adikarmika wrote:Well, assuming (and it's a big assumption to make) that there is such a thing as an "awakened" state, I imagine it to be one completely free from existential dread.
Thus, my desire (such as it is) to get awakened is nothing more than the natural desire for freedom from the anxiety that comes with being aware of my possible nonbeing.
I believe the viewpoint of Prāsaṅgika school of Buddhist philosophy, which I interpret as the denial of any phenomena intrinsically existing independent of the designations of conceptual thought (and which is taught by the Gelugpa sect of Tibetan Buddhism), may offer such a freedom through its unique interpretation of the basic constructs of being and non-being -- i.e., a kind of middle way (to use a dangerously loaded term.).
Appreciate your honesty and reply;
1. “Awakened” in Sanskrit means “bodhi”, as you stated earlier, could you tell me how does Prasangika Madhyamika explains “bodhi”?
2. Ancient Hindu sages have already come to the conclusion that all worldly phenomena are dependent arising dharma without intrinsic nature, including our perceptive mind.
They assume there exists the Absolute, or Brahman that could keep beings ongoing, but they cannot get the correct answer other than all sorts of assumption. Then was the ripe time for the Buddha to manifest on earth to teach the Truth of existence.
"Unique interpretation" formed and remains within the scope of the conceptual thought or the perceptive mind which belongs to a dharma of dependent arising, and is impermanent; once an individual passes away, what is left for this thought of “unique interpretation of being and non-being”?
The conscious mind (the sixth vijnana) does exist only one life time, as no one (normally speaking) remembers his past life; so no one is able to bring along his current conscious mind to the next new life.
How can you rely on a definitely terminated conceptual thought to secure your freedom of any kind? It’s merely a soothing wishful thinking. True Buddhism is an empirical religion enabling followers to personally witness and experience the Alayavijnana, instead of conceptual speculations.
Besides, “if” the state of nonbeing should come, your conscious mind would vanish as well, the same way as we fall into deep sleep every night, the only difference is that you don't wake up any more for this live show, so what do you have to dread for?
buddhism wrote:I don't have to ask you any koan, I know "where" you are through the way you explained Nagarjuna's Middle-Way. You have not gained the proper knowledge for the basics; you stay literally with the texts and speculate with your conscious mind.
Your response doesn't surprise me.
I always thought basic Buddhism was simply about being honest, kind, and having respect for other living beings. What's wrong with my understanding?.
Nothing wrong with your basic understanding, though, these are merely the auxiliary dharmas, enabling one to remain in the human or heavenly realm, but not even qualifying for the Hinayana vehicle to transcend the cyclic births-and-deaths, let alone “awakened” to attain the Buddhahood-Way.
Now you mentioned these terms, and Tzu Chi is doing them earnestly, why do you think Tzu Chi is not Buddhism? At least they don’t commit any sexual abuses to the females.
buddhism wrote:Since you understand Tibetan language, you can read Dolpopa Sherab Gyaltsen's "Ocean of Definitive Meaning (Ri chos nges don rgya mtsho)"; read the original version, not the translated English version.
Hopkins is a highly regarded professional translator. What's wrong with the his translation? Is he too impartial for your liking?
Just for your reference, I do not personally know any of them.
I do believe they are both excellent translators.
Rejoinder to Hopkins – by Alex Waymen
The Journal of the Tibet Society
...5) Furthermore, Hopkins omits perhaps the most important statement (…) which is in the “unrevised” edition, PTT, Vol. 77, p. 210-4-1…(Whether Tathagatas arise or do not arise, that true nature of the dharmas remains immemorially, because it is the true nature of the mantras”)…p.82
That is why personally I prefer to read the original version, if possible.