I know that there are three (at least primary) philosophical traditions in Mahayana Buddhism: Madyamaka, Yogacara, and Tathagatagarbha. I know the general ideas behind each one, as well. But I do have a few questions.
1. How are these philosophical schools assimilated into the various practice schools, such as Tibetan, Zen, Pure Land, etc.?
2. Can anyone of these said to be the highest or most profound? (I do realize that the answer to this question may be school specific)
I was in a debate on another forum with a member who argued that Nagarjuna's Madyamaka school was the only philosophical tradition that was truly Buddhist, and the others were just aberrations. I always viewed them as parts to a whole, and one, taken by itself, is not the whole story. Being Zen myself, I do feel a pull more towards Yogacara than the other two, but this doesn't discount any of them.
A question on Mahayana philosophical schools
-
- Posts: 108
- Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 6:26 pm
- Location: Midwest US
- Contact:
A question on Mahayana philosophical schools
"If you want to travel the Way of Buddhas and Zen masters, then expect nothing, seek nothing, and grasp nothing." -Dogen
Re: A question on Mahayana philosophical schools
You'll get different answers here. For myself, I'm interested in the ways in which Tathagathagarbha or Buddha-nature theory is elaborated in different contexts. TienTai/Tendai holds that this is the highest teaching, and gets there from premises derived from Chinese Madhyamaka, a particular reading and ordering of the sutras, and so on. Most East Asian schools either follow from the TienTai position or react against it in one way or another.dyanaprajna2011 wrote:Can anyone of these said to be the highest or most profound? (I do realize that the answer to this question may be school specific)
Wow, that's a closed-minded, constipated, arrogant-Puritanical attitude to have. How is that person going to learn anything new if s/he is already convinced s/he is in the right?I was in a debate on another forum with a member who argued that Nagarjuna's Madyamaka school was the only philosophical tradition that was truly Buddhist, and the others were just aberrations.
True story.I always viewed them as parts to a whole, and one, taken by itself, is not the whole story.
Re: A question on Mahayana philosophical schools
In India there was only Madhyamaka and Yogacara as distinct branches of Mahayana thought, although we could say that they were not too separate. Tathagatagarbha didn't have its own philosophical system there. In East Asian Buddhism there are two other "philosophical" schools, Tiantai and Huayan, and they are strongly connected to the Tathagaragarbha teachings.
Although it is questionable what can be categorised as a "philosophical school". All Buddhist traditions have their own teachings, and all teachings are connected to practices. There is no such thing as a purely theoretical Buddhism, nor is there a purely pragmatic path.
Although it is questionable what can be categorised as a "philosophical school". All Buddhist traditions have their own teachings, and all teachings are connected to practices. There is no such thing as a purely theoretical Buddhism, nor is there a purely pragmatic path.
1 Myriad dharmas are only mind.
Mind is unobtainable.
What is there to seek?
2 If the Buddha-Nature is seen,
there will be no seeing of a nature in any thing.
3 Neither cultivation nor seated meditation —
this is the pure Chan of Tathagata.
4 With sudden enlightenment to Tathagata Chan,
the six paramitas and myriad means
are complete within that essence.
1 Huangbo, T2012Ap381c1 2 Nirvana Sutra, T374p521b3; tr. Yamamoto 3 Mazu, X1321p3b23; tr. J. Jia 4 Yongjia, T2014p395c14; tr. from "The Sword of Wisdom"
Mind is unobtainable.
What is there to seek?
2 If the Buddha-Nature is seen,
there will be no seeing of a nature in any thing.
3 Neither cultivation nor seated meditation —
this is the pure Chan of Tathagata.
4 With sudden enlightenment to Tathagata Chan,
the six paramitas and myriad means
are complete within that essence.
1 Huangbo, T2012Ap381c1 2 Nirvana Sutra, T374p521b3; tr. Yamamoto 3 Mazu, X1321p3b23; tr. J. Jia 4 Yongjia, T2014p395c14; tr. from "The Sword of Wisdom"
-
- Posts: 51
- Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 2:09 pm
Re: A question on Mahayana philosophical schools
I'd suggest you take a look at Paul Williams's book <i>Mahāyāna Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations</i>, which describes the various schools doctrinally, and their relationship to various practice positions for a good answer to #1.dyanaprajna2011 wrote:I know that there are three (at least primary) philosophical traditions in Mahayana Buddhism: Madyamaka, Yogacara, and Tathagatagarbha. I know the general ideas behind each one, as well. But I do have a few questions.
1. How are these philosophical schools assimilated into the various practice schools, such as Tibetan, Zen, Pure Land, etc.?
2. Can anyone of these said to be the highest or most profound? (I do realize that the answer to this question may be school specific)
Regarding #2, many schools have their own ranking system (each of which puts themselves at the top of the ladder, naturally.) In Tibetan Buddhism, this tends to result in doxographies that put Madhyamaka higher than other schools, and the Prasaṅgika interpretation of Madhyamaka above other interpretations of Madhyamaka-- but other, contrary, doxographies exist. In Chinese Buddhism, there are various <i>P'an-chiao</i> systems which rank the schools and doctrines.
In short, pretty much everybody thinks that their way is the best way, and that the other schools are legitimate but inferior.
- Kim O'Hara
- Former staff member
- Posts: 7064
- Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:09 am
- Location: North Queensland, Australia
Re: A question on Mahayana philosophical schools
And not only the best way but the *original* way.Michael_Dorfman wrote:In short, pretty much everybody thinks that their way is the best way, and that the other schools are legitimate but inferior.
Kim