Why does Gelug school claim emptiness means things exist without self nature?

Forum for discussion of Tibetan Buddhism. Questions specific to one school are best posted in the appropriate sub-forum.
WeiHan
Posts: 572
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2011 5:50 pm

Re: Why does Gelug school claim emptiness means things exist without self nature?

Post by WeiHan »

Malcolm wrote: Sat Mar 03, 2018 7:13 pm
WeiHan wrote: Sat Mar 03, 2018 7:08 pm
Malcolm wrote: Sat Mar 03, 2018 6:40 pm All Tibetan schools holds that a correct, inferential understanding of emptiness is necessary. Where they disagree is mostly on pedagogy. For example, the Gelugpas claim that even if one is practicing Vajrayāna, one must nevertheless still engage in analytical meditation based on identifying the proper object of negation according to Madhyamaka reasons.

Sakya, on the other hand, maintains that the example wisdom demonstrated during empowerment corresponds with a proper inferential understanding of emptiness, and it is on the basis of this one practices.
I don't think other schools use the clear light mind attained through HYT to meditate on conceptual emptiness previously arrived at analytically. I only find this approach in Gelug's teaching.
Sakyas and Nyingmapas do not use the terminology, no.
Terminology aside, I do not see Sakya, Nyingma or Kagyu uses accomplishment state in completion stage to meditate on a conceptual emptiness derived through Madhyamika reasoning. Only Gelug.
Jeff H
Posts: 959
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2014 8:56 pm
Location: Vermont, USA

Re: Why does Gelug school claim emptiness means things exist without self nature?

Post by Jeff H »

Malcolm wrote: Sat Mar 03, 2018 7:11 pm
Jeff H wrote: Sat Mar 03, 2018 7:01 pm
Malcolm wrote: Sat Mar 03, 2018 6:40 pm All Tibetan schools holds that a correct, inferential understanding of emptiness is necessary. Where they disagree is mostly on pedagogy. For example, the Gelugpas claim that even if one is practicing Vajrayāna, one must nevertheless still engage in analytical meditation based on identifying the proper object of negation according to Madhyamaka reasons.

Sakya, on the other hand, maintains that the example wisdom demonstrated during empowerment corresponds with a proper inferential understanding of emptiness, and it is on the basis of this one practices.
Yes, I agree there's a difference in pedagogical approaches, but with the same ultimate outcome. I don't think you are disagreeing with that, right? When Josef says, "intellectual analysis of Tsongkhapa's view was sufficient", if he means sufficient to result in direct realization of emptiness or enlightenment, that's what I'm objecting to. I don't think Gelugpas claim that. And I'm quite certain they don't believe Buddhas have dualistic minds.
According the Gelug school, Buddhas can think thoughts, recognize objects, and so on. It is the position of the Sakya school that Buddhas are utterly free from thought at all times.
It's true that I've never spent a lot of time delving into descriptions of the state of buddhahood, mainly because my focus has always been on the stages leading to that. (Confession of a "lamrimpa": I have never felt a need to rush to conclusion; I've tried to lay a foundation. That's the "gradual" in my "graduated" path.) Anyway, I don't know where to look for confirmation of that as a Gelug tenet. Could you point me to a source?

In any case, buddhas thinking thoughts and recognizing objects must still be a non-dualistic process, certainly without any trace of grasping. If buddhas interact with sentient beings, some kind of dependently arisen distinction must manifest, right? Couldn't that be taken as non-reified ideation by one school and pure spontaneity by another?
What the Sakyapas object to most about Gelug view is the statement that clinging to an intellectual representation of emptiness is acceptable and even necessary. Thus, there is some disagreement about what it means when Nāgārjuna says, "Without relying on the conventional, the ultimate will not be understood."
On this point, yes, there is initial clinging to a concept, but the concept is refined as far as possible through reason and then meditated on until it eventually disappears altogether. I'd also qualify the "necessity" by restricting it to those who choose to follow Tsongkhapa (or are led to Gelug by their karma). It may take longer and be less direct than the Sakya method (I know nothing about Sakya), but all dualistic conceptuality must be abandoned in the end. Incidentally, the way Geshe Tashi Tsering introduces his Two Truths module is by saying we need to so thoroughly investigate the conventional that we emerge in the ultimate.
We who are like children shrink from pain but love its causes. - Shantideva
Malcolm
Posts: 33463
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Why does Gelug school claim emptiness means things exist without self nature?

Post by Malcolm »

WeiHan wrote: Sat Mar 03, 2018 7:17 pm
Malcolm wrote: Sat Mar 03, 2018 7:13 pm
WeiHan wrote: Sat Mar 03, 2018 7:08 pm

I don't think other schools use the clear light mind attained through HYT to meditate on conceptual emptiness previously arrived at analytically. I only find this approach in Gelug's teaching.
Sakyas and Nyingmapas do not use the terminology, no.
Terminology aside, I do not see Sakya, Nyingma or Kagyu uses accomplishment state in completion stage to meditate on a conceptual emptiness derived through Madhyamika reasoning. Only Gelug.
I don't think I agree. For example, when one, a beginner, dissolves appearances into emptiness, is that emptiness conceptual or nonconceptual? When at the end of a sadhana one dissolves the deity into emptiness, is that emptiness conceptual or nonconceptual? If one is below the path of seeing, it is conceptual by necessity. The difference is that emptiness is based on the example wisdom of the empowerment rather than analysis.
"Nonduality is merely a name;
that name does not exist."
—Kotalipa
WeiHan
Posts: 572
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2011 5:50 pm

Re: Why does Gelug school claim emptiness means things exist without self nature?

Post by WeiHan »

Malcolm wrote: Sat Mar 03, 2018 8:50 pm
I don't think I agree. For example, when one, a beginner, dissolves appearances into emptiness, is that emptiness conceptual or nonconceptual? When at the end of a sadhana one dissolves the deity into emptiness, is that emptiness conceptual or nonconceptual? If one is below the path of seeing, it is conceptual by necessity. The difference is that emptiness is based on the example wisdom of the empowerment rather than analysis.
OK. The difference is probably between analytical or not. While we are at it, maybe we can clarify the dzogchen ati practice. Does an authentic trechok practice requires one to be resting non-conceptually in Rigpa? if If it is so, then all genuine practitioners of Trechok are necessarily at least on or above the path of seeing?
User avatar
Karma Dorje
Posts: 1370
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 10:35 pm

Re: Why does Gelug school claim emptiness means things exist without self nature?

Post by Karma Dorje »

WeiHan wrote: Sun Mar 04, 2018 6:54 am
Malcolm wrote: Sat Mar 03, 2018 8:50 pm
I don't think I agree. For example, when one, a beginner, dissolves appearances into emptiness, is that emptiness conceptual or nonconceptual? When at the end of a sadhana one dissolves the deity into emptiness, is that emptiness conceptual or nonconceptual? If one is below the path of seeing, it is conceptual by necessity. The difference is that emptiness is based on the example wisdom of the empowerment rather than analysis.
OK. The difference is probably between analytical or not. While we are at it, maybe we can clarify the dzogchen ati practice. Does an authentic trechok practice requires one to be resting non-conceptually in Rigpa? if If it is so, then all genuine practitioners of Trechok are necessarily at least on or above the path of seeing?
"Resting" in rigpa is still a conceptual approach to the Dzogchen view. It's a necessary conceit, but it's still selling water by the river. Fearing concepts on the path is just another thought; of necessity we depend on approximations as an entry to practice.
"Although my view is higher than the sky, My respect for the cause and effect of actions is as fine as grains of flour."
-Padmasambhava
User avatar
heart
Posts: 5091
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 1:55 pm

Re: Why does Gelug school claim emptiness means things exist without self nature?

Post by heart »

WeiHan wrote: Sun Mar 04, 2018 6:54 am
Malcolm wrote: Sat Mar 03, 2018 8:50 pm
I don't think I agree. For example, when one, a beginner, dissolves appearances into emptiness, is that emptiness conceptual or nonconceptual? When at the end of a sadhana one dissolves the deity into emptiness, is that emptiness conceptual or nonconceptual? If one is below the path of seeing, it is conceptual by necessity. The difference is that emptiness is based on the example wisdom of the empowerment rather than analysis.
OK. The difference is probably between analytical or not. While we are at it, maybe we can clarify the dzogchen ati practice. Does an authentic trechok practice requires one to be resting non-conceptually in Rigpa? if If it is so, then all genuine practitioners of Trechok are necessarily at least on or above the path of seeing?
Rigpa is utterly non-conceptual. If you can rest in rigpa for half a day, you are on the path of seeing. But ordinary Dzogchen practitioners can't rest in rigpa longer than a few moments at a time.

/magnus
"We are all here to help each other go through this thing, whatever it is."
~Kurt Vonnegut

"The principal practice is Guruyoga. But we need to understand that any secondary practice combined with Guruyoga becomes a principal practice." ChNNR (Teachings on Thun and Ganapuja)
Malcolm
Posts: 33463
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Why does Gelug school claim emptiness means things exist without self nature?

Post by Malcolm »

WeiHan wrote: Sun Mar 04, 2018 6:54 am
Malcolm wrote: Sat Mar 03, 2018 8:50 pm
I don't think I agree. For example, when one, a beginner, dissolves appearances into emptiness, is that emptiness conceptual or nonconceptual? When at the end of a sadhana one dissolves the deity into emptiness, is that emptiness conceptual or nonconceptual? If one is below the path of seeing, it is conceptual by necessity. The difference is that emptiness is based on the example wisdom of the empowerment rather than analysis.
OK. The difference is probably between analytical or not. While we are at it, maybe we can clarify the dzogchen ati practice. Does an authentic trechok practice requires one to be resting non-conceptually in Rigpa? if If it is so, then all genuine practitioners of Trechok are necessarily at least on or above the path of seeing?
The question is framed incorrectly. Treckhöd is best described in general terms as a practice in which insight into emptiness and śamatha are combined. But below the path of seeing, this insight is conceptual, based on the example wisdom of the direct introduction. However, the emptiness meditated upon in trekchöd is also inferential until one mounts the path of seeing. There really is no difference between perfection of wisdom, mahāmudra, Chan/Zen, etc., and tregchöd. I have heard it said that Tulku Orgyen asserted that trekchöd exists in all yānas, perhaps EPK would be kind enough to confirm this. What separates from trekchöd from these other systems of the method of introduction. Trekchöd, like any secret mantra practice, is based on empowerment/introduction.
"Nonduality is merely a name;
that name does not exist."
—Kotalipa
Malcolm
Posts: 33463
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Why does Gelug school claim emptiness means things exist without self nature?

Post by Malcolm »

heart wrote: Sun Mar 04, 2018 3:44 pm
Rigpa is utterly non-conceptual. If you can rest in rigpa for half a day, you are on the path of seeing. But ordinary Dzogchen practitioners can't rest in rigpa longer than a few moments at a time.

/magnus
Actually, what one is resting is empty clarity. However, below the path of seeing, the emptiness of that clarity is a conceptual inference. However, when meditating, we just rest in the clarity aspect without engaging in concepts like "this is empty." We know already that it is empty since we confirmed this analytically during rushan of the mind or the semzin of gradual and sudden emptiness.
"Nonduality is merely a name;
that name does not exist."
—Kotalipa
WeiHan
Posts: 572
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2011 5:50 pm

Re: Why does Gelug school claim emptiness means things exist without self nature?

Post by WeiHan »

Malcolm wrote: Sun Mar 04, 2018 4:25 pm
The question is framed incorrectly. Treckhöd is best described in general terms as a practice in which insight into emptiness and śamatha are combined. But below the path of seeing, this insight is conceptual, based on the example wisdom of the direct introduction. However, the emptiness meditated upon in trekchöd is also inferential until one mounts the path of seeing. There really is no difference between perfection of wisdom, mahāmudra, Chan/Zen, etc., and tregchöd. I have heard it said that Tulku Orgyen asserted that trekchöd exists in all yānas, perhaps EPK would be kind enough to confirm this. What separates from trekchöd from these other systems of the method of introduction. Trekchöd, like any secret mantra practice, is based on empowerment/introduction.
This now finally makes sense for me. I remember Yangthang Rinpoche have said that Treckchod is the combining of samatha and the view. What I was unsure is whether the "view" need to be a nonconceptual experience of emptiness. It is finally clarified.

That said, which system of buddhist meditation wouldn't combine samatha and insight (vipassana) as its goal?
WeiHan
Posts: 572
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2011 5:50 pm

Re: Why does Gelug school claim emptiness means things exist without self nature?

Post by WeiHan »

Malcolm wrote: Sun Mar 04, 2018 4:25 pm
There really is no difference between perfection of wisdom, mahāmudra, Chan/Zen, etc., and tregchöd. I have heard it said that Tulku Orgyen asserted that trekchöd exists in all yānas, perhaps EPK would be kind enough to confirm this. What separates from trekchöd from these other systems of the method of introduction. Trekchöd, like any secret mantra practice, is based on empowerment/introduction.
If there is really no difference between perfection of wisdom, Chan/Zen etc..What is the element in Treckcod that separates it from the rest as an extremely swift path? At least I have never heard that perfection of wisdom, chan/zen which are sutrayana practices can attain rainbow bodies in this very life.
Malcolm
Posts: 33463
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Why does Gelug school claim emptiness means things exist without self nature?

Post by Malcolm »

WeiHan wrote: Mon Mar 05, 2018 6:24 pm
Malcolm wrote: Sun Mar 04, 2018 4:25 pm
There really is no difference between perfection of wisdom, mahāmudra, Chan/Zen, etc., and tregchöd. I have heard it said that Tulku Orgyen asserted that trekchöd exists in all yānas, perhaps EPK would be kind enough to confirm this. What separates from trekchöd from these other systems of the method of introduction. Trekchöd, like any secret mantra practice, is based on empowerment/introduction.
If there is really no difference between perfection of wisdom, Chan/Zen etc..What is the element in Treckcod that separates it from the rest as an extremely swift path? At least I have never heard that perfection of wisdom, chan/zen which are sutrayana practices can attain rainbow bodies in this very life.
Empowerment.
"Nonduality is merely a name;
that name does not exist."
—Kotalipa
Sennin
Posts: 915
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2012 1:19 am

Re: Why does Gelug school claim emptiness means things exist without self nature?

Post by Sennin »

Malcolm wrote: Mon Mar 05, 2018 6:48 pm
WeiHan wrote: Mon Mar 05, 2018 6:24 pm
Malcolm wrote: Sun Mar 04, 2018 4:25 pm
There really is no difference between perfection of wisdom, mahāmudra, Chan/Zen, etc., and tregchöd. I have heard it said that Tulku Orgyen asserted that trekchöd exists in all yānas, perhaps EPK would be kind enough to confirm this. What separates from trekchöd from these other systems of the method of introduction. Trekchöd, like any secret mantra practice, is based on empowerment/introduction.
If there is really no difference between perfection of wisdom, Chan/Zen etc..What is the element in Treckcod that separates it from the rest as an extremely swift path? At least I have never heard that perfection of wisdom, chan/zen which are sutrayana practices can attain rainbow bodies in this very life.
Empowerment.
Is gting gsal explained in vehicles beside Dzogchen?
Observe the difference between the Lord of All Victors, Padmasambhava, and the mahasiddhas of India and Tibet.
WeiHan
Posts: 572
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2011 5:50 pm

Re: Why does Gelug school claim emptiness means things exist without self nature?

Post by WeiHan »

Malcolm wrote: Mon Mar 05, 2018 6:48 pm
WeiHan wrote: Mon Mar 05, 2018 6:24 pm
Malcolm wrote: Sun Mar 04, 2018 4:25 pm
There really is no difference between perfection of wisdom, mahāmudra, Chan/Zen, etc., and tregchöd. I have heard it said that Tulku Orgyen asserted that trekchöd exists in all yānas, perhaps EPK would be kind enough to confirm this. What separates from trekchöd from these other systems of the method of introduction. Trekchöd, like any secret mantra practice, is based on empowerment/introduction.
If there is really no difference between perfection of wisdom, Chan/Zen etc..What is the element in Treckcod that separates it from the rest as an extremely swift path? At least I have never heard that perfection of wisdom, chan/zen which are sutrayana practices can attain rainbow bodies in this very life.
Empowerment.
The blessing coming from the Guru? Since there is a saying that Dzogchen is a path which the Guru transfers his realisation to his students directly.
Malcolm
Posts: 33463
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Why does Gelug school claim emptiness means things exist without self nature?

Post by Malcolm »

Sennin wrote: Mon Mar 05, 2018 7:07 pm
Malcolm wrote: Mon Mar 05, 2018 6:48 pm
WeiHan wrote: Mon Mar 05, 2018 6:24 pm

If there is really no difference between perfection of wisdom, Chan/Zen etc..What is the element in Treckcod that separates it from the rest as an extremely swift path? At least I have never heard that perfection of wisdom, chan/zen which are sutrayana practices can attain rainbow bodies in this very life.
Empowerment.
Is gting gsal explained in vehicles beside Dzogchen?
I have not encountered it in other traditions.
"Nonduality is merely a name;
that name does not exist."
—Kotalipa
PSM
Posts: 297
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2018 1:15 pm

Re: Why does Gelug school claim emptiness means things exist without self nature?

Post by PSM »

Malcolm wrote: Sun Mar 04, 2018 4:29 pm We know already that it is empty since we confirmed this analytically during rushan of the mind or the semzin of gradual and sudden emptiness.
Hi Malcolm - what is the specific semdzin(s) you are referring to here? Something like yeshe zangthal?
Malcolm
Posts: 33463
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Why does Gelug school claim emptiness means things exist without self nature?

Post by Malcolm »

PSM wrote: Mon Mar 05, 2018 9:03 pm
Malcolm wrote: Sun Mar 04, 2018 4:29 pm We know already that it is empty since we confirmed this analytically during rushan of the mind or the semzin of gradual and sudden emptiness.
Hi Malcolm - what is the specific semdzin(s) you are referring to here? Something like yeshe zangthal?
In the classical tradition of seven semszins, the two final ones are gradual and sudden emptiness. You can find them described elsewhere.
"Nonduality is merely a name;
that name does not exist."
—Kotalipa
PSM
Posts: 297
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2018 1:15 pm

Re: Why does Gelug school claim emptiness means things exist without self nature?

Post by PSM »

Malcolm wrote: Mon Mar 05, 2018 10:47 pm
PSM wrote: Mon Mar 05, 2018 9:03 pm
Malcolm wrote: Sun Mar 04, 2018 4:29 pm We know already that it is empty since we confirmed this analytically during rushan of the mind or the semzin of gradual and sudden emptiness.
Hi Malcolm - what is the specific semdzin(s) you are referring to here? Something like yeshe zangthal?
In the classical tradition of seven semszins, the two final ones are gradual and sudden emptiness. You can find them described elsewhere.
Thanks for the quick reply. These are the two on page 249 of The Precious Vase?
WeiHan
Posts: 572
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2011 5:50 pm

Re: Why does Gelug school claim emptiness means things exist without self nature?

Post by WeiHan »

Malcolm wrote: Mon Mar 05, 2018 6:48 pm
WeiHan wrote: Mon Mar 05, 2018 6:24 pm
Malcolm wrote: Sun Mar 04, 2018 4:25 pm
There really is no difference between perfection of wisdom, mahāmudra, Chan/Zen, etc., and tregchöd. I have heard it said that Tulku Orgyen asserted that trekchöd exists in all yānas, perhaps EPK would be kind enough to confirm this. What separates from trekchöd from these other systems of the method of introduction. Trekchöd, like any secret mantra practice, is based on empowerment/introduction.
If there is really no difference between perfection of wisdom, Chan/Zen etc..What is the element in Treckcod that separates it from the rest as an extremely swift path? At least I have never heard that perfection of wisdom, chan/zen which are sutrayana practices can attain rainbow bodies in this very life.
Empowerment.
This answer/understanding solidifies my opinion that doing an elaborate Guru Yoga sadhana that contains detail self empowerment is better than practicing teckchod which afterall on its own without Guru yoga is just a sutric practice.
Last edited by WeiHan on Tue Mar 06, 2018 1:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Aryjna
Posts: 1285
Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2017 12:45 pm

Re: Why does Gelug school claim emptiness means things exist without self nature?

Post by Aryjna »

WeiHan wrote: Tue Mar 06, 2018 1:43 pm
Malcolm wrote: Mon Mar 05, 2018 6:48 pm
WeiHan wrote: Mon Mar 05, 2018 6:24 pm

If there is really no difference between perfection of wisdom, Chan/Zen etc..What is the element in Treckcod that separates it from the rest as an extremely swift path? At least I have never heard that perfection of wisdom, chan/zen which are sutrayana practices can attain rainbow bodies in this very life.
Empowerment.
This answer/understanding solidifies my opinion that doing an elaborate Guru Yoga sadhana that contains detail self empowerment is better than practicing teckchod which afterall on its own with Guru yoga is just a sutra practice.
That does not really make any sense.
User avatar
Josef
Posts: 2406
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 6:44 pm

Re: Why does Gelug school claim emptiness means things exist without self nature?

Post by Josef »

Aryjna wrote: Tue Mar 06, 2018 1:47 pm
WeiHan wrote: Tue Mar 06, 2018 1:43 pm
Malcolm wrote: Mon Mar 05, 2018 6:48 pm

Empowerment.
This answer/understanding solidifies my opinion that doing an elaborate Guru Yoga sadhana that contains detail self empowerment is better than practicing teckchod which afterall on its own with Guru yoga is just a sutra practice.
That does not really make any sense.
None whatsoever.
Kye ma!
The river of continuity is marked by impermanence.
Ceaseless flowing of appearance.
Beautiful and repulsive.
The dance of life and death is a display of the vast expanse.
With gratitude the watcher and the watched pass through the barrier of duality.
Post Reply

Return to “Tibetan Buddhism”