Author Topic: Inherently existent functions?  (Read 6154 times)

emptymountains

  • Guest
Inherently existent functions?
« on: October 25, 2007, 02:50:50 AM »
I have a question regarding profound emptiness. (Don't we all!?  :D) One of the typical "objections" I see regarding Dorje Shugden is:

Quote
Most NKT followers think they are free to name the things as they like – even NKT teachers think and teach that – and argue the most important is that I name it that it is beneficial for the mind. So if I name Shugden a Buddha, this is good for my mind, if I name him as a demon this is bad for my mind, and because he is “empty” I can see him as most beneficial. But this is not correct. This misunderstanding is based on a nihilistic extreme view.

I am wondering whether an objection along these lines is in fact missing the point of the Madhyamika-Prasangika view emptiness, namely that everything without exception is imputed by mind. Is it really a mistaken view to say that functions are conventional truths (and thus dependent upon the mind perceiving it)? How else can we explain Chandrakirti's obtaining milk from pictures of cows?!

beggar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 861
Re: Inherently existent functions?
« Reply #1 on: October 26, 2007, 08:34:06 AM »
dear empty mountains,
like your name, we could say the mountains are empty yet appear.
we could say, because they are empty, they can appear.
we could say they don't appear at all except within our deluded dream.
the middle way says emptiness and dependent arising non-dual, non-contradictory, the same.
many teachers therefore advise beginners like me that it's enough to contemplate cause and effect and dependent arising,
this way we won't get caught up in abstract or confused views.
so, in our 'world', everything definitely arises from intention.
it's true that it is said if your lama tells you 'this tree is tara' and you meditate like this, you will get blessings.
but that tree is now filled with the lama's intention, so to speak.
it is said the various buddhas manifest various 'specific' or characteristic qualities for our sake, and these are the result of their prayers on the way to buddhahood, so i think we best take what's given freely and is already available.
otherwise, unless we have attained ultimate pure view, we might start inventing funny phenomena nobody needs and
whose milk is sour...

indolent1

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 24
Re: Inherently existent functions?
« Reply #2 on: November 17, 2007, 10:17:28 PM »
Hi,

Thanks for the very clear explanations which I appreciated greatly.

Pabongka Rinpoche tells us that "this very great Dharmapala is established without doubt to be peaceful and wrathful Manjusri himself".

Possibly the fact that one of the arguments surrounding the "controversy" concerns emptiness and the union of the two truths, helps us understand a little more about the function of the Dharmapala?

Big Uncle

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1995
Re: Inherently existent functions?
« Reply #3 on: January 24, 2015, 08:27:30 AM »
Wow! Interesting question posed by emptymountains. It is Dharmic and reflects how we impute labels on Dorje Shugden. How we impute the label we think reflects how they are in reality. Anyway, how we impute our petty labels anyway does not change Dorje Shugden from his side. He remains who he is, which is a living emanation of Manjushri.