#dignaga

[soniyatv]

"Born in Seeyamangalam also known as Simhavakta near Kanchipuram, Dignāga (also known as Diṅnāga, c. 480 – c. 540 CE) was an Indian Buddhist philosopher and logician. He is credited as one of the Buddhist founders of Indian logic (hetu vidyā) and atomism. Dignāga's work laid the groundwork for the development of deductive logic in India and created the first system of Buddhist logic and epistemology (pramāṇa)."

[ani-tsultrim-wangmo]

How could millions of blind men, with no one to lead them and not knowing the path, arrive at the city? In the same way, without wisdom, the five blind perfections, having no leader, cannot touch enlightenment.

~ Dignaga

數百萬盲人，沒有引導人並不識路，怎麼能到達城市呢？同樣的道理，缺了般若智慧，缺了領導的五圓滿，就觸及不到覺悟。

~ 陳那論師

[budaenlayerba]

Buda Vegetal

Hace un tiempo (como siempre, perdón por la tardanza en la respuesta), me hicieron una muy buena pregunta:

En tu post llamado "Las Ofrendas" escribiste "Como budista, la compasión alcanza a todos los seres: animales, plantas, etc." Pero recuerdo haber leído en el Sutra Mahayana Mahaparinirvana que Buda Sakyamuni dijo que las plantas no tienen vida, y que de hecho decirlo es ser no-discípulo de buda, y que los sí-discípulos no decían que las plantas tenían vida. ¿Te referías a que en algunos casos hay algunos tipos de seres que viven en las plantas, y por lo tanto, desde ese hecho la planta pasa a tener vida debido a la vida de ese ser? Eso sería interesante como post, para mí jaja. Estudié técnico agrícola un tiempo y lo que las plantas """"""""sienten""""""""""""" cuando las podan es que algo cambió en ellas, que algunas ramas ya no las tienen, y por lo tanto su reacción es aumentar la germinación de los brotes de las partes restantes. Todo lo cual no quiere decir que uno deba tratarlas como quiera, sino respetarlas pues de base nos ayudan a respirar, ¿no? Los frutos, la sombra, sus efectos en el clima, disponibilidad/falta de aguas subterráneas, firmeza del suelo, etc, etc ,etc. Sin mencionar su influencia relacionada a temas físicos, que son muchísimos, obviamente. Al podar las plantas, sólo generan un cambio hormonal que acelera la germinación de los brotes no-expresados y el crecimiento de las ramas y brotes ya expresadas. También he leído los sutras donde se dice que Buda Sakyamuni no dañaba a las plantas, para decirlo en pocas palabras.

Creo que podríamos resumir esto en: para el Budismo ¿Les plantes son seres sintientes?

Y es una gran pregunta…pero como siempre: no hay una sola respuesta. Quizás lo más cercano que podamos estar de una es decir, como Findly, que les plantes son seres-borde (Borderline Beigns). ¿Qué quiero decir con esto?

Quiero decir que depende muchísimo del contexto y de qué escuela uno siga. Como dice Hayes, en su “Dignaga on the Interpretation”, el Budismo toma su teoría general de la conciencia del contexto Indio. En este contexto, les plantes no se consideraban seres sintientes. Lo interesante es que la dialéctica Samkhya, de la cuál el Budismo hereda su primera epistemología, considera que una de las facultades necesaries de la vida es la conciencia. Sin conciencia, no hay vida. Por lo tanto, les plantes no eran organismos, sino que cumplían el mismo papel de prakriti (materia) que les rocas.

De esta interpretación surge, en algunes escuelas Mahayanas (especialmente en China) la idea del vegetarianismo. Dado que el ideal de Ahimsa es no matar a nada, dado que les plantes no estaban vives, si une era vegetariane no rompía ningún voto.

Pero en la misma India, recoge Dignaga, hay oposiciones a esta postura. Por ejemplo: les plantes giran o se abren según el Sol. ¿Seguramente esto indicará vida?. La respuesta clásica Samkhya-Budista era no necesariamente el movimiento implica vida, sino que solamente implica propiedades mecánicas. El suelo cambia en relación a la humedad o sequedad, el agua se mueve y ningune está vives, por así decirlo.

Pero esta respuesta no convencía a muches practicantes, fuera de les más academiques. En primer lugar, un conjunto de escuelas que postulaban el Tathagatagarbha (naturaleza búdica) lo hacían para el universo; de ahí que el Zen tenga miles de ejemplos, entre Koans y enseñanzas (Chen, et al hacen una buena investigación de ejemplos de Naturaleza Búdica de Rocas y Árboles, por ejemplo). Pero por otro lado, la corriente más chamánica (especialmente Vajryánica) nunca dudó de la conciencia de les plantes y roques. Mírese si no el uso de Kamis en Japón, o les Nagas, Sadags y la infinidad de seres locales en el Budismo Tibetano.

Para terminar de complicar la situación, existen textos (como los que recoge Deshung Rimpoché) que hablan de infiernos temporales, dónde ele Narake está atrapade en un árbol o une planta mientras dure su karma. Es decir, si bien uno podría pensar que les plantes no son intrínsecamente sensibles (y por lo tanto, no están vives) igual une podría estar matando un ser de les infiernes.

Entonces ¿en qué quedamos?

Yo creo que podríamos delinear esencialmente dos posturas: 

una de tradición más académica, dentro del Budismo, que por herencia India tiende a considerar a les plantes como materia no viva, por lo que hace del vegetarianismo la principal opción ética 

otra más yógica-experiencial, que tiende a considerar  a tode el universo vivo.

Para terminar de complejizar esto, creo que nadie de nosotres viviendo en occidente en el siglo XXI pensaríamos que la planta no tiene vida, si bien probablemente haya diferentes opiniones sobre sensaciones o consciencia.

Personalmente (y aclaro, esta es mi postura, no ninguna postura oficial) creo que une se inscribe en una tradición. 

¿Seguimos una tradición China con foco en el vegetarianismo/veganismo? Entonces, mejor que seamos veganes, porque vá a generar, más allá de la posición personal, mucha fricción cualquier otre cosa. 

¿Somos parte de una tradición tibetana o Zen? Bueno, ahí es más fácil la situación, pero está bueno consultarlo.

Habiendo dicho esto y de vuelta, aclarando que es algo personal creo que el tema de la alimentación no es tan importante. Creo que en la práctica une va pensando, sintiendo, creándose como practicante y lo principal es ese procese. Pero esa es mi opinión, nada más. El tema, en el Budismo en general se…ramifica y arboriza en cada escuela. (si, malísimo)

[garywonghc]

Yes, Buddhism is a Religion

by Scott Mitchell

In the American imagination, Buddhism has long been associated with counterculture drop-outs — Beat generation iconoclasts, Age of Aquarius hippies, woo-woo New Agers. This unfortunate stereotype identifies Western Buddhism with the 1960s-era and later converts who popularised it, and ignores the actual people who brought Buddhism to the West — Asian immigrants. It reinforces the idea that Buddhism is not to be taken seriously. At best, Buddhism is seen as something esoteric and disconnected from the world, and at worst, as something flighty and faddish.

On the other side of the coin, proponents of mindfulness meditation and other Buddhist-inspired practices have positioned themselves as level-headed advocates of practices whose benefits, they claim, are proven by science. It’s not hard to imagine that this secular–scientific turn is in part an attempt not to be tarred by the popular stereotype of Buddhism as cultish and downright weird.

Both perspectives are incomplete. In reality, Buddhism is a religion, complete with all the aspects and depth that implies and the respect a great world religion deserves.

Depending on how you slice it, Buddhists account for up to ten percent of the world’s population (and at least one percent of North Americans). People were practicing Buddhism nearly five hundred years before the birth of Jesus. Before the modern period, Buddhism spread across virtually the entirety of Asia, and in the modern period you can find Buddhism on every continent.

Across all this space and time, Buddhists developed a wealth of approaches, practices, art, and literature in service to the religion’s central claim — that there is suffering and a path toward the alleviation of suffering in nirvana. To reduce all of this history, all of these cultures, all of these perspectives, to a hippy caricature or a single secular-scientific technique is to overlook the fullness of one of humanity’s great religions. To acknowledge Buddhism as a religion is to appreciate its long history and endless cultural manifestations (including our own).

“But isn’t Buddhism really a way of life? A philosophy?” some ask. Yes, of course. Like all religions, it has a philosophy. Like all religions, it becomes a way of life when it is practiced. As scholars such as Jay Garfield and Dennis Hirota have long argued, Buddhist philosophers from Nagarjuna to Dignaga, Zhiyi to Fazang, Dogen to Shinran, have been wrestling with philosophical concepts for centuries, long before the likes of Kierkegaard, Heidegger, or Derrida befuddled American liberal arts majors.

To say that Buddhism is a religion is to take seriously not only its philosophy and its practices (its “way of life”-ness, if you will) but also its art, its literature and mythology, and its rituals.

Ritual is not a bad thing. To paraphrase the late anthropologist Roy Rappaport, ritual (and religion) make humanity possible. The ritual marking of transitional life events is as old as homo sapiens itself, so let’s not discount the various ways that Buddhists, both at home and abroad, have responded to this deep need for ritual with their own ceremonies for marking births, marriages, and deaths. (If you doubt the importance of ritual, ask yourself why you keep celebrating birthdays. Or, better yet, stop celebrating birthdays and watch what happens.)

A purely New Age perspective of Buddhism might take all the mythic aspects of the religion a little too seriously; it might assume that devotional rituals refer to some literal truth or some “unseen” cosmic reality (no doubt related to the dawning of the Age of Aquarius, thus losing half the audience in the room).

Perhaps this association motivates some to make the secular turn: to treat Buddhist practices as just that — practices — in service to non-religious ends, such as stress reduction, anxiety reduction, increased focus at work or home, weight loss, and so on. All of this might be of value, but a purely secular–scientific perspective rejects Buddhist literature and mythology as pure fiction, on the assumption that none of it can be “proven” — that none of it can be literally true and therefore should not be believed.

This perspective, that religious myths must either be believed literally or rejected, overlooks the function of myths — not as a literal telling of events but as narratives, morality plays, and inspirational stories meant to convey not actual facts but how to live.

One doesn’t need to believe in some literal sense that the Buddha taught the dharma to the demon Alavaka in the Alavaka Sutta to be a Buddhist or benefit from the dharma. One doesn’t need to debate the veracity of this story or, like a good academic or philologist, debate its authorship or why it was included in the Pali canon. If you leave all of that aside, you can read the Alavaka Sutta as a story about how to live, how to respond to difficulty, and how to be virtuous, truthful, and giving — whether the story is “true” or not.

The ability of a not-true story to be inspirational should not be controversial. I’m quite certain you (or someone you know) has taken inspiration from the phrase “Do or not, there is no try,” despite the fact that no one in their right mind believes that Dagobah is a real planet in a galaxy far, far away. That is how narratives and myths function. Don’t get hung up on belief.

When we reduce the totality of Buddhism down to one thing — whether New Age stereotype or cure-all for the modern world’s ills — we engage in the practice of reductionism. Reductionism flattens difference and complexity. Reductionism always forces us to focus on one thing while overlooking others.

The world today is complicated, and simplistic solutions will not cure its complexities. There is no magic pill that will erase suffering for all persons in all places. This is why Buddhists talk about boundless dharma doors and the eighty-four thousand paths to awakening. For Buddhism to be a vigorous voice for positive change in our world, it will need to engage the world from multiple places — from philosophy to politics to art to myth to ritual and, yes, from the Age of Aquarius to secular science. Fortunately, Buddhism as religion is already well equipped for the job.

It’s been doing it for over two thousand years, after all.

[robertoguillermogomes]

Dignāga

Dignaga (Translit. sánscrito: Diṅnāga. En tibetano: Slob-dpon Phyogs-glan) (ca.440-ca.520). Filósofo indio del siglo V y VI, reformador y fundador de la nueva lógica budista en lengua sánscrita. Se le considera uno de los mayores comentadores de las enseñanzas budistas.​ Fue uno de los cuatro discípulos principales de Vasubandhu, cada uno de los cuales superó a su maestro en un campo determinado.…

[english-tibetan-dictionary]

dignaga

mkhas mchog dbyig gnyen - eminent pandita Dignaga [RY]

rgyan drug - the Six Ornaments - Nagarjuna, Aryadeva, Asanga, Vasubhandu, Dignaga, Dharmakirti [RY]

rgyan drug mchog gnyis - Six Ornaments and the Two Supreme Ones. The six ornaments are Nagarjuna, Aryadeva, Asanga, Dignaga, Vasubhandu and Dharmakirti. The two supreme ones are Shakyaprabha and Gunaprabha [RY]

brgyad stong don bsdus - Summary of the Meaning of the Prajnaparamita in Eight Thousand Verses [shastra by Dignaga {phyogs kyi glang po} don gtso bo so gnyis su bsdus.] [IW]

chos grags - Dharmakirti, a disciple of {phyogs gyang} Dignaga. fame of Dharma [RY]

chos grags - Dharmakirti [in the 5th century In S India yul k'anytsi na ga ra in the bhramin caste. pupil of Dignagaslob dpon phyogs glang gi slob ma dbang phyug sde las tsad ma kun btus tshar gsum listened to, shastra tshad ma rnam 'grel &, rnam nges, rigs thigs etc. having written the tshad ma sde bdun slob dpon phyogs glang gi dgongs pa ji lta bar bkral bas tshad ma'i gzhung 'grel ba'i slob dpon du gyur pa'o,... Dharmakirti, "fame of dharma," a disciple of {phyogs glang}, Dignaga 1 of the {'dzam gling mdzes pa'i rgyan drug}, ornament of pramana] [IW]

ne rtsa ma pa - place sw of dignaga [JV]

spel mar bstod pa - Interwoven Praises; by Matricheta and Dignaga [RY]

phyogs kyi glang po - Dignaga [great logician, c 500ad, author of pramana-sammuccaya 'dzam gling mdzes pa'i rgyan drug gi ya gyal, tsad ma rig pa'i rgyan gyi slob dpon phyogs kyi glang po ni, rgya gar lho phyogs kyi rgyud du rgyal rigs kyi sras su sku 'khrungs, mkhan po rgyal ba'i dbang po las rab tu byung, slob dpon dbyig gnyen bsten nas tsad ma la shin tu mkhas par gyur te, tsad ma'i bstan bcos thor bu rnams bsdus te lus yongs su rdzogs pa'i gzhung tsad ma kun btus rtsa 'grel gnyis dang, dmigs pa brtag pa rtsa 'grel, dus gsum brtag pa, rigs pa la 'jug pa, phyogs chos dgu'i 'khor lo la sogs pa tsad ma'i gzhung mang du brtsams te nang pa'i tsad ma rig pa'i srol 'byed pa'i slob dpon du gyur pa'o; 2) phyogs brgyad srung mkhan glang po,//. [IW]

phyogs kyi glang po - Dignaga [Dignaga], n. of a great logician, c. 500 AD, author of Pramana-Samucchaya [RY]

phyogs kyi glang po - Dignaga [IW]

phyogs gi glang po - Dignaga [IW]

phyogs gi glang po - Dignaga, great logical c. 500 AD [RY]

phyogs gi glang po - Dignaga [great logicial c 500 ad [IW]

phyogs glang - Dignaga [= {phyogs glang kyi glang po} is, among the six ornaments which beautify jambudvipa, the recipient of the transmission of pramana, valid cognition, to bring an end to confusion about meaning [IW]

phyogs glang - Dignaga, [Syn {phyogs glang kyi glang po}. is, among the Six Ornaments which Beautify Jambudvipa, the recipient of the transmission of pramana, valid cognition, to bring an end to confusion about meaning [RY]

phyogs glang - Dignaga [RY]

phyogs glang - a buddhist philosopher dignaga, 5th century author of Abhidharma Kosha, disciple of Vasubandhu [JV]

phyogs glang - Dignaga. Fifth century author of Abhidharma Kosha. Disciple of Vasubandhu, famed for his contributions to pramana, logic and epistemology. Counted among the Six Ornaments which Beautify Jambudvipa, he is the holder of the transmission of valid cognition, which brings an end to confusion about meaning [RY]

phyogs glang kyi glang po - Syn {phyogs glang} Dignaga [RY]

phyogs glang kyi glang po - Dignaga [IW]

phyogs chos dgu'i 'khor lo - Dignaga's wheel of reasons diagram: above and below true [yang dag], logs la the two contradictory ones 'gal ba gnyis &, in the four corners the four thun mong ma nges, in the center thun min ma nges pa [IW]

phyogs chos dgu'i 'khor lo - Dignaga's wheel of reasons diagram [IW]

blo brtan - Indian pandita associated with Asanga and Dignaga [RY]

dmigs pa brtag pa - text on reasoning by Dignaga [IW]

dmigs pa brtag pa'i 'grel pa - Commentary on a text on reasoning by Dignaga [IW]

tshad ma kun btus - tshad ma kun las btus pa zhes bya ba [rgya gar gyi slob dpon phyogs kyi glang pos brtsams pa'i rtog ge'i tshig don brgyad dang khyad par du yang dag pa'i shes pa don tshan drug tu bsdus nas gtan la 'bebs par byed pa ste, mngon sum gyi le'u dang, rang don gyi le'u dang, sel ba brtag pa dang, gzhan don le'u dnag, dpe brtag pa dang, sun 'byin brtag pa bcas le'u drug gi bdag nyid can gyi tshad ma'i gzhung zhig go], pramanasamuccaya [by dignaga/ {phyogs glang}. his principal wo{tshad ma gsum - three Kinds of valid cognition [Direct perception {mngon sum tshad ma}, implicit inference {dngos stobs rjes dpag gi tshad ma}. and scriptural authority {lung}. or {shin tu lkog gyur gyi tshad ma}. [Gdmk] mngon sum tshad ma dang rjes dpag tshad ma, lung gi tshad ma bcas so] [IW]

tshad ma kun btus - compendium on right, perception; by Dignaga. The Compendium of Valid / Right Cognition, Pramana-Samucchaya [by Dignaga / {phyogs glang} his principal work, the foundation of Buddhist logic] [RY]

tshad ma kun btus - the Compendium of valid/ right cognition, [pramanasamuccaya [by Dignaga/ {phyogs glang}. his principal work, the foundation of Buddhist logic]. Ts [IW]

tshad ma kun las btus pa - Compendium of Valid Knowledge, Pramana Samucchaya, by Dignaga [RY]

tshad ma rnam 'grel - Commentary on Logic [commentary on Dignaga's Compendium of Logic [Pramana-Samucchaya]; Pramana Vartika Karika; Dharmakirti, 7th century [RY]

'dzam gling rgyan drug - Six Ornaments of the World, six famed panditas of India: Vasubandhu, Asanga, Nagarjuna, Aryadeva, Dignaga, and Dharmakirti [RY]

gzhung byed pa po gsum - Three Authors of Fundamental Texts. Nagarjuna, Asanga, and Dignaga [RY]

gzungs byed pa po gsum - three authors of fundamental texts. Nagarjuna, Asanga, Dignaga [RY]