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.
Nagarjuna
ThailandTom
Veteran
I am aware that he was a very wise person and had quite a few deciples, but these followers went on to form their own different schools of buddhism, and there even seems to be schools within schools.
Example, the madhyamaka savataantrika understanding of emptiness is that things come into being as a result of causes and conditions, and although the status of things as existing is in one sense or another dependent on our perception, there is still a certain instrintic realityto things and events. This school negates the assertion that objects exist independent of perception, and it is this that is their understanding of emptiness.
From the point of view of the madhyamaka Prasangika school however, that is not the final meaning of the buddha's teachings on anatman. According to this view, so long as we have not deconstructed or dismantled the notion that things and events can have any type of intristic exstince, then we are still grasping at things as real, as tghough they enjoy some kind of independent status.
In all from what I have read so far, there are 4 schools with 4 different understandings in total, yet despite the differences, they all share a concern to emphasize that rightly engaged in counteracting our grasping at the self, it is important to ensure our negation does not defy the reality of the conventional world, the world of lived experience. They share that causality and karma should not be negated.
Example, the madhyamaka savataantrika understanding of emptiness is that things come into being as a result of causes and conditions, and although the status of things as existing is in one sense or another dependent on our perception, there is still a certain instrintic realityto things and events. This school negates the assertion that objects exist independent of perception, and it is this that is their understanding of emptiness.
From the point of view of the madhyamaka Prasangika school however, that is not the final meaning of the buddha's teachings on anatman. According to this view, so long as we have not deconstructed or dismantled the notion that things and events can have any type of intristic exstince, then we are still grasping at things as real, as tghough they enjoy some kind of independent status.
In all from what I have read so far, there are 4 schools with 4 different understandings in total, yet despite the differences, they all share a concern to emphasize that rightly engaged in counteracting our grasping at the self, it is important to ensure our negation does not defy the reality of the conventional world, the world of lived experience. They share that causality and karma should not be negated.
0
Comments
liberate the
Of course not the point of view of meditating according to these views is to mind. Do deny a conventional reality experienced by people and make yourself look like a total weirdo that doesnt help anyone at all does it ?
Madhyamaka Prasangika all the way eliminate all grasping
-------------------------------
(Copy typed; all typos are mine)
THE FOUR SCHOOLS
This gives you some sense of the historical basis for what the Tibetan tradition identifies as the four Buddhist schools.
These are:
Vaibhashika
Sautrantika
Chittamatra
Madhyamaka
The first two schools, the Vaibhashika (Great Exposition) school and the Sautrantika (Sutra) school, searched for the basic building block of the universe, and because these basic particles were seen as truly existent, these two schools are known as realist schools. These two schools assert only the selflesness of persons, not the selflessness of phenomena.
------------------------------------------------
I'm bored typing; I'm sorry; but all the philosophical schools (and I believe there is thought to have been about 18 of them) have subdivisions, and it's interesting to study them to see the subtle differences, how the philosophy evolved, and I'm taught that by studying each, it can give a deeper understanding of the highest school (Madhyamaka Pasangika).
But I wasn't a good student for this module; I need to revisit it.
This book is the course book we use and it covers the four schools, looking at the Two Truths of each school:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Relative-Truth-Ultimate-Foundation-ebook/dp/B003VYBP60/ref=sr_1_sc_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1318345666&sr=1-2-spell
I need a good course in the heart sutra from a qualified teacher.
Do you see? When we say emptiness we do not mean emptiness as it is defined in the dictionary. When we say emptiness we mean that there is a spacious element and a motion. The mind is spacious because you can be angry and still find space that that anger is within. You can distance yourself from that anger. Because there is space. Because it is empty.
That is to say the mental formations are empty.
With form (as opposed to mental formation skanda) is empty think of grape juice turning into wine. Is there any certain point where it is transformed? A cut off? Or is it just a flowing and mental labeling. The grapejuice can turn into wine because it is empty of a self-essence. It can flow in time and space.
object = changes
things can only change if they lacked inherent existence.
form though it appears to be constant is a process, thus it is empty.
independent existence only exists as a projection. all things are ungraspable, nor are they permanent.
since my car exists dependently on it's causes/conditions it can work. function means change. an independently existing car could not function, nor could it be seen.
objects are easy.
try the subject.
Buddhism recognises both truths. Cars are a convention and may kill you if you allow them to run over you, so it would be stupid not to get out of the way. But ultimately cars have no inherent existence, because a car relies on it's parts and the imputation of 'car' that we place upon these different parts.
How can I explain this? If I asked you to point to a car, you may point to the engine. Nope, that's an engine, not a car. You may point to the door. Nope, that's a door.
You may say, "Ah, but the collection of different parts is a car", but with further analysis you could call each of these parts a 'none car part'. Now a collection of sheep is sheep, and a collection of coins is coins, so how can a collection of 'none car parts' be a car? Think about it!
So when investigated with wisdom, you can't really find a car, only parts of a car, and when you investigate these parts, you won't be to find them either. You can do this right down to an atom; point to an atom, "Nope, that's a proton!", and those clever people at CERN still can't seem to find the basic building block of form.
Once you understand the Emptiness of a car, it would be easy to understand the Emptiness of a body, the Emptiness of a self, and all other phenomena (I think I've read that).
However, I don't fully understand this, but I'm getting a conceptual understanding, which I'm taught is required if you want to get more of a direct realisation of Emptiness.
I'm currently slowly working my way through a commentary on the Heart Sutra, which explains Emptiness, it's very good, but hard work.
From memory, the partless particle is the smallest item there is. Remember this was first thought up about 2000 years ago; well before the discovery of the atom. And this 'partless particle' has no sides, so a 1000 partless particles would take up no more room than 1 partless particle. So if that were true, how do we have tables, chairs, and other objects?
Don't quote me on this though; it's just from memory.
Are you new here? Welcome.
I've not had any direct perceptions and I'm just struggling along to get a better conceptual understanding myself.
And I've just deleted a further explanation 'cos I confused myself.
Here, for a better understanding, try this book by Geshi Tashi:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Relative-Truth-Ultimate-Foundation-ebook/dp/B003VYBP60/ref=sr_1_sc_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1318373811&sr=1-2-spell
Here he explains the Two Truths from the point of view of the four different Buddhist schools. It's a serious book, I found it a bit dry, and I really wasn't a good student for this portion of the course.
Also, may I suggest you find a good commentary on the Heart Sutra for a good explanation of Emptiness.
My teacher's teacher agrees that it is a question of course and subtle. Skillful means rather than absolutes. He (Khenpo Gyamptso Tsultrim Rinpoche) wrote a book called Progressive Stages of Meditation on Emptiness. He presents those four views along with shentong view (emptiness of other).
In modern Tibetan Buddhism all of these views are studied but most people fall in the camp of prasangika or shentong. Though there are varying degrees of realization.
In my own practice emptiness is manifest when I get really caught up in a stinky set of mind and then I laugh at it and let it go. That is more useful than all of this theoretical stuff. Remember to relate what you learn towards what is useful in achieving peace and happiness!
And don't let all this bullshit distract you from getting out the cushion and meditating! :om:
I'm not sure if this is the correct way to use Emptiness, but it's helping me.
And you can't properly understand 'this bullshit' without getting out the cushion and meditating; I don't think. (That was a subtle play on words there!)
What does strike me though are all of the schools and schools within schools, monks arguing over teachings and so forth. The first written document of the dharma was created just over 500 years after the Buddha's death, so that in itself leads to some questions
Everyone has their own practice and thoughts. The idea is that there are many practices that are working towards happiness. I have heard in buddhist circles that we are not trying to be better people, rather we are trying to work with and manage the type of person who we are and are becoming. We are empty and we are just working with what the morning brings (I read another thread its 8am in thailand, you just woke up!)..
Who we are, I have noticed in a very deep manner how 'we' change from moment to moment, from happiness then to a certain person saying a sentence changing you totally. This is why there is no permanent self because it is subject to change like everything else-if I am not wrong.
Everyday now I look within at each moment and contemplate things such as this. But, like you said why consider better or worse, it is what it is and I guess everyone has their own path, correlated to the dharma be it 100% or 0%