Madyamika Sautrantika vs Prasangika

A forum for scholastic discussion/debate.

Re: Madyamika Sautrantika vs Prasangika

Postby Malcolm » Sun Nov 20, 2011 3:57 pm

Mariusz wrote:
Namdrol wrote:
Mariusz wrote:Perhaps what differentiate us is that I take these so-called "objects" as pedagogical tools only, expedient meaning but not as the definitive.


As I said, you are not understanding my point, and imputing things on to me that I have never stated.

The Consequentialists (Prasangikas) are not imputing anything :smile: You presented something of Candrakirti that suggested for me: first: the objects are perceived in the ultimate, second: all the "relative" is totally faulty. So can you please write what is you understanding of what you presented?

Excuse me, here was your presentation, not mine:
But false perception is mthong brdzun, so what Candrakirti is clearly saying is that false/faulty/incorrect perception is relative, or totally obscuring, truth. The two truths are about how objects are perceived. They can be perceived in only two ways, correctly and incorrectly. Perceiving them incorrectly, a false perception of them is called relative truth.


This does not say that objects are perceived in the ultimate.

N
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

" The one who teaches the benefits of peace,
he is said to be a ṛṣī; the others are the opposite of him."

-- Uttaratantra
Malcolm
 
Posts: 10154
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Madyamika Sautrantika vs Prasangika

Postby conebeckham » Sun Nov 20, 2011 5:28 pm

I'll ask the "leading question" then...if objects can be perceived only in two ways, correctly and incorrectly, and incorrect perception is relative truth, then what is correct perception?

Or, in other words, is "perception" always incorrect?
May any merit generated by on-line discussion
Be dedicated to the Ultimate Benefit of All Sentient Beings.
User avatar
conebeckham
 
Posts: 2416
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:49 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA, USA

Re: Madyamika Sautrantika vs Prasangika

Postby Mariusz » Sun Nov 20, 2011 5:58 pm

conebeckham wrote:I'll ask the "leading question" then...if objects can be perceived only in two ways, correctly and incorrectly, and incorrect perception is relative truth, then what is correct perception?

Or, in other words, is "perception" always incorrect?

Thank you very much conebeckham. You have exactly the same objections to Namdrol:

First:
if objects can be perceived only in two ways, correctly and incorrectly, and incorrect perception is relative truth, then what is correct.

=are the objects perceived in the ultimate?

Second:
Is "perception" always incorrect?

=is all the "relative" totally faulty? :smile:
Mariusz
 
Posts: 708
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 12:08 pm

Re: Madyamika Sautrantika vs Prasangika

Postby gad rgyangs » Sun Nov 20, 2011 6:04 pm

look there's this whole debate that has been going on forever about whether Buddhas perceive the relative or only the ultimate. Since there is no consensus, I guess we'll just have to wait until we're Buddhas to find out. The Buddha, as he is portrayed in most of the extant texts, would undoubtably consider such speculation completely pointless anyway. What is important is how we perceive what, and why.
Thoroughly tame your own mind.
This is (possibly) the teaching of Buddha.
User avatar
gad rgyangs
 
Posts: 737
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2011 4:53 pm

Re: Madyamika Sautrantika vs Prasangika

Postby Mariusz » Sun Nov 20, 2011 6:19 pm

gad rgyangs wrote:look there's this whole debate that has been going on forever about whether Buddhas perceive the relative or only the ultimate. Since there is no consensus, I guess we'll just have to wait until we're Buddhas to find out. The Buddha, as he is portrayed in most of the extant texts, would undoubtably consider such speculation completely pointless anyway. What is important is how we perceive what, and why.

No, you are in error. These are the most important questions! If (first:) the objects are perceived in the ultimate or if (second:) all the "relative" is totally faulty, the buddhist Path would be totally impossible for us. Why, here you have quotes:

first:
If you want locate the "perceived object" precisely (e.g. hand), it is impossible for you sentient being, because infinite causes/conditions since beginigless time. Nothing functions, nothing makes sense for you sentient being. I guess only all-knowing buddhas could locate it precisely (e.g. since beginnigless time of the "existence" of Samsara and invintive causes/conditions for "it")?

second:
The Fundamental Verses says:
Without reliance on conventions,
The ultimate cannot be taught.
Mariusz
 
Posts: 708
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 12:08 pm

Re: Madyamika Sautrantika vs Prasangika

Postby gad rgyangs » Sun Nov 20, 2011 6:32 pm

Mariusz wrote:
gad rgyangs wrote:look there's this whole debate that has been going on forever about whether Buddhas perceive the relative or only the ultimate. Since there is no consensus, I guess we'll just have to wait until we're Buddhas to find out. The Buddha, as he is portrayed in most of the extant texts, would undoubtably consider such speculation completely pointless anyway. What is important is how we perceive what, and why.

No, you are in error. These are the most important questions? If (first:) the objects are perceived in the ultimate or if (second:) all the "relative" is totally faulty, the buddhist Path would be totally impossible for us. Why, here you have quotes:

first:
If you want locate the "perceived object" precisely (e.g. hand), it is impossible for you sentient being, because infinite causes/conditions since beginigless time. Nothing functions, nothing makes sense for you sentient being. I guess only all-knowing buddhas could locate it precisely (e.g. since beginnigless time of the "existence" of Samsara and invintive causes/conditions for "it")

second:
The Fundamental Verses says:
Without reliance on conventions,
The ultimate cannot be taught.


the ultimate is not taught by speculating about what a Buddha's perceptions are like. Just worry about how your own perceptions work, analyzing your own sense of self, etc.
Thoroughly tame your own mind.
This is (possibly) the teaching of Buddha.
User avatar
gad rgyangs
 
Posts: 737
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2011 4:53 pm

Re: Madyamika Sautrantika vs Prasangika

Postby Mariusz » Sun Nov 20, 2011 7:05 pm

gad rgyangs wrote:
the ultimate is not taught by speculating about what a Buddha's perceptions are like. Just worry about how your own perceptions work, analyzing your own sense of self, etc.

As I posted yesterday:
You see, earlier I also was argued about definition of "the seeming" because the terms "faulty" or false" (for all the seeming) are a little tricky. Suppose you agree with my understanding: the all "the seeming" (even if seems to be false) can be useful in Madhyamaka practice, let alone in Mahamudra or Dzogchen, so one can not say it is totally false. It's all about the "self-liberation", is not? As I quted Dzogchen Ponlop in Tibetan madhyamaka forum here:

Therefore, Madhyamaka continually emphasizes “no arising,”
which cuts the process at the very beginning.
Like Mahamudra and Dzogchen, Madhyamaka does not apply any
antidotes to suppress or destroy the arising of emotions, other than the
analysis that produces insight into their nature. When we analyze the
emotions in this way, they are self-liberated. It is important to understand
that these methods are not mere philosophy.


The "perceived object" is the self-liberated because "it" had not existed in the first place, never ever "was", not ever even "arisen", so there is nothing to liberate at all :smile:
Mariusz
 
Posts: 708
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 12:08 pm

Re: Madyamika Sautrantika vs Prasangika

Postby conebeckham » Mon Nov 21, 2011 12:54 am

Mariusz wrote:
conebeckham wrote:I'll ask the "leading question" then...if objects can be perceived only in two ways, correctly and incorrectly, and incorrect perception is relative truth, then what is correct perception?

Or, in other words, is "perception" always incorrect?

Thank you very much conebeckham. You have exactly the same objections to Namdrol:


Oh, I dunno if I have an objection.....there's an implication here, which I'd like to see fleshed out further, but as it stands now, I don't see anything to object to.....
May any merit generated by on-line discussion
Be dedicated to the Ultimate Benefit of All Sentient Beings.
User avatar
conebeckham
 
Posts: 2416
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:49 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA, USA

Re: Madyamika Sautrantika vs Prasangika

Postby Malcolm » Mon Nov 21, 2011 3:33 am

Mariusz wrote:Thank you very much conebeckham. You have exactly the same objections to Namdrol:


Your objection is totally faulty since your objecting to something I never said.
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

" The one who teaches the benefits of peace,
he is said to be a ṛṣī; the others are the opposite of him."

-- Uttaratantra
Malcolm
 
Posts: 10154
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Madyamika Sautrantika vs Prasangika

Postby Mariusz » Mon Nov 21, 2011 8:35 am

Namdrol wrote:
Mariusz wrote:Thank you very much conebeckham. You have exactly the same objections to Namdrol:


Your objection is totally faulty since your objecting to something I never said.

From collins:
objection
n
1. an expression or feeling of opposition or disapproval

because the presentation was incomplete for me as I posted to conebeckham. My english is not native so i'm sorry for possible errors. Implication can be too. So I'd like to see fleshed it out further like conebeckham too.
Mariusz
 
Posts: 708
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 12:08 pm

Re: Madyamika Sautrantika vs Prasangika

Postby Mariusz » Tue Nov 22, 2011 11:57 am

gad rgyangs wrote:the ultimate is not taught by speculating about what a Buddha's perceptions are like. Just worry about how your own perceptions work, analyzing your own sense of self, etc.

Here you have one more quote of mine (far more detailed) I posted in Dzogchen Forum here, from book WISDOM NECTAR: Dudjom Rinpoche's Heart Advice (trans. by Ron Garry from Tsadra Foundation Series book), which I found also compatible:

Do not meditate to arrive at a conclusion: “That’s it!” If you meditate in
that way, it becomes intellectual activity. Here, there is no object of meditation whatsoever nor even an instant of distraction. Distraction from resting in awareness is true delusion. Don’t be distracted!
Whatever thoughts arise, let them arise. Do not follow after them and do
not suppress them. If you ask “In that case, what should I do?” whatever
objective phenomena arise, whatever appears, do not grasp phenomena’s
appearing aspect as you rest in a fresh state, like a small child looking inside
a temple. When all phenomena are left as they are, their appearance is
not modified, their color does not change, and their brilliance does not
diminish. If you do not spoil phenomena with clinging and grasping
thoughts, appearances and awareness will nakedly manifest as empty and
luminous wisdom.

However, many teachings considered to be very deep or extremely vast
have left individuals of lesser intelligence mystified. If I put my finger on
the concise essential meaning, it is this: In the gap between the last
thought’s cessation and the next’s arising, isn’t there a fresh, present knowing (da lta’i shes pa) that has not been modified even in the slightest—
luminous, naked awareness? That itself is awareness’s abiding state!

But one does not permanently abide within the nature of reality (de kho
na). Doesn’t a thought suddenly arise? That is the natural display of awareness. However, if you do not recognize thoughts as soon as they arise, they
will naturally spread. This is called “the chain of delusion,” the root of samsara. Simple recognition of thoughts as they arise breaks their flow. Release
thoughts within that recognition. When you remain in that state, arising
thoughts will all be liberated equally within awareness, the expanse of
dharmakaya. This is the main practice in which the view and meditation of
Cutting through Solidity (khregs chod) are cultivated as one.


As I was adviced one can comfortably sit with these profound pointing-out instructions in 7-point Vairochana position (-legs are crossed in vajra position or leveled on floor with left leg inside and right leg outside, -hands are placed right upon left with palms up at a distance 4 fingers below the navel or hands are on knees, -back is straight like an arrow, -head is slightly inclined forwards, -shoulders are level resting naturally like “the wings of a vulture” not connected with belly, but here: -relax with eyes open straigth into space about 5 meters without glaring or moving the focus, -breathing comfortably with slightly open mouth where tongue can be placed behind the upper teeth). I wish you good luck :smile: For more details please find a qualified Dzogchen teacher.
Mariusz
 
Posts: 708
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 12:08 pm

Re: Madyamika Sautrantika vs Prasangika

Postby Malcolm » Tue Nov 22, 2011 10:56 pm

conebeckham wrote:I'll ask the "leading question" then...if objects can be perceived only in two ways, correctly and incorrectly, and incorrect perception is relative truth, then what is correct perception?

Or, in other words, is "perception" always incorrect?


A correct perception takes ultimate truth as its object.

N
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

" The one who teaches the benefits of peace,
he is said to be a ṛṣī; the others are the opposite of him."

-- Uttaratantra
Malcolm
 
Posts: 10154
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Madyamika Sautrantika vs Prasangika

Postby conebeckham » Tue Nov 22, 2011 11:15 pm

Namdrol-
Thanks. Would it be fair, then, to say that a correct perception does not see "objects," or phenomena, per se?
May any merit generated by on-line discussion
Be dedicated to the Ultimate Benefit of All Sentient Beings.
User avatar
conebeckham
 
Posts: 2416
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:49 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA, USA

Re: Madyamika Sautrantika vs Prasangika

Postby Malcolm » Wed Nov 23, 2011 1:23 am

conebeckham wrote:Namdrol-
Thanks. Would it be fair, then, to say that a correct perception does not see "objects," or phenomena, per se?



This where there is a huge divide between gelug and the rest of Tibetan madhyamakas. Gelugs would tend to say what is not perceived is inherent existence of objects; most Madhyamakas would say that objects are not perceived at all.
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

" The one who teaches the benefits of peace,
he is said to be a ṛṣī; the others are the opposite of him."

-- Uttaratantra
Malcolm
 
Posts: 10154
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Madyamika Sautrantika vs Prasangika

Postby Dechen Norbu » Wed Nov 23, 2011 1:31 am

Wouldn't that mean then that Buddha would bump every object along his way?
Might there be the case that, at least from a Dzogchen perspective, all phenomena are recognized as ornaments, manifestation of the energy aspect and not taken as something existent? I'm just asking to see if I can make some sense out of this.
User avatar
Dechen Norbu
 
Posts: 2798
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 6:50 pm

Re: Madyamika Sautrantika vs Prasangika

Postby Malcolm » Wed Nov 23, 2011 1:36 am

Dechen Norbu wrote:Wouldn't that mean then that Buddha would bump every object along his way?
Might there be the case that, at least from a Dzogchen perspective, all phenomena are recognized as ornaments, manifestation of the energy aspect and not taken as something existent? I'm just asking to see if I can make some sense out of this.



Buddhas perceive only wisdom.
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

" The one who teaches the benefits of peace,
he is said to be a ṛṣī; the others are the opposite of him."

-- Uttaratantra
Malcolm
 
Posts: 10154
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Madyamika Sautrantika vs Prasangika

Postby Dechen Norbu » Wed Nov 23, 2011 1:46 am

And wouldn't perceiving wisdom mean recognizing all phenomena as the energy aspect instead of not perceiving phenomena at all? Perceiving manifestation "as it is" instead of not perceiving manifestation? Again, just asking to see if this makes sense.
User avatar
Dechen Norbu
 
Posts: 2798
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 6:50 pm

Re: Madyamika Sautrantika vs Prasangika

Postby Malcolm » Wed Nov 23, 2011 1:53 am

Dechen Norbu wrote:And wouldn't perceiving wisdom mean recognizing all phenomena as the energy aspect instead of not perceiving phenomena at all? Perceiving manifestation "as it is" instead of not perceiving manifestation? Again, just asking to see if this makes sense.


one perceives all phenomena as the display of one's wisdom. But this is not really part of madhyamaka.
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

" The one who teaches the benefits of peace,
he is said to be a ṛṣī; the others are the opposite of him."

-- Uttaratantra
Malcolm
 
Posts: 10154
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Madyamika Sautrantika vs Prasangika

Postby Dechen Norbu » Wed Nov 23, 2011 2:02 am

You're right. I forgot the topic we're in. Thank you for your answers! Sorry for derailing this thread a little, fellows.
User avatar
Dechen Norbu
 
Posts: 2798
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 6:50 pm

Re: Madyamika Sautrantika vs Prasangika

Postby Tom » Wed Nov 23, 2011 3:12 am

Namdrol,

Do you mind elaborating on the apparent contradiction…

"A correct perception takes ultimate truth as its object" and "most Madhyamakas would say that objects are not perceived at all"

Or put another way how do you equate for Candra referring to ultimate truth as an object with Santideva's emphasis that it is not an object (9:2)

I understand that Gelugpa's in post meditation identify emptiness as an object and as such need to tweak Santideva's position but what about most Madhyamikas where ultimate truth is beyond any categorizations don't they need to tweak Candra's assertion which refers to ultimate truth as an object?
User avatar
Tom
 
Posts: 346
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2011 7:12 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Academic Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

>