Moderator: Tibetan Buddhism moderators
"Johnny Dangerous"]Ok, not trying to start another "true self" thread, but wondering if someone can clarify this stuff for me:
Basically as I understand it Prasangika Madhymaka simply makes no assertion as to the state of ultimate reality, as it is impossible to describe, so makes no statement about ultimate reality being empty or dependently originated one way or another, due to the fact that we simply cannot describe ultimate realty in any terms, it is outside our capabilities...is this basically correct?
I do not understand the Shentong criticism of this exactly, is it a claim that Rangtong says that ultimate reality is dependently originated (seems incorrect to me, since there is no such assertion being made by Rangtong to my reading) or is it something different?
Also, how is Shentong not monism..being as it is asserting such a thing as an "absolute reality" or permanent substance? Or is it, in fact just monism?
I take it that Shentong is a minority view in Tibetan Buddhism, but how widely held is it? At
first glance it also seems to go against the general trend of even parts of the Pali Canon, where
definite claims about existence and non existence are avoided in reference to ultimate reality...am misunderstanding some nuance of it.
It seems like the different sects have a wide variety of views on the subject, is there any kind of standard for the lineages, or is it simply a subject of debate?
Good question,hmmm.not sure if I even know if this topic is even mentioned in Shentong texts.
Well lets poke at it,is all the Buddhas perfectly Enlightened?is it the same enlightedment or is there different full enlightenments? Do the Buddhas have different personalities where they can disagree with one anouther?
I suppose if Enlightenment is one then all Buddhas are perfectly one with one Full Enlightenment,unless Enlightenment is different for all Buddhas.
Karma Dorje wrote:Johnny, rangtong and shentong are not meant as doctrinal positions outside of praxis. Rather, rangtong is intended to thoroughly undercut all grasping at self as an entity. Doctrinally, you could say that this would be enough because as you say, there is nothing at all posited. Practically, there is still a tendency to grasp at emptiness. Shentong corrects this kind of conceptual uptightness.
It's really somewhat pointless to put these two approaches in opposition to each other. Shentong depends upon and enhances the understanding of rangtong.
There is no "your view vs. My view" in my question, i'm not asking what someone said in another thread on DW, I asking about the actual schools of thought.
That's the thing though, the whole point of Prasangika madhyamika is to NOT poke at the question at all, that's why it seems odd to me that Shentong is only able to claim Rangtong is incorrect - by poking at it where the other does not, basically by saying it claims something it never claims, because it is only Shentong's (seemingly questionable) inference that makes their argument possible.
Anyway, on that note in the book he seems to be saying that the purpose of Shentong is 'fix' Prasangika Madhyamika' s supposed subtle problem of negating Tathgatagarbha as dependently originated by implication rather than assertion. If my understanding is correct, in Prasangika Madhyamika there is no actual assertion of anything, and that is the point. So I don't really understand how Shentong adds anything to the equation other than a statement of absolute reality...which is something that seems a bit strained to me when layed side by side with Pali Canon literature with quotes like this:
So again, what i'm asking I guess is how/why Shentong sees Rangtong as asserting dependent origination of Buddha Nature/Whatever you call it, since it appears to me it doesn't do that, unless I missed something. I found the explanation of this part of the book really confusing.
"By and large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by a polarity, that of existence and non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, "non-existence" with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, "existence" with reference to the world does not occur to one."
gregkavarnos wrote:In other words: sit your ass down and practice!
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], quince and 23 guests