zenmonk_genryu
Active Member
tom said:
types of Buddhism?
- Thread starter Elizabeth May
- Start date
seattlegal
Mercuræn Buddhist
Re: Buddhist Philosophical Schools, pt 1
So, within Prasangika, what do you do with the stuff that cannot possibly be refuted as being a product of ones mind no matter how far you stretch the limits of improbability?
I can see how Yogacara throws the baby out with the bath water.Namaste zazen,
thank you for the post.
in part, it's my fault as i've said i will be posting the various philosophical positions that are held in Buddhism, and i've not done that yet. very slack of me
yes, they are all present in the Prajnaparamita Sutras. this is not in question. what i'm asserting, however, is the level of realiztion that these statements lead to.
you agree, do you not, that the Hinyana school asserts a position of empitness of self but not of phenomena?
and you agree that Mahayana schools assert a position of emptiness of self and phenemona, do you not?
this isn't what i had intended to post, but it should suffice for our discussion at this point:
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:
Madhyamika
So, within Prasangika, what do you do with the stuff that cannot possibly be refuted as being a product of ones mind no matter how far you stretch the limits of improbability?
Vajradhara
One of Many
Re: Buddhist Philosophical Schools, pt 1
Namaste seattlegal,
thank you for the post.
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.
as you can see within the standard formulation of the process we are talking about something which is more than simply mind... but perhaps i'm not understanding your question properly.... can you rephrase it?
metta,
~v
Namaste seattlegal,
thank you for the post.
seattlegal said:
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.
as you can see within the standard formulation of the process we are talking about something which is more than simply mind... but perhaps i'm not understanding your question properly.... can you rephrase it?
metta,
~v
Francis king
Well-Known Member
that's why there's prasangika-madhyamikas...
Vajradhara
One of Many
Namaste Francis King,
within the overall auspices of the Madhyamika school there are two subschools, the Prasangika and the Svatantrika which do have some slight differences with regards to the object of refutation and, of course, the basis of designation which is where the real difference lies, imo.
metta,
~v
IF you are inherently unhappy, you will always find something to criticize about other religions or your own. Ultimately, your religion should help you examine yourself and help you be a better person. If participating in ritual helps people connect to a greater truth, albeit unconsciously, then leave them in peace. We each have our own paths.
Just because a person is a nun or a monk or whatever does not mean he has to look pure and ethereal - this is a very naive way at looking at faiths. People are people. So what if their eyebrows are shaved or crooked. Spend some time getting to know their truths and struggles and perhaps stop judging on external appearances. Form is emptiness and emptiness is form.....
Just because a person is a nun or a monk or whatever does not mean he has to look pure and ethereal - this is a very naive way at looking at faiths. People are people. So what if their eyebrows are shaved or crooked. Spend some time getting to know their truths and struggles and perhaps stop judging on external appearances. Form is emptiness and emptiness is form.....
B
brijesh
Guest
I've read a lot of posts that there are different types of Buddhism. But what differences and types are actually around? And what is Zen? What's the difference between Buddhism from Nepal and other coutries like India and Malaysia? And is Biddha really worshipped as a God?
Thanks, I've just got to ask because I'm very curious.
Only a living thing has the potential to grow and have thousands of thousands brancheses. Flexibility and Dynamicity is the core of buddha's teaching not static. Bodhi dhamma is a path of experiencing and following own path. So it is hard to say about types of buddhism.
Birth of Zen: When you get connected with someone your eyes explains all needs and express all your feelings. In this stage you overflow with joy and love. BUT if you are disconnected then your all words and commitments can not express anything of you. Zen is a state where two persons comes on a plateform where all languages and words looses their meanings and both start communication existantialy.
Buddha used to say " If my existance can not transform you then my words are not going to help". Once buddha was staying in sravasti (Present district of utter pradesh in India). One day he was sitting in samadhi, he did not spoke any word to pupiles. He just pick a Lotus (Flower) and showed to pupiles. Nobody understand any massage except one. He was a Kashyapa (Previous stage of Buddhahood). He just smilled and so buddha. It is said this was start of Zen. This zen got its ground in china and finaly overflowed in Japan.
Differences in Budhism in different part of world:::
Buddhism has a desolving power. So when it reaches in china it get desolved with Tao and gave birth to Zen buddhism. It has no contradiction with existing basic teachings of Japan when it reached there. So it has flever of all cultures and beauties. Most beatifull thing is that now it is hard to count and recognise buddhist in world. I call it beauty of adultration. I see a future where all religions will get desolved with eachother so much that no one can differiente among them. On that day thounsands of thonsands Jusus, Buddha, Lao Tzu, Kabira, Krishna and Muhamada will be produced by socity. Untill that day only Hitler, only Taimore, Only changes can take birth. Untill that day there will be religions but no dhamma, no state of mind where heart will over flow with unconditioned love and joy
royal monk :: your personal tour guide in india
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru.
Apart from the Tibetan diaspora, India has 2 million old buddhists in the Himalayan states. (Ladakh, Sikkim, Himachal Pradesh, etc.) and 2 million buddhist who are generally known as neo-buddhists. These are the under-privileged classes who followed their leader, B. R. Ambedkar, as a protest against caste discrimination in hinduism. Many of these people do not have good education and generally worship Buddha as a God. Buddha is a avatara of Lord Vishnu for hindus too. That is not much of a problem, the line between respect, veneration, and worship is not very distinct.
radarmark
Quaker-in-the-Making
Very true Aupmanyav. But like Christians do not like to consider Quakers or Latter Day Saints or Jehova Witnesses as "Christians", to a lot of Wesern thinkers, making Buddha a god means they are no longer Buddhist.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru.
Buddha is a most respected teacher, and teachers (guru, not the modern commercial ones) were not considered any less than God. Actually, sages and the virtuous could curse Gods and Goddesses in hinduism and the Gods and Goddesses obliged them by not overturning their curses, they went through them.
For example, Gandhari, the wife of the blind Kaurava king Dhritarashtra, who was a virtuous woman (Sati), angered by the death of her hundred sons cursed Krishna that he will also live to see his progeny destroyed. The story goes that the progeny of Krishna once had a great party on the sea-shore of Dwarika, his capital, when they consumed a lot of liquor. Maddened by liquor, they fought amongst each other, and all of them were killed.
For example, Gandhari, the wife of the blind Kaurava king Dhritarashtra, who was a virtuous woman (Sati), angered by the death of her hundred sons cursed Krishna that he will also live to see his progeny destroyed. The story goes that the progeny of Krishna once had a great party on the sea-shore of Dwarika, his capital, when they consumed a lot of liquor. Maddened by liquor, they fought amongst each other, and all of them were killed.
Well... that might be because the belief in an eternal creator god (issara-nimmana-vada) is simply incompatible with the Buddha's teachings. In Buddhist terms, it is a wrong view. It is not a matter of Western or Eastern, thinking or not thinking. It is simply a matter of reading the Pali canon (accepted by all traditions as the authentic teachings of the Buddha).
D
daak
Guest
May some big corrections be offered to the origional statment by Vajradhara
there are three main Vehicles in Buddhism (vehicle is a way of saying "school") Hinyana, Mahayana and Vajrayana.
>>> actually there are only 2 schools of Buddhism Theravadin and Mahayana vajirayana is a spinter off Mahayana.
Hinyana, of which the Theravedan sect is extant, is known as the "lesser" vehicle. this is mainly due to it's concern with the monastic rather than the laiety.
>>>Hinayana is a very derogative term > Theravadin is considered the teachings of the elders ( the origional teachings)
Mahayana, of which Zen is a sect of, is known as the "greater" vehicle. this is mainly due to it's concern with both the monastic and the laiety.
Vajrayana, is known as the "diamond or adamentine" vehicle. this is maninly due to it's concerns with actualizing the full potential of buddha-hood in this life time.
>> Vajirayana is the Tibetan school just like Zen is the Jappanese school which are both spinters off Mahayana Buddhism.
there are three main Vehicles in Buddhism (vehicle is a way of saying "school") Hinyana, Mahayana and Vajrayana.
>>> actually there are only 2 schools of Buddhism Theravadin and Mahayana vajirayana is a spinter off Mahayana.
Hinyana, of which the Theravedan sect is extant, is known as the "lesser" vehicle. this is mainly due to it's concern with the monastic rather than the laiety.
>>>Hinayana is a very derogative term > Theravadin is considered the teachings of the elders ( the origional teachings)
Mahayana, of which Zen is a sect of, is known as the "greater" vehicle. this is mainly due to it's concern with both the monastic and the laiety.
Vajrayana, is known as the "diamond or adamentine" vehicle. this is maninly due to it's concerns with actualizing the full potential of buddha-hood in this life time.
>> Vajirayana is the Tibetan school just like Zen is the Jappanese school which are both spinters off Mahayana Buddhism.
Vajradhara
One of Many
Namaste daak,
thank you for the post.
schools are different than Vehicles within the Buddhadharma. for instance, as you allude to below, Ch'an/Zen are schools of Buddhism which fall under the Mahayana Vehicle.
within the formulation of the Three Yanas there are Hinyana, Mahayana and Vajrayana. Whilst it is true that the only extant school of the Hinyana is Theraveda it is not the only school which was historically classed as part of that Vehicle.
it can be used in a derogatory manner however that is mostly a perception in the mind of the hearer or reader rather than an actual indictment inherent in the term.
with regards to Theraveda, it does indeed mean "teachings of the elders" however we must be cautious in applying the idea that this means these teachings are the original since we know, historically, that at least 17 other schools existed prior to the arising of the Theravedan school.
whilst this seems to be correct it actually is not. Vajrayana is a Vehicle of the Buddhadharma whereas Ch'an/Zen is a school. the terms are not synonymous. within the Vajrayana there are at least 6 extant schools such as Gelug or Nyingma for instance. Zen, itself, has two main schools; Soto and Rinzai.
the Mahayana is repleat with schools of praxis found in all regions where the Buddhadharma has spread. i would dare say that Western Buddhism is a new school arising out of the interaction between Buddhism and Western culture and, if that is so, it is most assuredly a Mahayana school in the making.
metta,
~v
thank you for the post.
schools are different than Vehicles within the Buddhadharma. for instance, as you allude to below, Ch'an/Zen are schools of Buddhism which fall under the Mahayana Vehicle.
within the formulation of the Three Yanas there are Hinyana, Mahayana and Vajrayana. Whilst it is true that the only extant school of the Hinyana is Theraveda it is not the only school which was historically classed as part of that Vehicle.
it can be used in a derogatory manner however that is mostly a perception in the mind of the hearer or reader rather than an actual indictment inherent in the term.
with regards to Theraveda, it does indeed mean "teachings of the elders" however we must be cautious in applying the idea that this means these teachings are the original since we know, historically, that at least 17 other schools existed prior to the arising of the Theravedan school.
whilst this seems to be correct it actually is not. Vajrayana is a Vehicle of the Buddhadharma whereas Ch'an/Zen is a school. the terms are not synonymous. within the Vajrayana there are at least 6 extant schools such as Gelug or Nyingma for instance. Zen, itself, has two main schools; Soto and Rinzai.
the Mahayana is repleat with schools of praxis found in all regions where the Buddhadharma has spread. i would dare say that Western Buddhism is a new school arising out of the interaction between Buddhism and Western culture and, if that is so, it is most assuredly a Mahayana school in the making.
metta,
~v
radarmark
Quaker-in-the-Making
Theravada (dates from the Fourth Council about 100 BCE) was an offshoot of Vibhayavada (dates from Third Council about 250 BCE) which comes from the root branch that survived the Hindu surpression, the Sthaviravada (half of Second Council of 380 BCE). While by tradition there 18 schools, most of these were schools of differing logic and the only remaining one is Thervada which posseses the oldest recordedTripitaka (began at Fourth Council).
So while the Pali Canon dates from only 70 BCE (when the Fourth Council broke up), it's words pretty accurately reflect the oral tradition back to about the Second Council (called to address the "Ten Points" of monistic life) as modified by the Third Council (called to address cooruption in the Sangha). It was between the Third and Fourth Councils that rifts began, but the Tripitaka was shared at this point.
So while the interpretations of Theravada and Mahayana differ the core of the Pali Canon is shared. The two other Canons (the Chinese and Tibetian) differ in small details in the shared portion (the Mahayana and Vaijrayana texts are in addition).
So while the Pali Canon dates from only 70 BCE (when the Fourth Council broke up), it's words pretty accurately reflect the oral tradition back to about the Second Council (called to address the "Ten Points" of monistic life) as modified by the Third Council (called to address cooruption in the Sangha). It was between the Third and Fourth Councils that rifts began, but the Tripitaka was shared at this point.
So while the interpretations of Theravada and Mahayana differ the core of the Pali Canon is shared. The two other Canons (the Chinese and Tibetian) differ in small details in the shared portion (the Mahayana and Vaijrayana texts are in addition).