Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Examples: Monday, today, last week, Mar 26, 3/26/04
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.

Drop in the ocean?

I was moved by this phrase:

You are not a drop in the ocean.
You are the entire ocean, in a drop.

~ Rumi ~


It reminds me of William Blakes:

To see a world in a grain of sand,
And a heaven in a wild flower,
Hold infinity in the palm of your hand,
And eternity in an hour.
personsovaRebeccaSbuddhakai

Comments

  • Each moment is a moment of infinity.

    The absolute reality show casing itself as the relative.

    One step towards experience liberates everything including self and other.

    Each instant of pure experience, beyond time and space.

    Can we hear the truth body as the truth body?
    sova
  • What these two poets have missed is realizing the very substance (tathatâ) that transcends their poetic discriminations. Fundamentally, there is no drop, ocean, world, sand, heavens, wild flowers and the rest.

    sova
  • taiyakitaiyaki Veteran
    edited November 2012
    Actually that is implied in seeing everything in one instant.
    Indra's net automatically implies the voidness of everything.

    Ultimately a symbol such as a poem reflects one's definite realization.
    sova
  • Songhill said:

    What these two poets have missed is realizing the very substance (tathatâ) that transcends their poetic discriminations. Fundamentally, there is no drop, ocean, world, sand, heavens, wild flowers and the rest.

    And no this^^
    The difference is that the words of those poets are inspiring to some and that is positive and creative. Your words above hold no more actual truth than theirs, but are of a negative nature.
    Can't you see that they might be viewed that way?
    vinlyn
  • The real difference is neither falling into the negative nor the positive.

    A Buddha can see both the relative and absolute simultaneously.

    For instance a Buddha can see a flower as both appearance and emptiness.

    A flower is all causes and conditions of the whole infinite universe arising in that effect of flower, thus void.

    The poets describe it in such positive language, such as "buddha nature".

    Whereas others describe it in such negative language.

    Both affirming the same thing if realized, but if conceptualized a poison one drinks.
    sova
  • Right. Words, as we know are not realization. Some words can inspire realization. For beginners, positive words are important.
    sovalobster
  • JeffreyJeffrey Veteran
    edited November 2012
    Songhill said:

    What these two poets have missed is realizing the very substance (tathatâ) that transcends their poetic discriminations. Fundamentally, there is no drop, ocean, world, sand, heavens, wild flowers and the rest.

    If there is none of those things then how are you speaking about them? If there is no sand then how did you know I would understand what you are saying when you say 'sand'? One way to understand is with the two truths.

  • taiyaki:
    Actually that is implied in seeing everything in one instant.
    Indra's net automatically implies the voidness of everything.

    Ultimately a symbol such as a poem reflects one's definite realization.
    An instant is still an instant of samsara. The voidness of everything means phenomena are devoid of self-nature; they don't actually exist the way deluded minds believe they exist. This is not Buddha-nature.
  • robot:
    And no this^^
    The difference is that the words of those poets are inspiring to some and that is positive and creative. Your words above hold no more actual truth than theirs, but are of a negative nature.
    Can't you see that they might be viewed that way?
    What did our dear dead poets use to see the sand grain and the rest? Let me answer for you. They used the five aggregates (pañca-skandha) which belong to Mara the evil one.
  • Songhill said:

    taiyaki:

    Actually that is implied in seeing everything in one instant.
    Indra's net automatically implies the voidness of everything.

    Ultimately a symbol such as a poem reflects one's definite realization.
    An instant is still an instant of samsara. The voidness of everything means phenomena are devoid of self-nature; they don't actually exist the way deluded minds believe they exist. This is not Buddha-nature.

    An instant is samsara to those with dualistic vision.

    To those who recognize the real meaning then an instant contains everything, thus void. The sound contains all sounds, hallow, empty, unborn, neither coming nor going, yet completely unceasing.

    Interdependence and emptiness are two sides of the same coin.

    Maybe we are speaking past each other?
  • Songhill said:

    robot:

    And no this^^
    The difference is that the words of those poets are inspiring to some and that is positive and creative. Your words above hold no more actual truth than theirs, but are of a negative nature.
    Can't you see that they might be viewed that way?
    What did our dear dead poets use to see the sand grain and the rest? Let me answer for you. They used the five aggregates (pañca-skandha) which belong to Mara the evil one.

    What are "they" without the aggregates?
    How did you answer my post? I don't understand.
    Are you saying that poetry is evil? Seems kinda weird.
  • DavidDavid A human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First Nations Veteran


    sova
  • taiyaki:
    An instant is samsara to those with dualistic vision.

    To those who recognize the real meaning then an instant contains everything, thus void. The sound contains all sounds, hallow, empty, unborn, neither coming nor going, yet completely unceasing.

    Interdependence and emptiness are two sides of the same coin.

    Maybe we are speaking past each other?
    In Buddhism, according to Asanga, duality means duplicity. Grasping at an illusory figure is an example of duality—there is fundamentally no figure there. In the same way, we grasp at phenomena believing all to be real. But in truth there is no phenomena actually present. There is only Mind (cittamatra). It's our discrimination-cum-desire that has made all this.
    "Every spirit makes its house, but afterwards the house confines the spirit."
    ~ Emerson, The Conduct of Life
  • DavidDavid A human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First Nations Veteran
    edited November 2012
    Songhill said:

    What these two poets have missed is realizing the very substance (tathatâ) that transcends their poetic discriminations. Fundamentally, there is no drop, ocean, world, sand, heavens, wild flowers and the rest.

    In light of the two truths, I'd argue there is. There is both the drop and the ocean but they both reside in each other.

    A drop may not be a drop but that is what we call it in order to split the subject from the object. Seems to be a necessary function in discovery and the sharing of differing perspectives.

    That drop isn't just the ocean... It is the clouds too. And every tiny speck of moisture following the path of least resistence. That drop is 90% or so of our atomic structure.

    We are. That is not the illusion. That we are seperate, that's the illusion.

    Jeffrey
  • Songhill said:

    taiyaki:

    An instant is samsara to those with dualistic vision.

    To those who recognize the real meaning then an instant contains everything, thus void. The sound contains all sounds, hallow, empty, unborn, neither coming nor going, yet completely unceasing.

    Interdependence and emptiness are two sides of the same coin.

    Maybe we are speaking past each other?
    In Buddhism, according to Asanga, duality means duplicity. Grasping at an illusory figure is an example of duality—there is fundamentally no figure there. In the same way, we grasp at phenomena believing all to be real. But in truth there is no phenomena actually present. There is only Mind (cittamatra). It's our discrimination-cum-desire that has made all this.
    "Every spirit makes its house, but afterwards the house confines the spirit."
    ~ Emerson, The Conduct of Life
    That is interesting and I agree with you. Except even this Mind cannot be established to be, it too is ungraspable.

    But that is where you and I will probably always disagree. Either way if one has an eternalistic view of the Mind that too is beautiful and worth veneration.
  • taiyaki said:

    Songhill said:

    taiyaki:

    An instant is samsara to those with dualistic vision.

    To those who recognize the real meaning then an instant contains everything, thus void. The sound contains all sounds, hallow, empty, unborn, neither coming nor going, yet completely unceasing.

    Interdependence and emptiness are two sides of the same coin.

    Maybe we are speaking past each other?
    In Buddhism, according to Asanga, duality means duplicity. Grasping at an illusory figure is an example of duality—there is fundamentally no figure there. In the same way, we grasp at phenomena believing all to be real. But in truth there is no phenomena actually present. There is only Mind (cittamatra). It's our discrimination-cum-desire that has made all this.
    "Every spirit makes its house, but afterwards the house confines the spirit."
    ~ Emerson, The Conduct of Life
    That is interesting and I agree with you. Except even this Mind cannot be established to be, it too is ungraspable.

    But that is where you and I will probably always disagree. Either way if one has an eternalistic view of the Mind that too is beautiful and worth veneration.

    Songhill's view is not eternalistic because time is relative and the three times are only pointers to the present experience including memory. Without time there can be no eternity unless you mean 'eternity' as sort of a provisional and poetic turn of phrase.
  • Ourself:

    When one sees the absolute or pure Mind, yes, there are phenomena still present (like your drop and the ocean), but they are illusory; they are nothing in themselves; nothing above or greater than the substance, pure Mind, from which they are composed.
  • In reality I am probably just clinging onto useless polemics.

    But we must becareful not to establish anything as having any sense of ontological reality, including dharmakaya. We negate what we affirm, until there is nothing to negate, then that negation is also negated till there is no more ground.

    If we make this groundless ground into something, well that would propagate the original ignorance of perception ahahha.


    anyways here is a quote that I personally enjoy:

    ‎"When the doors of perception are cleansed, everything appears to the mind as it is - INFINITE."

    -William Blake
  • JeffreyJeffrey Veteran
    edited November 2012
    @taiyaki: That's exactly what the shentong says, a polemic. They say the rangtong has a subtle prapancha of negation.

    The way to tell is if the Buddha qualities of love and wisdom are manifesting. And how can one know that? One could be deluded so it is quite tricky?

    But when prapancha ceases the Buddha qualities emerge. The wind of suffering can be harnassed to propel the boat in the right direction. A meeting with the universe. That's how you tell, I suppose. If you are suffering more and more that could be an opportunity. I think meditation is like a means of clearing up so that you can notice things. Just thinking.
  • Shentong is experiential. Rangtong is the view.

    In Dzogchen there is a saying:

    Trust your experience, but keep refining the view.

    Use both as if the real meaning is intuited then there really is no problem between the two.

    Either way I am in agreement.
    person
  • DavidDavid A human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First Nations Veteran
    Songhill said:

    Ourself:

    When one sees the absolute or pure Mind, yes, there are phenomena still present (like your drop and the ocean), but they are illusory; they are nothing in themselves; nothing above or greater than the substance, pure Mind, from which they are composed.

    I agree but we can still use them. Without them I couldn't even have conceived of the we that conceive. I don't see it as a bad thing non-conducive to growth because learning is a good thing. I understand what you're saying I think though and agree that it's not good to be unaware that labels are just labels and don't really represent "things" in a true light.

    If a shared delusion is universal then it is still reality while in the dualistic state. I know I seem to be pretty nit picky (and perhaps short sighted at times) for someone that is non-sectarian but compassion is a big deal and it can become just a figurehead if the common sense of it is taken away.

    To say that it is all just illusion seems to negate the first Noble Truth...



  • personperson Don't believe everything you think The liminal space Veteran
    taiyaki said:

    Shentong is experiential. Rangtong is the view.

    In Dzogchen there is a saying:

    Trust your experience, but keep refining the view.

    Use both as if the real meaning is intuited then there really is no problem between the two.

    Either way I am in agreement.

    I agree with this, to me it seems shentong is the experiential view of suchness while rangtong is the intellectual path to realizing it. I think its an error to hold a shentong view other than as a loose pointing out type instruction and likewise its an error to believe that the experience produced by rangtong is nothing or doesn't exist in some way.
  • DavidDavid A human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First Nations Veteran
    taiyaki said:

    In reality I am probably just clinging onto useless polemics.

    But we must becareful not to establish anything as having any sense of ontological reality, including dharmakaya. We negate what we affirm, until there is nothing to negate, then that negation is also negated till there is no more ground.

    If we make this groundless ground into something, well that would propagate the original ignorance of perception ahahha.


    anyways here is a quote that I personally enjoy:

    ‎"When the doors of perception are cleansed, everything appears to the mind as it is - INFINITE."

    -William Blake

    In life there is no truely solid ground... Stand regardless.

  • personperson Don't believe everything you think The liminal space Veteran
    This discussion has gone a little off course but I wonder what @Songhill thinks of Nagarjuna. Generally in Tibetan Buddhism the lineage of the wisdom teachings are thought to originate from Nagarjuna (madhyamika) and Maitreya via Asanga is thought to be the origin of the compassion teachings and his wisdom teachings are generally held to be a lower view (cittimatra).

    I'm far from informed in these matters but I know what is taught in TB and its madhyamika and not cittimatra.
  • We are all having our experience. Some people might say 'negation'. Others might say 'open', 'let it be', or 'stop filling space'.

    We are finding this in our own experience and meditation. It's not something (I think) that appears around the bend. Already here. It's the realization that 'we really mean it'. It is here. We really mean it; there is clinging and a direction of ceasing.
  • Rangtong isn't a view because prasangika (rangtong subtlest view) is the negation of all views. If you make that a view it is like a paradox. The only way to get past the paradox is to let go of all views. And just have peace of non-clinging.

    But maybe you can say that's a view. 'If I know what You mean?' :D Can we have a view that has no experiential component?

    So we have no view but we consider it a view. ::snap:: "SHIT!"
  • personperson Don't believe everything you think The liminal space Veteran
    Yeah @Jeffrey thats a good example of what I'm talking about regarding a pointing out type view. The point isn't knowing the words its the experience the words point to that matters.
    David
  • DavidDavid A human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First Nations Veteran
    The view of no views and the view of all views.

    And neither and back again.
  • sovasova delocalized fractyllic harmonizing Veteran
    Jeffrey said:

    The wind of suffering can be harnassed to propel the boat in the right direction. A meeting with the universe. That's how you tell, I suppose. If you are suffering more and more that could be an opportunity. I think meditation is like a means of clearing up so that you can notice things. Just thinking.

    Jeffrey these are some excelling thinkings. Up top! *high five*

    @person
    Nagarjuna, scholar-rockstar!



    at-everyone:
    I actually really like the way this thread is flowing.

    Would anyone like to comment on Buddha teaching the Dharma in three turnings? I feel like that is especially relevant.
  • In the first turning a rain drop is? A raindrop is phenomena. All phenomena are changing and you can see the properties of change and the substantialness of earth, fluidity of water, and so forth in every phenomena. And this is the ocean. The ocean is the fact that a phenomena is ever changing. Each raindrop is impermanent.

    Let raindrops be raindrops and oceans be oceans.
    David
  • Hinayana is the base of the three yanas. It deals primarily with the emptiness of self. When we realize in our practice that our selfishness, and ego tactics are all founded on assumption then the castle we build falls apart and then we renounce our small minded actions of body, speech, and mind.

    The aperture opens up and we start to notice other people. We don't even stop the Hinayana path of refuge and meditation. This is an ongoing process, but now we jump into the Mahayana. Now we learn to relate with others, we work with intention and positive action. The path widens and we truly live for other people. We practice and study for other people. This is possible because we see ultimately there are no other people, phenomena is seen to be equally empty as self. Thus that brings great inspiration towards helping others.

    Then we find ourselves in the Vajrayana. We work with the energies in the body, the inspiration arising from the unborn buddha mind, and we bring this energy down to the level of the Nirmanakaya. We work with reality directly as it communicates our realization back towards us, or our ignorance. We develop pure vision and the awakened mandala becomes apparent in our everyday lives.

    Then there is Dzogchen. This is either taught in the beginning, middle or end as it is the fruit of all these practices. We thought we had our shit together by studying and practicing Buddhism. But now we must throw Buddhism, scripture, practice and everything out. We must trust only our innate state of liberation and the three yanas express themselves when required but we only trust the natural state. There is no more bullshit, no more pretense, no more running away. Just naked confidence standing right where we are, understanding the heart message of all the yanas in one recognition.

    This whole world is the pure manifestation of one's own unborn buddha mind and each expression the whole expression of the infinite universe. This is recognized as the three bodies: relating to the individual and the whole.
    Jeffreysova
  • DavidDavid A human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First Nations Veteran
    Jeffrey said:

    In the first turning a rain drop is? A raindrop is phenomena. All phenomena are changing and you can see the properties of change and the substantialness of earth, fluidity of water, and so forth in every phenomena. And this is the ocean. The ocean is the fact that a phenomena is ever changing. Each raindrop is impermanent.

    Let raindrops be raindrops and oceans be oceans.

    That's how I feel. Impermanence to me means experience should be appreciated all the more.

  • JeffreyJeffrey Veteran
    edited November 2012
    person said:

    This discussion has gone a little off course but I wonder what @Songhill thinks of Nagarjuna. Generally in Tibetan Buddhism the lineage of the wisdom teachings are thought to originate from Nagarjuna (madhyamika) and Maitreya via Asanga is thought to be the origin of the compassion teachings and his wisdom teachings are generally held to be a lower view (cittimatra).

    I'm far from informed in these matters but I know what is taught in TB and its madhyamika and not cittimatra.

    All of Tibetan buddhism is traced to Nagarjuna. There is no modern cittimatrapa that denies Nagarjuna. However, there is rangtong and shentong, but they both trace back to big N.
  • "The cognizer perceives the cognizable;
    Without the cognizable there is no cognition;
    Therefore why do you not admit
    That neither object nor subject exists [at all]?

    The mind is but a mere name;
    Apart from it's name it exists as nothing;
    So view consciousness as a mere name;
    Name too has no intrinsic nature.

    Either within or likewise without,
    Or somewhere in between the two,
    The conquerors have never found the mind;
    So the mind has the nature of an illusion.

    The distinctions of colors and shapes,
    Or that of object and subject,
    Of male, female and the neuter -
    The mind has no such fixed forms.

    In brief the Buddhas have never seen
    Nor will they ever see [such a mind];
    So how can they see it as intrinsic nature
    That which is devoid of intrinsic nature?

    "Entity" is a conceptualization;
    Absence of conceptualization is emptiness;
    Where conceptualization occurs,
    How can there be emptiness?

    The mind in terms of perceived and perceiver,
    This the Tathagatas have never seen;
    Where there is the perceived and perceiver,
    There is no enlightenment.

    Devoid of characteristics and origination,
    Devoid of substantiative reality and transcending speech,
    Space, awakening mind and enlightenment
    Posses the characteristics of non-duality."

    - Nagarjuna
    Jeffreysova
  • I bow at the feet of my teacher Marpa.
    And sing this song in response to you.
    Listen, pay heed to what I say,
    forget your critique for a while.

    The best seeing is the way of "nonseeing" --
    the radiance of the mind itself.
    The best prize is what cannot be looked for --
    the priceless treasure of the mind itself.

    The most nourishing food is "noneating" --
    the transcendent food of samadhi.
    The most thirst-quenching drink is "nondrinking" --
    the nectar of heartfelt compassion.

    Oh, this self-realizing awareness
    is beyond words and description!
    The mind is not the world of children,
    nor is it that of logicians.

    Attaining the truth of "nonattainment,"
    you receive the highest initiation.
    Perceiving the void of high and low,
    you reach the sublime stage.

    Approaching the truth of "nonmovement,"
    you follow the supreme path.
    Knowing the end of birth and death,
    the ultimate purpose is fulfilled.

    Seeing the emptiness of reason,
    supreme logic is perfected.
    When you know that great and small are groundless,
    you have entered the highest gateway.

    Comprehending beyond good and evil
    opens the way to perfect skill.
    Experiencing the dissolution of duality,
    you embrace the highest view.

    Observing the truth of "nonobservation"
    opens the way to meditating.
    Comprehending beyond "ought" and "oughtn't"
    opens the way to perfect action.

    When you realize the truth of "noneffort,"
    you are approaching the highest fruition.
    Ignorant are those who lack this truth:
    arrogant teachers inflated by learning,
    scholars bewitched by mere words,
    and yogis seduced by prejudice.
    For though they yearn for freedom,
    they find only enslavement.


    ~Milarepa
    taiyakisova
  • eh ma ho!

    Truly what more is there to say?
    sova
  • JeffreyJeffrey Veteran
    edited November 2012
    Here is more :D

    Song to the Rock Demoness

    Milarepa
    Buddhist : Tibetan
    11th Century

    River, ripples, and waves, these three,
    When emerging, arise from the ocean itself.
    When disappearing, they disappear into the ocean itself.

    Habitual thinking, love, and possessiveness, these three,
    When arising, arise from the alaya consciousness itself.
    When disappearing, they disappear into the alaya consciousness itself.

    Self-awareness, self-illumination, self-liberation, these three,
    When arising, arise from the mind itself.
    When disappearing, they disappear into the mind itself.

    The unborn, unceasing, and unexpressed, these three,
    When emerging, arise from the nature of being itself.
    When disappearing, they disappear into the nature of being itself.

    The visions of demons, clinging to demons, and thoughts of demons,
    When arising, arise from the Yogin himself.
    When disappearing, they disappear into the Yogin himself.

    Since demons are the phantoms of the mind,
    If it is not understood by the Yogin that they are empty appearances,
    And even if he thinks they are real, meditation is confused.

    But the root of the delusion is in his own mind.
    By observation of the nature of manifestations,
    He realizes the identity of manifestation and void,
    And by understanding, he knows that the two are not different.

    Meditation and not meditation are not two but one,
    The cause of all errors is to look upon the two things as different.
    From the ultimate point of view, there is no view.

    If you make comparison between the nature of the mind
    And the nature of the heavens,
    Then the true nature of being itself is penetrated.

    See, now, that you look into the true meaning which is beyond thought.
    Arrange to enter into undisturbed meditation.
    And be mindful of the Unceasing Intuitive Sensation!
    sova
  • "On the wall surface of whatever appears
    I paint the vision of non-duality
    With the brush of meditation.
    Holding the teachings on the inseparability
    Of emptiness and appearance
    I am the master artist, 'The Lotus-Born'."

    -Padmasambhava
    Jeffreysova
  • From Nagarjuna's Dharmadhâtustava

    Likewise, mind that is so luminous
    Is soiled by stains of craving and so forth.
    The afflictions burn in wisdom's fire,
    But its luminosity does not. [21]

    The sutras that teach emptiness,
    However many spoken by the victors,
    They all remove afflictions,
    But never ruin the dhâtu.[22]
    Jeffrey
  • taiyaki:
    That is interesting and I agree with you. Except even this Mind cannot be established to be, it too is ungraspable.

    But that is where you and I will probably always disagree. Either way if one has an eternalistic view of the Mind that too is beautiful and worth veneration.
    Mind is the whole enchilada of real Buddhism. Yes, there is a gnosis of Mind, an incorporeal seeing. This is what bodhicitta (the Mind that is bodhi) is all about. Without this, one is not a bodhisattva, and not being a bodhisattva, Buddhahood is impossible.

    From Grandmaster Huang-po:
    This ultimate pure source of Mind encompasses all Buddhas, sentient beings and the world of mountains, rivers, forms and formlessness. Throughout the ten directions, all and everything reflects the equality of pure Mind, which is always universally penetrating and illuminating. However, those with merely worldly understanding cannot recognize this truth and so identify seeing, hearing, touching and thinking as the mind. Covered by seeing, hearing, touching and thinking, one cannot see the brightness of Original Mind. If suddenly one is without mind, Original Mind will appear like the great sun in the sky, illuminating everywhere without obstruction.
    taiyakisova
  • Well then may sentient beings all recognize such Mind!
  • I'd like an enchillada. Make it one with everything!
    sova
  • personperson Don't believe everything you think The liminal space Veteran
    I've never encountered someone who held a yogacara (cittimatra) view, especially someone as well informed as @Songhill. I've always just trusted that madhyamika was the winner and so focused on studying that and didn't really worry about understanding the other views.

    I've now got some impetus to do some research. Here's a first foray into internet scholarship.
    The 14th Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso Rinpoche in The World of Tibetan Buddhism: An Overview of Its Philosophy and Practice. Boston: Wisdom Pub., 1995. (49-54):

    "According to the explanation of the highest Buddhist philosophical school, Madhyamaka-Prasangika, external phenomena are not mere projections or creations of the mind. External phenomena have a distinct nature, which is different from the mind.

    The meaning of all phenomena being mere labels or designations is that they exist and acquire their identities by means of our denomination or designation of them. This does not mean that there is no phenomenon apart from the name, imputation, or label, but rather that if we analyze and search objectively for the essence of any phenomenon, it will be un-findable. Phenomena are unable to withstand such analysis; therefore, they do not exist objectively. Yet, since they exist, there should be some level of existence; therefore, it is only through our own process of labeling or designation that things are said to exist... .

    Except for the Prasangika school, all the other Buddhist schools of thought identify the existence of phenomena within the basis of designation; therefore, they maintain that there is some kind of objective existence . . . .

    Since the lower schools of Buddhist thought all accept that things exist inherently, they assert some kind of objective existence, maintaining that things exist in their own right and from their own side. This is because they identify phenomena within the basis of designation.

    For the Prasangikas, if anything exists objectively and is identified within the basis of designation, then that is, in fact, equivalent to saying that it exists autonomously, that it has an independent nature and exists in its own right ... .

    This is a philosophical tenet of the Yogacara school in which external reality is negated, that is, the atomically structured external world is negated. Because the proponents of the Yogacara philosophical system assert that things cannot exist other than as projections of one's own mind, they also maintain that there is no atomically structured external physical reality independent of mind. By analyzing along these lines, Yogacara proponents conclude that there is no atomicly structured external reality.

    This conclusion is reached because of not having understood the most subtle level of emptiness as expounded by the Prasangikas. In fact, Yogacarins assert that things have no inherent existence, and that if you analyze something and do not find any essence, then it does not exist at all.

    Prasangikas, on the other hand, when confronted with this un-findability of the essence of the object, conclude that this is an indication that objects do not exist inherently, not that they do not exist at all. This is where the difference lies between the two schools."

    @Jeffrey I'm not talking about rangtong/shentong here. I find them to be two sides of the same coin. A more intelligent and learned description of my previous post on the issue.
    "The Madhyamaka of the Prasangika and the Svatantrika is the coarse, Outer Madhyamaka. It should indeed be expressed by those who profess well-informed intelligence during debates with extremist Outsiders, during the composition of great treatises, and while establishing texts which concern supreme reasoning. However, when the subtle, inner Madhyamaka is experientially cultivated, one should meditate on the nature of Yogacara- Madhyamaka."

    -Dudjom Rinpoche

  • JeffreyJeffrey Veteran
    edited November 2012
    Yogacara is also based on Madyamaka :)
  • personperson Don't believe everything you think The liminal space Veteran
    After a 20 minute wiki course on yogacara I learned a few things.

    1)Yogacara view has probably been somewhat misrepresented by madhyamika.

    2)The relation between yogacara and madhyamika is complex.

    3)My tempermant is one of a practicioner and a philosopher and not a scholar.

    4)I'll leave the fretting about the distinctions and battles over which view is best to others and stick to what I know which I understand to be an effective means to realize emptiness.
  • JeffreyJeffrey Veteran
    edited November 2012
    I'm with you @person. I just like to raise awareness that there are differences and sometimes get sucked into debate.

    But my practice is based on:

    My notion of 'a heart'
    Finding the heart's wish
    Confidence in the path
    Openness of Mind
    Clarity of Mind
    Sensitivity of Mind
    Mandala principle of Awareness.

    That's the material plus whatever else I sift through..

    And then there is meditation. I have a vague idea of cittamatra but I don't really understand the shentong basic analysis I just have been charged by a teacher listening to her talks and the electricity of her sharing of the beginningless light of shentong as is conveyed in dharma talks I listen to.
Sign In or Register to comment.