Brief overview of Buddhist philosophy

[vajradhara]

Namaste all,

there seems to be some confusion related to Buddha Dharma and the philosophical positions that it takes. to the extent that this post can clear that up, i hope that it does.


Buddhist philosophical views are classified, at least by Tibetan Buddhists in general, into four main categories: Vaibhasika, Sautrantika, Yogachara, and Madhyamika.

1. Vaibhasika has been called "direct realism." It is similar to the first few of the Indian views that see the World of Experience as composed of various physical elements that interact with the components of beings.

2. Sautrantika considers that awareness is merely representational. These first two schools consider that there are two kinds of interactors: Physical aspects, ie. skandhas of which one, rupa comprises the traditional elements, and the Mental aspects including consciousness (vijnana), sensation (vedana) which contributes to pain/pleasure, cognition (sanjna) and the impressions derived from experience (samskara.). The 12 Links of Causality go into this in more detail.

3. Chittamatra/Yogachara sometimes referred to as the Knowledge Way or Vijnanavada. It has also been called Subjective Realism, acknowledging that individual factors including karma contribute to an experience of reality that must be different for every being. It mentions the idea of "Buddha nature." Vasubandha and Asanga finally adopted this position.

4. Madhyamika basically holds that there is no ultimate reality in the sense that something exists apart from the experiencer, but that this does not mean that there is nothing at all. It turns around the definition of Shunyata and therefore has been called Sunyatavada. Nagarjuna and Aryadeva are the main proponents. Chandrakirti expounds upon Nagarjuna.

The Madhyamika view has given rise to two particular schools of thought: Svatantrika and Prasangika, which is the school that i adhere to. According to the Prasangika school, the object of refutation (or negation, gag-cha)* is an extremely subtle object that is ever so slightly more than—a little over and above—what is merely labeled by the mind.

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."

* Object of Refutation: one possible technique for searching for truth is to employ the process of elimination, and see what is left. Therefore, the principle or topic under consideration may be called the object of refutation which helps keep in our mind the notion that the thing is not to be assumed to exist. It is merely a target, so to speak.

this link has some very good information for the interested reader:
http://www.khandro.net/Bud_philo_Madhyamika.htm

 

[vajradhara]

Namaste all,

this is a continuation of the previous post. this is a rather academic subject being as it deals with the Abidharma or metaphysics.

According to the listing in the previous post, in the Tibetan tradition, the 4 schools each teach the Three Vehicles of Hearer, Solitary Realizer and Bodhisattva.

The 4 philosophical schools correspond to the Hinyana and Mahayana view Vaibhasika and Sautrantika are Hinyana schools whereas the Chittamatra and Madhyamika correspond with the Mahayana. In this post i shall explain our view of the two Hinayana schools.

According to Vaibhasika and Sautrantika, Hearer and Solitary Realizer Foe Destroyers (Arhan) are lower than a Budda. All three are equally liberated from cyclic existence and all will equally disappear upon death with the severance of their continuum of consciousness and form. However, while they are alive, a Bodhisattva at the effect stage is called a Buddha whereas the others are only called Foe Destroyers - those who have destroyed the foes of the afflictions, mainly desire, hatred, and ignorance - because a Buddha has special knowledge, more subtle clarivoyance, and a distinctive body. A Bodhisattva accumulates merit and wisdom for three countless aeons, thus attaining the greater fruit of Buddhahood. For Vaibhasika and Sautrantika, a person treading the path of Buddhahood is very rare.

Both Hinyana tenet systems present three vehicles which they say are capable of bearing practitioners to their desired fruit. Both present an emptiness that must be understood in order to reach the goal, and in both systems this emptiness is the non-substantialiy of persons. They prove that a person is not a self-sufficient entity and does not substantially exist as the controller of mind and body, like a lord over it's subjects. Through realizing and becoming accustomed to this insubstantiality, the afflictions and thereby, all sufferings are said to be destroyed. According to the Hinyana tenet systems the path of wisdom is the same for Hinyanists--Hearers and Solitary Realizers--and for Bodhisattvas. The length of time that practitioners spend amassing meritorious power constitutes the essential difference between the vechiles.

Hearers and Solitary realizers all eventually proceed to the Bodhisattva path. After sometimes spending aeons in solitary trance, they are aroused by Buddhas who make them aware that they have not fulfilled even their own welfare, not to mention the welfare of others. Thus, though there are three vehicles, there is only one final vehicle.

As i said in a previous posting regarding the differences in Buddhist philosophy, the best way to get an understand of the different schools is by understanding their view of emptiness

each school asserts a certain view of selflessness and proceeds from Hinyanaist schools Vaibhasika and Sautrantika to Mahayanist schools Chittamatra, Svatantrika and finally, Pransangika.

Selflessness is divided into two types: of persons and of phenomena. The selfless of persons is also divided into two: coarse and subtle. Vaibhasika and Sautrantika do not assert a selflessness of phenomena because, for them, phenomena truly exist and are other entities from a perceiving consciousness.

With regard to the personal selflessness, all systems present a subtle and coarse view. According to the non-Pransangika systems the coarse is the emptiness of a permanent, partless, independent person. The misconception of such a self is only artificial, not innate -- it is based on the assumption of a non-Buddhist system. In other words, we do not naturally misconceive the person to have the three qualities of permanence, partlessness and independence.

perhaps, this will help show the matter in another way:


Vaibhasika and Sautrantika:

selflessness asserted: selflessness of persons. coarse: lack of being a permanent, partless, independent self. subtle: lack of being a self-sufficient person.

Chittamatra:

selflessness asserted: selflessness of persons. coarse: lack of being a permanent, partless, independent self. subtle: lack of being a self-sufficient person.

selflessness of phenomena: subtle: lack of a difference in entity between subject and object and lack of naturally being a base of a name.

Madhyamika (Savtantrika and Prasangika):

Savtantrika:
selflessness asserted: selflessness of persons. coarse: lack of being a permanent, partless, independent self. subtle: lack of being a self-sufficient person.

selflessness of phenomena: coarse: lack of a difference in entity between subject and object (though this is properly Yogachara)
subtle: lack of being an entity not posited through appearing to a non-defective consciousness.

Prasangika:
selflessness of persons. coarse: lack of being a permanent self-sufficient entity. subtle: lack of inherent existence of persons

selflessness of phenomena: subtle: lack of inherent existence of phenomena other than persons

(please note, the use of the term Hinyana is to denote the historical schools which used to exist in this Vehicle. in modern Buddhism, the only extant school of Hinyana Buddhism is Theraveda. thus, we simply call it Theravedan Buddhism, today)

metta,

~v

 

[Eudaimonist]

1. Vaibhasika has been called "direct realism."

2. Sautrantika considers that awareness is merely representational.

3. Chittamatra/Yogachara sometimes referred to as the Knowledge Way or Vijnanavada. It has also been called Subjective Realism, acknowledging that individual factors including karma contribute to an experience of reality that must be different for every being.

4. Madhyamika basically holds that there is no ultimate reality in the sense that something exists apart from the experiencer, but that this does not mean that there is nothing at all.

It is interesting to see how these schools are distinguished on such deep philosophical issues. These sorts of epistemological and metaphysical issues are discussed in Western philosophy as well. Thank you so much for posting this. It's very interesting.

I'm quite certain I don't understand your post in the way that you do, so my comments below almost certainly include some misunderstandings. This is inevitable in such philosophical discussions.

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.

By "unfindable", do you mean that phenomena do have a "nature" of some sort, but it is difficult to pin down or spell out precisely what their nature is? Or do you mean that their "nature" is constantly changing, and therefore trying to pin it down is to aim at a moving target? This doesn't seem in conflict with the idea that phenomena have an objective existence. (Unless I misunderstand your use of the word "objective".) It simply means that phenomena are always a little more complex and elusive than our understanding of them.

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.

Are you saying that the lower schools are atomistic?

By analyzing along these lines, Yogacara proponents conclude that there is no atomicly structured external reality.

What does "atomically structured" mean here?


eudaimonia,

M.

 

[vajradhara]

Namaste M,

sorry for my tardy reply... i missed your response here

It is interesting to see how these schools are distinguished on such deep philosophical issues. These sorts of epistemological and metaphysical issues are discussed in Western philosophy as well. Thank you so much for posting this. It's very interesting.

my pleasure

it is, in my experience, one of the more murky subjects within the Buddhadharma, especially for beings which are coming from different philosophical positions and hold certain theological views.

it is my experience that a great majority of non-Buddhists are under the impression that Buddhism has a single school of thought.

to the extent that this post can dispell that, it has accomplished its purpose.

I'm quite certain I don't understand your post in the way that you do, so my comments below almost certainly include some misunderstandings. This is inevitable in such philosophical discussions.

agreed! it is, i think, a real test of understanding and patience with these sorts of things. i'm sure that we have both had the experience of beings becoming exasperated and frustrated with others when they feel the information they are presenting is self-evident.

By "unfindable", do you mean that phenomena do have a "nature" of some sort, but it is difficult to pin down or spell out precisely what their nature is? Or do you mean that their "nature" is constantly changing, and therefore trying to pin it down is to aim at a moving target?

well... i would tend to think that both of those are correct.. however, what we are meaning is that said nature is in a constant state of flux, as such, it is through labeling that we designate phenomena, not an inherent aspect of said phenomena.

it is very much like hitting a moving target... and that target is continually changing as well as moving

an aside...

does it ever strike you as unusal that a great many of the ideas that humans hold are expressed through metaphor?

in my own case, i find that my mind tends to think in pictures.. whole images, not words, per se. i wonder if metaphor and allegory help to create these "mental pictures" for us... of course, as they say, a picture is worth a thousand words

This doesn't seem in conflict with the idea that phenomena have an objective existence. (Unless I misunderstand your use of the word "objective".) It simply means that phenomena are always a little more complex and elusive than our understanding of them.

in this particular case, the term "objective" is meant to indicate the state of existence without dependence upon causes and conditions.

i would certainly agree with you conclusion as well... they are, indeed, more complex and elusive than we would perfer.

Are you saying that the lower schools are atomistic?

Viabhasika and Sutrantika are atomistic schools, in our understanding.

What does "atomically structured" mean here?

generally speaking, this is a refernce to the external world and the objects therein.

metta,

~v

 

[PapaLandShark]

does it ever strike you as unusal that a great many of the ideas that humans hold are expressed through metaphor?

in my own case, i find that my mind tends to think in pictures.. whole images, not words, per se. i wonder if metaphor and allegory help to create these "mental pictures" for us... of course, as they say, a picture is worth a thousand words

Have you read any of Carl Jung's work?

 

[vajradhara]

Have you read any of Carl Jung's work?

Namaste PLS,

yes, i've read some of his work before.

interestingly, i was unaware of his work prior to reading one of the Wilhelm translations of a Taoist work called the Secret of the Golden Flower upon which a great deal of Jungs work with Archetypes is first layed out.

unfortunately for both Wilhelm and Jung, Wilhelm was not a very good choice for a translator as he had too many preconceptions which he interjected into the texts which, ultimately, meant that Jung couldn't and didn't have the experience of the Golden Flower blossoming.

further, Wilhelm lacked a basic understanding of Taoist and Buddhist principles and thus came to some very strange conclusions and misconceptions with what we were going on about.

in any event.. yes, i am familiar with him

metta,

~v

 

[Soul_Searcher]

Hi Vajradhara,

Thanks for the posts. I've been reading some of Thich Nhat Hanh's books and also the Dali Lama's. Despite the different schools of Buddhism, I still see the thread that binds them all in the Four Noble Truths. As with Christianity I keep wondering 'why all the different ideas?' I mean, I do know why, humans being humans, but still, it gives one pause.

Right now I'm reading a book called, "The Holographic Universe." Ever hear of it? Most interesting concept.

Have a wonderful journey.

 

[vajradhara]

Namaste soul_searcher,

thank you for the post.

yes, i've heard of that book but i've not had a chance to read it yet. the reveiws of it are quite positive, if i recall correctly.

with regards to the different approaches and so forth to be found within Buddhism... we take a different view than most religious traditions in that our operative view is one that is predicated upon capacity and aptitude. since this is the case, knowing to whom the teachings were given is an important part of knowing what is trying to be communicated for if we are not in the same relative situation as those beings, then this teaching may not be applicable for us.

with regards to doctrine, it is indeed correct that all Three Vehicles uphold the Four Noble Truths and the Noble Eightfold path as the foundational aspects of the tradition.

in my own view, one of the features about the Mahayana schools which seems to be quite prominent is the manner in which they approach the teachings through the Sutta/Sutras. some schools will place a great deal of emphasis on some Sutras which other schools hardly discuss

in the final analysis, however, of the Buddhist path, all of the teachings which are given by the Buddhas are rafts meant to carry us to the Other Shore. once we have reached the Other Shore, we leave the rafts behind... perhaps, for someone else to use, if they can find it.



metta,

~v

 

[PapaLandShark]

Namaste PLS,

yes, i've read some of his work before.

interestingly, i was unaware of his work prior to reading one of the Wilhelm translations of a Taoist work called the Secret of the Golden Flower upon which a great deal of Jungs work with Archetypes is first layed out.

unfortunately for both Wilhelm and Jung, Wilhelm was not a very good choice for a translator as he had too many preconceptions which he interjected into the texts which, ultimately, meant that Jung couldn't and didn't have the experience of the Golden Flower blossoming.

further, Wilhelm lacked a basic understanding of Taoist and Buddhist principles and thus came to some very strange conclusions and misconceptions with what we were going on about.

in any event.. yes, i am familiar with him

metta,

~v

Cool...Some of the language you use reminds me of a few books I've read by him.

 

[vajradhara]

bump for relevance on another thread.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Bumping up due to a question asked in another thread.

however, what we are meaning is that said nature is in a constant state of flux, as such, it is through labeling that we designate phenomena, not an inherent aspect of said phenomena.

I see. I tend to agree.

an aside...

does it ever strike you as unusal that a great many of the ideas that humans hold are expressed through metaphor?

Not at all. But it is interesting that we do. I see it as expressing the truth that our minds -- our understandings -- work through "inter-relations", and that therefore our ideas are not atomistic entities within our minds.

Ha! I related this to the topic subject after all!

I see the growth of our understanding (our growth in all ways, really) as an "organic" process, not a "mechanistic" one. By "organic", I mean changing in a massively interconnected way. By "mechanistic", I mean the kind of "turn on a dime" change that a computer can do when it executes a new program, since programs may be atomistic in a certain sense. In The Matrix, Trinity was able to learn to fly a helecopter expertly through a simple and quick download of information. I'm suggesting that the human brain/mind simply does not function like this.

in this particular case, the term "objective" is meant to indicate the state of existence without dependence upon causes and conditions.

That helps clarify the subject tremendously. Thanks.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[meebs]

vajradhara

i apologise. But all this confuses me

im not sure what any of this means

 

[vajradhara]

vajradhara

i apologise. But all this confuses me

im not sure what any of this means

Namate Jellybean,

thank you for the post.

that is the case for many beings, especially if they have not been exposed to this aspect of Buddhism.

if you have any questions about any terms or ideas, please feel free to ask and i'll try my best to explain it in another manner.

i note that you are displaying the Tao as your icon. i have a deep affinity for the Tao traditions and consider that my practice is somewhat like the Northern Complete Reality School. do you have a school lineage at this point in your practice?

metta,

~v

 

[vajradhara]

Namaste Mark,

i would agree, though it would be neat to be able to "upload" a program like that into our meatbag, i don't feel it works like that either

metta,

~v

 

[meebs]

Namate Jellybean,

thank you for the post.

that is the case for many beings, especially if they have not been exposed to this aspect of Buddhism.

if you have any questions about any terms or ideas, please feel free to ask and i'll try my best to explain it in another manner.

i note that you are displaying the Tao as your icon. i have a deep affinity for the Tao traditions and consider that my practice is somewhat like the Northern Complete Reality School. do you have a school lineage at this point in your practice?

metta,

~v

no. im very much begining. My taoism interest is more philosophical, not religious or spiritual. i often beleive there is a more scientific reason behind what they say.

i will get back to you after my holiday. no time right now

 

[JGL53]

Cool...Some of the language you use reminds me of a few books I've read by him.

Jung sees god as metaphor - an archtype - just something in our heads that we use to find meaning in life.

But I take it that even though you've read his books, you pretty much disagree with him?

 

[vajradhara]

*bump for recent relevance*

 

[logan760]

Thanks for the interesting article vajradhara. I understood some of it in the first go. I'll reread it again later.

 

[vajradhara]

Thanks for the interesting article vajradhara. I understood some of it in the first go. I'll reread it again later.

Namaste logan,

thank you for the kind words.

to be sure this is a recondite subject and one which, in many respects, does not impact ones practice in the least. i would dare say that there are many, many Buddhists that little to any interest in the philosophical underpinings of the teachings and that is perfectly ok

metta,

~v