gzhan stong and Great Madhyamaka

Moderator: Tibetan Buddhism moderators

gzhan stong and Great Madhyamaka

Postby Mariusz » Wed Feb 15, 2012 5:18 pm

Namdrol wrote:
Mariusz wrote:
Of course here I not consider it as the shentong also. Following Nitartha Institute I consider it as yogacara not as cittamatra's the narrow interpretation.


Only gzhan stong pas maintain there is a difference between Yogacara and cittamatra.

N

Namdrol, with all respect you are not the only one who want to back into the source, a "archaeologist" for Madhyamaka/Yogacara. Karl Brunnhölzl in "The Center" discovered for example:
... as a very rough outline, one may distinguish three main streams (of yogacara):
1) the distinct system of Maitreya, Asaoga, and Vasubandhu (the lineage of vast
activity)
2) a later, in parts more “idealistic” Yogacara (cittamatrins), as exemplified by Dharmapla (530-561)
3) an epistemologically oriented tradition, headed by Dignaga and Dharmakırti.

...Bhavaviveka’s critique of Yogacara starts in The Lamp of Knowledge, his com-
mentary on The Fundamental Verses. In the first chapter of this text, he criticizes
Gu ̊amati’s commentary on The Fundamental Verses. In the twenty-fifth chap-
ter, he attacks the view of the three natures, especially that the other-dependent
nature is really existent (a position held by Gunamati and Dharmapala).Here,
he quotes seven verses from Maitreya’s Distinction between the Middle and
Extremes and once from Asaoga’s commentary on The Fundamental Verses.
Last edited by Mariusz on Wed Feb 15, 2012 5:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Mariusz
 
Posts: 708
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 12:08 pm

Re: ālayavijñāna--conventional or ultimate existent?

Postby Malcolm » Wed Feb 15, 2012 5:21 pm

Mariusz wrote:
Namdrol wrote:
Mariusz wrote:
Of course here I not consider it as the shentong also. Following Nitartha Institute I consider it as yogacara not as cittamatra's the narrow interpretation.


Only gzhan stong pas maintain there is a difference between Yogacara and cittamatra.

N

Namdrol, with all respect you are not the only one who want to back into the source, a "archaeologist" for Madhyamaka. Karl Brunnhölzl in "The Center" discovered for example:


You should read his article at the Tsadra foundation blog where he substantially revises his position about this.

BTW, I remain committed to my statment. Only gzhan stong adherents maintain there is a distinction between a so called "Yogacara" and what Madhyamakas call "cittamatra"; what they like to term "Great Madhyamaka". This is a simple fact of the intellectual history of Tibetan Buddhism.

If you maintain there is such a distinction, you are a gzhan stong adherent.

Otherwise, please explain to us the difference between this so called "Yogacara" and gzhan stong. But please start another thread to do so. Thanks.

By the way, there is no shame in being a gzhan stong pa -- I simply don't agree that the gzhan stong interpretation of Maitreyanatha, Asanga and Vasubandhu's texts is the correct one. I think that Tsongkhapa's refutation of gzhan stong, as well as Rongston and Gorampa's, is apt and accurate. I think Rendawa's is a little too strongly worded.


N
Last edited by Malcolm on Wed Feb 15, 2012 5:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

Though there are infinite liberating gateways of Dharma,
there are none not included in the dimension of the knowledge of the Great Perfection.

-- Buddha Samantabhadri
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 12569
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: ālayavijñāna--conventional or ultimate existent?

Postby Mariusz » Wed Feb 15, 2012 5:37 pm

Namdrol wrote:If you maintain there is such a distinction, you are a gzhan stong adherent.

Otherwise, please explain to us the difference between this so called "Yogacara" and gzhan stong. But please start another thread to do so. Thanks.

N

No matter how You call me. I'm only a student who investigated here again - it's the middle way, the pointing-out the freedom beyond all reference points. And it works compatible with my dzogchen (look for exaple the Mipham conclussion: appearances/emptiness, for me it suggests kadak/lhundrub). Thank you for it http://wordpress.tsadra.org/?p=1215 I'm reading :smile:
Mariusz
 
Posts: 708
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 12:08 pm

Re: ālayavijñāna--conventional or ultimate existent?

Postby Malcolm » Wed Feb 15, 2012 5:44 pm

Mariusz wrote:And it works compatible with my dzogchen



When it comes to Vajrayāna, one's intellectual contrived view is pretty irrelevant.

One's view is delivered through the third and fourth empowerments, and or direct introduction, and is maintained on the basis of that experience in one's practice. So all of this is really just dancing on books. (yawn).
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

Though there are infinite liberating gateways of Dharma,
there are none not included in the dimension of the knowledge of the Great Perfection.

-- Buddha Samantabhadri
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 12569
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: ālayavijñāna--conventional or ultimate existent?

Postby Mariusz » Wed Feb 15, 2012 5:50 pm

Namdrol wrote:
Mariusz wrote:And it works compatible with my dzogchen



When it comes to Vajrayāna, one's intellectual contrived view is pretty irrelevant.

One's view is delivered through the third and fourth empowerments, and or direct introduction, and is maintained on the basis of that experience in one's practice. So all of this is really just dancing on books. (yawn).

You have your own masters, I have mine, who lead me gradually, for the time being. Moreover, I don't like contradictions.
Mariusz
 
Posts: 708
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 12:08 pm

Re: ālayavijñāna--conventional or ultimate existent?

Postby conebeckham » Wed Feb 15, 2012 5:53 pm

I'm in agreement that this is all dancing on books--this being the Academic Discussion forum, of course that's what's done here. But I feel the need to point out that Yogacara was not merely a conceptual philosophy foisted upon us, but was an attempt to make sense of some real meditative experience, originally--or so I think. Also, all these categorizations into 6, 8, 9 or however-many consciousnesses need to be seen as dynamic attempts at explaining experience in a conceptual way, rather than as "positions" one must defend. Then again, maybe this is all inappropriate for the Academic Discussion.
May any merit generated by on-line discussion
Be dedicated to the Ultimate Benefit of All Sentient Beings.
User avatar
conebeckham
 
Posts: 2791
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:49 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA, USA

Re: ālayavijñāna--conventional or ultimate existent?

Postby Malcolm » Wed Feb 15, 2012 6:16 pm

conebeckham wrote:I'm in agreement that this is all dancing on books--this being the Academic Discussion forum, of course that's what's done here. But I feel the need to point out that Yogacara was not merely a conceptual philosophy foisted upon us, but was an attempt to make sense of some real meditative experience, originally--or so I think. Also, all these categorizations into 6, 8, 9 or however-many consciousnesses need to be seen as dynamic attempts at explaining experience in a conceptual way, rather than as "positions" one must defend. Then again, maybe this is all inappropriate for the Academic Discussion.


Yes, that is true, it was an attempt to explain the stages of the path. It's complexity has resulted in a lot of difficult discussions over the centuries, especially since for the most part the followers of Asanaga and so on were eclipsed by the more practical Mādhyamikas.
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

Though there are infinite liberating gateways of Dharma,
there are none not included in the dimension of the knowledge of the Great Perfection.

-- Buddha Samantabhadri
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 12569
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: ālayavijñāna--conventional or ultimate existent?

Postby Mariusz » Wed Feb 15, 2012 7:33 pm

Namdrol wrote:
Mariusz wrote:And it works compatible with my dzogchen



When it comes to Vajrayāna, one's intellectual contrived view is pretty irrelevant.

One's view is delivered through the third and fourth empowerments, and or direct introduction, and is maintained on the basis of that experience in one's practice. So all of this is really just dancing on books. (yawn).

:shrug: Even writing it you unintentionally agree with me: "it" has to be poined-out only. So the principle is the same even considering Vajrayāna/Dzogchen, let alone Yogacara or Madhyamaka. The difference is only the method.
Mariusz
 
Posts: 708
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 12:08 pm

Re: ālayavijñāna--conventional or ultimate existent?

Postby Malcolm » Wed Feb 15, 2012 7:42 pm

Mariusz wrote:
Namdrol wrote:
Mariusz wrote:And it works compatible with my dzogchen



When it comes to Vajrayāna, one's intellectual contrived view is pretty irrelevant.

One's view is delivered through the third and fourth empowerments, and or direct introduction, and is maintained on the basis of that experience in one's practice. So all of this is really just dancing on books. (yawn).

:shrug: Even writing it you unintentionally agree with me: "it" has to be poined-out only. So the principle is the same even considering Vajrayāna/Dzogchen, let alone Yogacara or Madhyamaka. The difference is only the method.



Not so fast, sport: there is no "pointing-out" in Madhyamaka. From a Madhyamaka perspective, there is no "pointing-out" since there is nothing to be pointed out. The view in Madhyamaka is strictly a result of intellectual analysis, which one then applies in meditation.
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

Though there are infinite liberating gateways of Dharma,
there are none not included in the dimension of the knowledge of the Great Perfection.

-- Buddha Samantabhadri
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 12569
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: ālayavijñāna--conventional or ultimate existent?

Postby Mariusz » Wed Feb 15, 2012 7:48 pm

Namdrol wrote:Not so fast, sport: there is no "pointing-out" in Madhyamaka. From a Madhyamaka perspective, there is no "pointing-out" since there is nothing to be pointed out. The view in Madhyamaka is strictly a result of intellectual analysis, which one then applies in meditation.


As you see from my earlier post:
Mariusz wrote:Here you have to orginal yogacara (Maitreya’s Madhyãntavibhãga; Distinguishing the Middle from Extremes):
"Emptiness is asserted to be the absence of entities,
This non-entity, and natural.
Absence of self is taught to be an absence of characteristics,
Characteristics that conflict with that, [III.7]"

1.the absence of entities with respect to the imaginary nature, because it does not exist in any way at all.
2.With respect to the dependent nature, it is empty in the sense that this lack of entity is itself a non-entity, for while nothing exists as imagined, it is not the case that wakefulness does not exist.
3.And the thoroughly established nature, in being the essence of emptiness alone, is held to be naturally empty.

:smile: You are wrong because: (2.With respect to the dependent nature, it is empty in the sense that this lack of entity is itself a non-entity, but) for you while nothing exists as imagined, it is the case that wakefulness does not exist.
Mariusz
 
Posts: 708
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 12:08 pm

Re: ālayavijñāna--conventional or ultimate existent?

Postby Malcolm » Wed Feb 15, 2012 7:50 pm

Mariusz wrote: :smile: You are wrong because you: (2.With respect to the dependent nature, it is empty in the sense that this lack of entity is itself a non-entity, but) for you while nothing exists as imagined, it is the case that wakefulness does not exist.


Your response is a complete and total non-sequitar. In other words, it does not make any sense.

Also this thread is going wildly off topic due in part to the inability of all respondents to communicate with sufficient discipline.

Therefore, unless it returns to a proper course, I am finished with it.
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

Though there are infinite liberating gateways of Dharma,
there are none not included in the dimension of the knowledge of the Great Perfection.

-- Buddha Samantabhadri
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 12569
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: ālayavijñāna--conventional or ultimate existent?

Postby Mariusz » Wed Feb 15, 2012 10:01 pm

Namdrol wrote:
Mariusz wrote: :smile: You are wrong because you: (2.With respect to the dependent nature, it is empty in the sense that this lack of entity is itself a non-entity, but) for you while nothing exists as imagined, it is the case that wakefulness does not exist.


Your response is a complete and total non-sequitar. In other words, it does not make any sense.

Also this thread is going wildly off topic due in part to the inability of all respondents to communicate with sufficient discipline.

Therefore, unless it returns to a proper course, I am finished with it.

:namaste: Sorry, I forgot. For You the conventional is always totally faulty.
Mariusz
 
Posts: 708
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 12:08 pm

Re: ālayavijñāna--conventional or ultimate existent?

Postby Mariusz » Wed Feb 15, 2012 11:47 pm

conebeckham wrote:If the perfect exists in it, does that mean the dependent is necessarily ultimate? The last line of my quote seems to indicate, to me, that nonobservation of the imaginary and other-dependent occurs, as does observation of the perfect nature (once one is liberated from afflicted phenomena). If the other-dependent is the ālayavijñāna, it would seem to me that the perfect nature may "exist" in it, but not be the "same" as it. As the Dharmadharmatavibhaga teaches, all phenomena are the matrix of the nature of phenomena, but the nature of phenomena is not the same as phenomena themselves. In the same way, the perfect nature is not the same as the Alaya.


When the false imagination, the mere awareness of dualistic appear-
ances, occurs within cyclic existence, these directly perceived appearances
exist in an undeceiving way from the perspective of that which experienc-
es them (the dependent nature). However, the apparent separation between the apprehended and
apprehender is not actually present. And yet that emptiness, the absence
of apprehended and apprehender, is present in the subject, the false imag-
ination, as its intrinsic nature (the perfect nature).

This is soteriologically efficient:
If one asserts the non-existence of the imagination, cyclic existence will become
absolutely non-existent and one will incur the fault of denigrating con-
ventions.
If one refutes emptiness, failing to comprehend that it exists
in terms of its being established in relation to that subject (the subject perspective), the imagina-
tion, then the apprehended and apprehender will end up being existent
and one will incur the fault of exaggerating their status as ultimate.

This is the topic answer for you, and also an advise no to make the fault of denigrating conventions for Namdrol.
All of these deal with the same sentences:
"The false imagination exists.
In it, the two do not exist.
Emptiness exists here,
And within it, that exists as well. [I.1]
Not empty, not not empty—
This explains it all,
Because of existence, non-existence, and existence.
This is the path of the Middle Way."
from Maitreya, Khenpo Shenga and Ju Mipham.
Mariusz
 
Posts: 708
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 12:08 pm

Re: ālayavijñāna--conventional or ultimate existent?

Postby Malcolm » Thu Feb 16, 2012 12:26 am

Mariusz wrote:also an advise no to make the fault of denigrating conventions for Namdrol.


I really wish you would stop making baseless personal criticisms that have no part in the conversation.

I really cannot see anywhere in this thread where I have even discussed conventions, let alone denigrated them.

This kind of random, off topic remark ruins conversations. Please desist and confine yourself to the topic at hand.

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

Though there are infinite liberating gateways of Dharma,
there are none not included in the dimension of the knowledge of the Great Perfection.

-- Buddha Samantabhadri
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 12569
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: ālayavijñāna--conventional or ultimate existent?

Postby Malcolm » Thu Feb 16, 2012 12:41 am

Further, your habit of mishmashing citations from books is also not very skillful. The fact is that here you have randomly strung together passages from different pages. How can anyone take this as "scholarship"? Why should anyone bother with this type of disorganized presentation?

Mariusz wrote:
When the false imagination... from Maitreya, Khenpo Shenga and Ju Mipham.


In short, this is neither from Maitreyanatha, not Mipham, nor Shenga, because you have just randomly strung together bits and peices of texts written and translated by others and added here and there your own words without clearly distinguishing what is what.

Really, get it together, otherwise I am just not going to bother responding to anything you have to say.
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

Though there are infinite liberating gateways of Dharma,
there are none not included in the dimension of the knowledge of the Great Perfection.

-- Buddha Samantabhadri
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 12569
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: ālayavijñāna--conventional or ultimate existent?

Postby conebeckham » Thu Feb 16, 2012 12:50 am

I must confess, the denigration of Namdrol was pretty much the only part of your post I understood, Mariusz. I THINK you were trying to provide me with an answer, but I'll be damned if I understood what it was, nevermind the citations.

Are you trying to say that the ālayavijñāna neither exists, nor does not exist, etc? Are you attempting to equate the ālayavijñāna with the Two Truths?
May any merit generated by on-line discussion
Be dedicated to the Ultimate Benefit of All Sentient Beings.
User avatar
conebeckham
 
Posts: 2791
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:49 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA, USA

Re: ālayavijñāna--conventional or ultimate existent?

Postby Mariusz » Thu Feb 16, 2012 8:44 am

Namdrol wrote:
Mariusz wrote:
When the false imagination... from Maitreya, Khenpo Shenga and Ju Mipham.


In short, this is neither from Maitreyanatha, not Mipham, nor Shenga, because you have just randomly strung together bits and peices of texts written and translated by others and added here and there your own words without clearly distinguishing what is what.
Excuse me, it was not mine:

("Middle Beyond Extremes Maitreya’s Madhyãntavibhãga" with commentaries by Khenpo Shenga and Ju Mipham; Snow Lion; 2006) - Ju Mipham, page 27:

"When the false imagination, the mere awareness of dualistic appearances,
occurs within cyclic existence, these directly perceived appearances
exist in an undeceiving way from..."


Namdrol wrote:
Mariusz wrote: :smile: You are wrong because you: (2.With respect to the dependent nature, it is empty in the sense that this lack of entity is itself a non-entity, but) for you while nothing exists as imagined, it is the case that wakefulness does not exist.


Your response is a complete and total non-sequitar. In other words, it does not make any sense.
Excuse me, it was not mine:

("Middle Beyond Extremes Maitreya’s Madhyãntavibhãga" with commentaries by Khenpo Shenga and Ju Mipham; Snow Lion; 2006) - Khenpo Shenga; page. 74

"There are also three types of emptiness: Emptiness is asserted to be
the absence of entities with respect to the imaginary nature, because the
imaginary nature does not exist in any way at all. With respect to the
dependent nature, it is empty in the sense that this lack of entity is itself
a non-entity, for while nothing exists as imagined, it is not the case that
wakefulness does not exist.
And the thoroughly established nature, in
being the essence of emptiness alone, is held to be naturally empty."
Mariusz
 
Posts: 708
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 12:08 pm

Re: ālayavijñāna--conventional or ultimate existent?

Postby Mariusz » Thu Feb 16, 2012 9:11 am

conebeckham wrote:I must confess, the denigration of Namdrol was pretty much the only part of your post I understood, Mariusz. I THINK you were trying to provide me with an answer, but I'll be damned if I understood what it was, nevermind the citations.

Are you trying to say that the ālayavijñāna neither exists, nor does not exist, etc? Are you attempting to equate the ālayavijñāna with the Two Truths?

I supported my first post here:
Mariusz wrote:...So as I understand it, the ālayavijñāna/the dependent nature is posited to be truly existent only from POV of the conflict with the imaginary. In other words is accepted only as a worldly convention, the "antidote, medicine" to point out what is the naturally empty.
Mariusz
 
Posts: 708
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 12:08 pm

Re: ālayavijñāna--conventional or ultimate existent?

Postby Mariusz » Thu Feb 16, 2012 10:50 am

Here you see the Yogacara is compatible with what I wrote in forum "Conventional & Ultimate Truth" about Madhyamaka:
Mariusz wrote:"This is a tree" is only a worldly convention. However it is correct (worldly convention) for worldly beings in contrast to false (worldly convention) for those beings, as for example "this is a monster" in the dark.

Madhyamika (a follower of Madhyamaka) will never locate any reference point ("This is a tree") in the Two Truths (Prasangika), (and also never posit the conventional is false or the conventional is correct) but for the purpose of the debate to help worldly beings understand Madhyamka He sometimes uses suitable worldly conventions as only the "antidote, medicine" for them (Svatantra; autonomous position), for example "this is a tree" instead of "this is a monster". To free them "from the all reference points", from clinging to the Two Truths, to gradually lead them or to point-out "the freedom beyond the seeming'="unblurred, unimpaired vision" or at least to show them "the seeming is not totally faulty", respect the karma law of cause/result, and especially here to free from fear of the "monster in the dark", and so on.

So I'm also collecting the arguments that support this compatibility. Also I'm collecting the arguments that show all Buddhism is cohesive and non contradictionary in the principle, whatever if sutra or tantra.
Mariusz
 
Posts: 708
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 12:08 pm

Re: ālayavijñāna--conventional or ultimate existent?

Postby Mariusz » Thu Feb 16, 2012 11:32 am

Here you see this compatibility in my post from forum "Madyamika Sautrantika vs Prasangika" even considering Mahamudra or Dzogchen:
Mariusz wrote: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? For example Dzogchen Ponlop in His book "MIND BEYOND DEATH" pointed out :

"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."

Every "perceived object" is the self-liberated because "it" had not existed in the first place, never ever "was", always "unarisen" (argument also from Madhyamaka; Nagarjuna), so there is nothing to liberate at all. In the book "WISDOM NECTAR: Dudjom Rinpoche's Heart Advice" (trans. by Ron Garry, Tsadra Foundation Series book) I found compatible and far more detailed quote from H.H. Dudjom Rinpoche:

"Do not meditate to arrive at a conclusion: “That’s it!”...
...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...
Of cource Mahamudra and Dzogchen are very different because of its method from Madhyamaka/Yogacara these days. But the principle is the same as you see.
Mariusz
 
Posts: 708
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 12:08 pm

Next

Return to Tibetan Buddhism

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], heart, Sherab Rigdrol and 11 guests

>