Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Chittamatra (Mind Only) School; can someone help explain...
Tosh
Veteran
I'm doing a Buddhist course, and I'm currently studying the Two Truths from the point of view of four different Tibetan schools; but I'm confused!
From my text book:
"Be careful here. It is very easy to look at this idea and then conclude that the object does not exist at all. This is not correct. This school is simply asserting that external objects cannot exist as an object of our universe without taking into account the mind experiencing them. Therefore, although the mind truly exists, the objects of its experience - that is, all the phenomena that comprise our universe cannot truly exist because they rely on the mind, coming into being as projections of our perception, not as separate entities."
I simply do not understand, and I've read this paragraph about twenty times.
I understand that the Viabashika and Sautrantika schools assert that the partless particle is an ultimate truth, existing on it's own side, without the need of the mind; but can anyone explain - in simple terms - how objects 'exist' according to the Chittamatra school?
Thanks.
Confused.com!
From my text book:
"Be careful here. It is very easy to look at this idea and then conclude that the object does not exist at all. This is not correct. This school is simply asserting that external objects cannot exist as an object of our universe without taking into account the mind experiencing them. Therefore, although the mind truly exists, the objects of its experience - that is, all the phenomena that comprise our universe cannot truly exist because they rely on the mind, coming into being as projections of our perception, not as separate entities."
I simply do not understand, and I've read this paragraph about twenty times.
I understand that the Viabashika and Sautrantika schools assert that the partless particle is an ultimate truth, existing on it's own side, without the need of the mind; but can anyone explain - in simple terms - how objects 'exist' according to the Chittamatra school?
Thanks.
Confused.com!
0
Comments
this is subject/object duality.
there is no independent "thing" out there until the "thing" is perceived.
so body + mind + consciousness + world of forms = experience
all are processes that have no essences or permanent, individual or inherent existence.
this also implies that everything is a projection from mind and that everything exists interdependently.
His Holiness the Dalai Lama, 'Lighting the Way'.
Generally speaking, there are two forms of meditation on emptiness. One is the space-like meditation on emptiness, which is characterised by the total absence or negation of inherent existence. The other is called the illusion-like meditation on emptiness. The space-like meditation must come first, because without the realisation of the total absence of inherent existence, the illusion-like perception or understanding will not occur.
For the illusion-like understanding of all phenomena to occur, there needs to be a composite of both the perception or appearance and the negation, so that when we perceive the world and engage with it we can view all things and events as resembling illusions. We will recognise that although things appear to us, they are devoid of objective, independent, intrinsic existence. This is how the illusion-like understanding arises. The author of the Eight Verses indicates the experiential result when he writes: 'May I, recognising all things as illusions, devoid of clinging, be released from bondage.'
When we speak of cultivating the illusion-like understanding of the nature of reality, we need to bear in mind the different interpretations of the term 'illusion-like'. The non-Buddhist Indian schools also speak of the illusion-like nature of reality, and there are different interpretations within Buddhist schools. For example, the Buddhist realist schools explain the nature of reality to be illusion-like in the sense that, although we tend to perceive things as having permanence, in reality they are changing moment by moment and it is this that gives them an illusion-like character.
In the context of our short text, the illusion-like nature of reality must be understood as relating to all things and events. Although we tend to perceive them as possessing some kind of intrinsic nature or existence, in reality they are all devoid of such reality. So there is a disparity between the way things appear to us and the way things really are. It is in this sense that things and events are said to have an illusion-like nature.
.......................
As I mentioned earlier, many texts on emptiness state that the understanding of dependent origination is the most powerful means of arriving at the knowledge of emptiness. When, as a result of engaging in deep meditation on emptiness, we fail to find the intrinsic reality of the object of our focus, we do not conclude from this that the object in question does not exist at all. instead, we deduce that since our critical analysis has failed to find the true, independent existence of the object, its existence or reality must be understood only as dependent origination. Therefore, a genuine understanding of emptiness must really take place. The moment we reflect upon our understanding of the emptiness of inherent existence, that very understanding will indicate that things exist. it is almost as if when we hear the word 'emptiness' we should instantly recognise its implication, which is that of existing by means of dependent origination. A genuine understanding of emptiness, therefore, is said to be that in which one understands emptiness in terms of dependent origination.
A similar point is raised by Nagarjuna in his Precious Garland, where he explains the emptiness or selflessness of 'person' by a process of reductive analysis. This involves exploring how the person is neither the earth element nor the water element, fire element and so on. When this reductive process fails to find something called 'person' that is independent of these various elements, and also fails to identify the person with any of these elements, Nagarjuna raises the question: where, then, is the person? He does not immediately conclude by saying, 'Therefore "person" does not exist.' Rather, he refers to the idea of dependent origination, stating that: 'The person is therefore dependent upon the aggregation of the six elements.' Thus he is not negating the fact that the 'person' does exist and is real and undergoes experiences of pain and pleasure.
From my own experience I know that I exist; I know that I have non-deluded experiences of pain and pleasure. Yet when I search for the entity called 'self' or 'I' among the various elements that together constitute my existence, I cannot find anything that appears to possess intrinsic, independent reality. This is why Nagarjuna concludes that we can understand a person's existence only in terms of the principle of dependent origination.
At this point some people may raise the following objection: isn't saying that all phenomena are devoid of inherent existence tantamount to saying that nothing exists? Nagarjuna's response is to state that by 'emptiness' we do not mean a mere nothingness; rather, by 'emptiness' we mean dependent origination. In this way Nagarjuna's teaching on emptiness transcends the extremes of absolutism and nihilism. By rejecting intrinsic, independent existence his view transcends absolutism; and by stating that things and events do exist, albeit as dependent originations, he transcends the extreme of nihilism. This transcendence of the two extremes of absolutism and nihilism represents the true Middle Way.
At this point it may be helpful to reflect a little on the different levels of meaning of the principle of dependent origination. On one level dependent origination refers to the nature of things and events as understood in terms of their dependence upon causes and conditions. On another level this dependence can be understood more in terms of mutual dependence. For example, there is a mutuality of concepts between, say, long and short, in which something is posited as 'long' in relation to something else that is 'short'. Similarly, things and events have both parts and a whole; the whole is constituted of the parts, and the parts are posited in relation to the whole.
On another level still, the principle of dependent origination relates to the subject, which is the conceptual mind that creates designation, appellations, labels and so on. As we have briefly discussed before, when we give something a label or a name we generally tend to assume that the labelled object has some kind of true, independent existence. Yet when we search for the true existence or essence of the thing in question, we always fail to find it. Our conclusion, therefore, is that while things do exist on the conventional level, they do not possess ultimate, objective reality. Rather, their existence can only be posited as a mere appellation, designation or label. According to Nagarjuna, these three levels of meaning in the principle of dependent origination pervade our entire spectrum of reality.
http://newbuddhist.com/discussion/11435/nature-of-interdependence#Item_38
sorry about the shitton of drop age.
wish ya luck!
But can I ask a bone question that I should really know (since it's a word that's used often), but what does 'duality' mean in a Buddhist sense?
I hope it makes it a little clearer.
Is it the Foundations of Buddhist Thought course, by the way?
when we use language we assert a positive and negative. i can say there is an apple, but that also implies that there is potentiality for the lack of apple to exist.
the foreground exists in relation to the background. if you take the background out then the foreground is no more. this is getting to the heart of interdependence and conceptual language.
buddhism points to the non dual meaning that which is prior to language. reality is empty thus it can be both good and bad. suffering and no suffering. emptiness points to infinite potentiality and change.
we must understand that see that our minds project concepts onto an empty reality. by interpreting based on my conditioning or karma i project "goodness" onto the buddha. the buddha is empty like all things, thus the buddha can be good, but the buddha can also have the potential to be bad as well. thus you see the concept is like a landlocked static idea. the goal of buddhism is to free the mind from symbolic clinging and thus seeing reality as it is.
so language/concepts assert dualism.
spirituality points to that which words cannot touch. the mystic stays silent. the rationalist will use their minds to get to silence through assertion of a and b and the negation of a and b and then the negation of the negation of a and b and assertion of a and b.
hope that helps. i know its a lot. just see, hear, taste, smell, feel, and think. anything else is extra.
This is pretty simple according to Chittamatrin thought that all phenomena is an apprehension of the mind not existing from its own side but coming into being through the force of perception. To a Chittamatrin the mind is truely existent.
I'll have a close read tomorrow. I think I'm just over complicating things, thinking about examples, such as rocks on the Moon that no one has seen, and if they exist or not!
G'night all! Yes, it's very good, so far; but I've struggled with The Two Truths. Have you done, or are you doing this course?
http://onlinelearning.fpmt.org/
But I found the Foundation of Buddhist Thought course and asked about it here and the feedback I received from someone on the course was good, so I opted for that.
Buddhism just seemed like such a massive subject, and I was reading such a diverse amount of Buddhist books, that I wanted some sort of structured introduction to Buddhism. And this seems to be giving me just that.
Anyway, you've probably read more of Geshe Tashi's books than I have. If you do the course, you get lots of audio teachings too; they also have a student's forum where we can ask and answer questions (students range from people like me with very little Buddhist knowledge, to some quite knowledgeable Buddhists); and we're given set work to do, which I think is great since it disciplines me into doing the hard work of trying to understand; rather than just skipping the tough stuff.
Anyway, thanks for your help.
The Chittamatrans are not saying objects don't exist without the mind, they're saying an object is not inherently a 'thing' on it's own side; because if it were, it would project its objectness to our minds, which it doesn't, because we all see things subjectively. For example I can see a cake and think 'lovely, yum yum' whereas someone else (someone not as greedy as me) would look at the cake and think 'yuk, not nice'.
So the cake's existence is dependant on the mind in this way, and our reaction to it is the overlay we impute onto it.
But, ultimately (according to the Chittamatrans), they cake is neither 'yum yum' or 'yuk'. The cake and mind is just 'one'.
I think that's right, (am I close anyone?) but I still can't get my head around the cake and mind being one!
are they same or different? if you say they are the same you get 100 smacks to the head. if you say they are different then you get 100 smacks to the head.
if you say they are the same you are attached to emptiness. if you say they are different then you are attached to form.
move beyond both emptiness and form to see beyond duality.
intellectually it is nice to understand, but to truly realize and gain insight one must look deeply into themselves. this is not about abstract concepts, but about feeling it on all levels. feeling with the body and becoming more sensitive to the various intelligences that we've neglected.
on a side note. the asians usually consider mind located in the heart. the korean word for mind is maum which is the same as heart. now americans say that the mind is the brain and situated behind the eyes.
take note of that as it clearly reflects the current situation. in zen emphasis is placed on the hara which is bellow the navel and that could be seen as the gut reaction center lol. intuition arises out of there and thus all realization is out of the gut. the gut in essence gives a non dual realization and such realization is interpreted either by the heart or head. the heart being the closest and the head being the furtherest. both the heart and mind need to be awakened for one to bridge all three.
lol we are getting a little bit out there but i thought i'd share this round about way. all of this i am talking about isn't philosophy but existential and thus it is meaningless unless you kinetically feel it.
back to the original topic.
prior to words everything is one. even this one isn't one. it actually isn't definable.
thus language or projection divides and duality is born. differences only EXIST nominally.
sit with that one for a while and be careful because that in itself is the beginning of the end. right view is the first step in the 8 fold path.
I've got a sort of a concept, so that's a good start to getting some realisation (I hope).
Thanks for the help.