Is the tenets system of the four schools a result of historical evolving or a static doctrine set by Shakyamuni Buddha? In case of the former, what is the latest change? In case of the latter, which scripture is the evidence?
Dose the handling of the tenets differs among other Buddhism traditions? What is the 4 tenets called together in Sanskrit? I don't mean the name of each tenet, but the name use to call the tenets as a whole.
On page 175 of the book - specifically I'm interested in how the Proponents of the Great Exposition posit that when an effect is produced its causes cease, yet also assert that an effect arises after the termination of its cause: So if the effect is produced and the cause ceases, how can an effect arise after the termination of that cause?
Also, the Proponents of the Mind Only school assert that imputational natures do not truly exist, yet they assert the true existence of dependent natures. This seems to be contradictory to me. If dependent natures truly exist - how can imputational natures not truly exist? This seems a contradiction between the first and third wheel.
Also, on page 177, I would like to better understand the case of the Vatsiputriyas. I found this difficult to follow. This school does express a self of persons yet somehow they maintain the Four Seals? If Geshe-La would speak on this for us, I think it would be helpful for me to understand the above questions I had. I'm interested in learning what exactly a Nihilist is by way of example.
page 124, paragraph 2. "In the Sutra School, the Followers of Scripture are said to assert that the continuum of the aggregates is the person". Do they mean the aggregates are a collective, inseparable whole or five individual, unique subtle factors. Does this mean they do not believe consciousness to be imputed upon the aggregates but that each aggregate somehow contains it's own identifiable consciousness?
page 176, paragraph 3. "The Proponents of the Middle Way School... They consider that they are free from the extreme of permanence because [they assert that] all phenomena whatsoever are without ultimate existence." Doesn't this statement support that space, emptiness, and Buddhahood are impermanent? Just because we can't at this time explain how or if space was created doesn't mean it is was not created by causes and conditions. Do we need an object defining permanence to debate a point on impermanence - no. We only need a quality to be disproved. How do we know that a consciousness evolving to Buddhahood does not evolve further? What if there is a quality beyond omniscience?
Does The Mind Only School believe conventional phenomena is a projection from the mind consciousness? I am so unsure about their view. Can you explain in detail?
1. Even though the "first" tenet leads to the "second", etc., is each tenet still independently valid? Does anyone just stop with one of the tenets and say "that's a sufficient understanding for me" or does a believer in, let's say, the fourth tenet think a believer who "stops" at the third tenet is really missing something crucial. Or put yet another way, can any one of the tenets get me to my long view goal, or must I progress with full understanding through all four? The use of the terms "higher" and "lower" tenets seems to suggest "better" or "worse"
2. In the reading on pages 120-23, I could not figure out what exactly "Objects" means as opposed to Object Possessors. I think I could understand a bit of what "Object Possessors" means. But is the meaning of "Object" the meaning we can give that an "object" is a particular "thing". (A desk is an "object") or is it "object" as in a "goal" ("The object of today's lesson is to understand how airplanes fly") Or something else entirely?
3. I am not at all sure I fully understand the description of what the Third Wheel on p. 172.
Could you please help me understand your comment about something seeming "contradictory" is merely a "subtle" difference. What is meant by that? It is not clear to me. Thank you. Question from the readings. Are tenents like different lens of different pairs of glasses? By that, I mean that one pair is for someone who is far-sighted and another for one who is near-sighted, etc? All are looking at the same reality or path but with different aides? Are they progressive or complementary or a means of organizing different interpretations of Buddhist philosophy? Or, are they different paths leading to Enlightenment?
1) Why isn't more reference made to the Vedas or some form of Hinduism made in the section on non-Buddhist tenets, or is that the mimansakas? It seems like a short dismissal for such a large system of teachings.
2) Though a person's mental continuum is a dependent-arising and has no inherent existence, it does seem to be unique to that person. At any given moment, the imputed self is like a miraculous convergence of causes and conditions making it more precious and harder to let go of than a static, predefined self .
Is the tenets system of the four schools a result of historical evolving or a static doctrine set by Shakyamuni Buddha? In case of the former, what is the latest change? In case of the latter, which scripture is the evidence?
ReplyDeleteDose the handling of the tenets differs among other Buddhism traditions?
ReplyDeleteWhat is the 4 tenets called together in Sanskrit? I don't mean the name of each tenet, but the name use to call the tenets as a whole.
Please clarify the names of the 4 schools, is Madyamaka the same as Mind Only and Great Vehicle and Mahayana?
ReplyDeleteWhat is the difference between afflictions and obscurations?
What are the three natures in the mind only school? brief explanation.
bottom of page 177, top of 178, please explain more clearly,
On page 175 of the book - specifically I'm interested in how the Proponents of the Great Exposition posit that when an effect is produced its causes cease, yet also assert that an effect arises after the termination of its cause: So if the effect is produced and the cause ceases, how can an effect arise after the termination of that cause?
ReplyDeleteAlso, the Proponents of the Mind Only school assert that imputational natures do not truly exist, yet they assert the true existence of dependent natures. This seems to be contradictory to me. If dependent natures truly exist - how can imputational natures not truly exist? This seems a contradiction between the first and third wheel.
Also, on page 177, I would like to better understand the case of the Vatsiputriyas. I found this difficult to follow. This school does express a self of persons yet somehow they maintain the Four Seals? If Geshe-La would speak on this for us, I think it would be helpful for me to understand the above questions I had. I'm interested in learning what exactly a Nihilist is by way of example.
please teach us the proper spelling and help us to properly pronounce the names of the four Tenets?
ReplyDeleteCan you give us the Sanskrit and Tibetan names a little more clearly so we know how to identify them both ways?
Is there an English translation for each of the names that helps us to put them into a particular context?
And, what is the order they're typically studied/discussed?
page 124, paragraph 2. "In the Sutra School, the Followers of Scripture are said to assert that the continuum of the aggregates is the person".
ReplyDeleteDo they mean the aggregates are a collective, inseparable whole or five individual, unique subtle factors. Does this mean they do not believe
consciousness to be imputed upon the aggregates but that each aggregate somehow contains it's own identifiable consciousness?
page 176, paragraph 3. "The Proponents of the Middle Way School... They consider that they are free from the extreme of permanence because
[they assert that] all phenomena whatsoever are without ultimate existence." Doesn't this statement support that space, emptiness, and
Buddhahood are impermanent? Just because we can't at this time explain how or if space was created doesn't mean it is was not created by
causes and conditions. Do we need an object defining permanence to debate a point on impermanence - no. We only need a quality to be
disproved. How do we know that a consciousness evolving to Buddhahood does not evolve further? What if there is a quality beyond omniscience?
Does The Mind Only School believe conventional phenomena is a projection from the mind consciousness? I am so unsure about their view. Can you explain in detail?
1. Even though the "first" tenet leads to the "second", etc., is each
ReplyDeletetenet still independently valid? Does anyone just stop with one of
the tenets and say "that's a sufficient understanding for me" or does
a believer in, let's say, the fourth tenet think a believer who
"stops" at the third tenet is really missing something crucial. Or
put yet another way, can any one of the tenets get me to my long view
goal, or must I progress with full understanding through all four?
The use of the terms "higher" and "lower" tenets seems to suggest
"better" or "worse"
2. In the reading on pages 120-23, I could not figure out what
exactly "Objects" means as opposed to Object Possessors. I think I
could understand a bit of what "Object Possessors" means. But is the
meaning of "Object" the meaning we can give that an "object" is a
particular "thing". (A desk is an "object") or is it "object" as in a
"goal" ("The object of today's lesson is to understand how airplanes
fly") Or something else entirely?
3. I am not at all sure I fully understand the description of what
the Third Wheel on p. 172.
Could you please help me understand your comment about something seeming "contradictory" is merely a "subtle" difference. What is meant by that? It is not clear to me. Thank you.
ReplyDeleteQuestion from the readings.
Are tenents like different lens of different pairs of glasses? By that, I mean that one pair is for someone who is far-sighted and another for one who is near-sighted, etc? All are looking at the same reality or path but with different aides?
Are they progressive or complementary or a means of organizing different interpretations of Buddhist philosophy? Or, are they different paths leading to Enlightenment?
1) Why isn't more reference made to the Vedas or some form of Hinduism made in the section on non-Buddhist tenets, or is that the mimansakas? It seems like a short dismissal for such a large system of teachings.
ReplyDelete2) Though a person's mental continuum is a dependent-arising and has no inherent existence, it does seem to be unique to that person. At any given moment, the imputed self is like a miraculous convergence of causes and conditions making it more precious and harder to let go of than a static, predefined self .