pinnacle.

I suggest you read "Center of the Sunlit Sky".

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

According to Indian tradition it is. Look into Atisa, Kamalashila etc.

Yes, but according to overall Buddhist tradition, it's more of the starting point. The main fallacy here is to take Madyamakha as the sole philosophical tradition within Buddhism, and it's corresponding sutras of the Prajna Paramita, and just leave it at that, as if all the other sutras and philosophies didn't exist.

The 2 major traditions of India were Madhyamaka and Yogacara. The Tathagatagarbha Sutras were never considered a tradition on par with Madhyamaka and Yogacara, let alone the pinnacle.

I suggest you read "Center of the Sunlit Sky".

Yet it's still part of Buddhist tradition. You can't take one, and leave out the others. Madyamakha only refers to the saha world, subjective truth. Yogacara and Tathagatagarbha refers to the world of Buddha, the Buddha-nature, objective truth.