Can someone explain the False Aspectarian View vs the True Aspectarian View?

A forum for those wishing to discuss Buddhist history and teachings in the Western academic manner, referencing appropriate sources.
Post Reply
Seeker12
Posts: 103
Joined: Mon May 08, 2017 5:54 pm

Can someone explain the False Aspectarian View vs the True Aspectarian View?

Post by Seeker12 » Tue Aug 22, 2017 8:09 pm

I'm interested in any insight related to the difference between these Cittamatra viewpoints.
Better than if there were thousands of meaningless words is
one meaningful word that on hearing brings peace. Dhp

User avatar
Losal Samten
Posts: 1346
Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2014 4:05 pm

Re: Can someone explain the False Aspectarian View vs the True Aspectarian View?

Post by Losal Samten » Tue Aug 22, 2017 8:33 pm

Adornment of the Middle Way, trans. Padmakara


True Aspectarians, p.240

Shantarakshita:
  • If consciousness is ultimately real,
    It must be manifold, or else its aspects are all one.
    Failing this, the mind and object are at variance
    And there's no doubt that they diverge.
Mipham:
  • There are in fact two subschools within the Chittamatra tenet system, both of which consider that the mind is ultimately existent. Whereas the True Aspectarians say that the appearing aspects truly exist as mind, the False Aspectarians deny this. There are no other interpretations possible aside from these two.

    In the case of the True Aspectarians, there are three possible ways in which the mental aspects and consciousness may be said quantitatively to relate. This is similar to the situation with the Sautrantikas, except that whereas the latter affirm the existence of outer objects and say that they cast their aspects on the mind, the Chittamatrins simply consider that the object is an appearing mental aspect and deny the existence of extramental entities. This is the only point on which the Sautrantikas and Chittamatrins disagree.

False Aspectarians, p.247

Shantarakshita:
  • Since, they say, in consciousness itself
    There are no mental aspects,
    The mind, which in reality is aspectless,
    Appears with aspects only through delusion.
Mipham:
  • Some may believe that within the very nature of consciousness, there are no mental aspects and that consciousness itself is essentially free of all such aspects, like a sphere of pure crystal. And yet, is it not the case that different aspects appear to the mind? The False Aspectarians reply that they do indeed appear. But in reality, such aspects are not in the mind; it is owing to a delusion, a mere mistake, that consciousness seems to be "aspected."

    ...

    In this way, the False Aspectarians reject the idea that the aspects are part and parcel of consciousness. For them, these aspects are false, just like the optical illusion of hairs floating in the air. Consequently, the mind does not possess different apprehending aspects equal in number to the aspects apprehended. If such (apprehending) aspects truly existed, this would contradict the fact that consciousness is one truly existent entity. But since these aspects are false illusions, there is no conflict between the singularity of consciousness and the plurality of the aspects. Consequently, the False Aspectarians consider that the faults just attributed to the True Aspectarians do not apply to them; on the contrary, they believe that they are quite correct in upholding the true existence of consciousness, which is clear and knowing.
Conclusion, pp.249-250

Mipham:
  • Therefore, the authentic Chittamatra is the system of the True Aspectarians (who are authors of excellent treatises). On the other hand, in saying that the outer object is not even truly existent as the mind, the False Aspectarians are a little closer to the understanding that things are empty of true existence and thus provide, in a manner of speaking, a bridge to the Madhyamaka. Although in the correct ordering of things the False Aspectarians are, as a result, placed higher on the scale of views, nevertheless, because the system exhibits many inconsistencies on the level of the conventional truth, the conventional should be expounded according to the system of the True Aspectarians.
Lacking mindfulness, we commit every wrong. - Nyoshul Khen Rinpoche
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔
ཨཱོཾ་མ་ཏྲི་མུ་ཡེ་སལེ་འདུ།།

User avatar
Queequeg
Global Moderator
Posts: 5149
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: Can someone explain the False Aspectarian View vs the True Aspectarian View?

Post by Queequeg » Fri Aug 25, 2017 4:53 pm

Deep. Who is this Mipham character?
:smile:
Those who, even with distracted minds,
Entered a stupa compound
And chanted but once, “Namo Buddhaya!”
Have certainly attained the path of the buddhas.

-Saddharmapundarikasutra, Upaya Chapter

User avatar
Losal Samten
Posts: 1346
Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2014 4:05 pm

Re: Can someone explain the False Aspectarian View vs the True Aspectarian View?

Post by Losal Samten » Fri Aug 25, 2017 6:30 pm

Queequeg wrote:Deep. Who is this Mipham character?
:smile:
The third and latest (1846-1912) of the "Three Omniscient Ones" of the Nyingma school, famed for harmonising the views of Madhyamaka and Dzogchen.
Lacking mindfulness, we commit every wrong. - Nyoshul Khen Rinpoche
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔
ཨཱོཾ་མ་ཏྲི་མུ་ཡེ་སལེ་འདུ།།

User avatar
Queequeg
Global Moderator
Posts: 5149
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: Can someone explain the False Aspectarian View vs the True Aspectarian View?

Post by Queequeg » Fri Aug 25, 2017 7:26 pm

The other two being... Padmasambhava and Longchenpa?
Those who, even with distracted minds,
Entered a stupa compound
And chanted but once, “Namo Buddhaya!”
Have certainly attained the path of the buddhas.

-Saddharmapundarikasutra, Upaya Chapter

User avatar
dzogchungpa
Posts: 6017
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 10:50 pm

Re: Can someone explain the False Aspectarian View vs the True Aspectarian View?

Post by dzogchungpa » Fri Aug 25, 2017 7:27 pm

Queequeg wrote:The other two being... Padmasambhava and Longchenpa?
Rongzompa and Longchenpa.
Everything is divided
Nothing is complete
Everything looks impressive
Do not be deceived - David Byrne

User avatar
Queequeg
Global Moderator
Posts: 5149
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: Can someone explain the False Aspectarian View vs the True Aspectarian View?

Post by Queequeg » Fri Aug 25, 2017 7:33 pm

OK, Never heard of Rongzampa... are you pulling my leg and telling me I'm rong, er, wrong?

Man, so much to learn, so little time.
Those who, even with distracted minds,
Entered a stupa compound
And chanted but once, “Namo Buddhaya!”
Have certainly attained the path of the buddhas.

-Saddharmapundarikasutra, Upaya Chapter

User avatar
dzogchungpa
Posts: 6017
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 10:50 pm

Re: Can someone explain the False Aspectarian View vs the True Aspectarian View?

Post by dzogchungpa » Fri Aug 25, 2017 7:38 pm

Queequeg wrote:OK, Never heard of Rongzampa... are you pulling my leg and telling me I'm rong, er, wrong?

Man, so much to learn, so little time.
'Wrongzompa' is good. I'm definitely going to originate that at some point. :smile:
Everything is divided
Nothing is complete
Everything looks impressive
Do not be deceived - David Byrne

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 27259
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Can someone explain the False Aspectarian View vs the True Aspectarian View?

Post by Malcolm » Sun Aug 27, 2017 12:38 am

Losal Samten wrote:
  • Therefore, the authentic Chittamatra is the system of the True Aspectarians (who are authors of excellent treatises). On the other hand, in saying that the outer object is not even truly existent as the mind, the False Aspectarians are a little closer to the understanding that things are empty of true existence and thus provide, in a manner of speaking, a bridge to the Madhyamaka. Although in the correct ordering of things the False Aspectarians are, as a result, placed higher on the scale of views, nevertheless, because the system exhibits many inconsistencies on the level of the conventional truth, the conventional should be expounded according to the system of the True Aspectarians.
This is Mipham following Rongston Sheja Kunrig.
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


[A]nything at all that is well spoken is the word of the Buddha.

-- Ārya-adhyāśaya-sañcodana-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

-- Samadhirāja Sūtra

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Kenneth Chan and 14 guests