Vajracakra

The Forum For Traditional Vajrayāna
It is currently Tue Oct 17, 2017 9:16 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 13 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Feb 21, 2014 5:23 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2012 8:59 pm
Posts: 105
I have some quotes from the new books from Karl Brunnholzl which show Indians were not the "mind only" (Cittamatra) proponents. Enjoy:)

Karl Brunnholzl
Prajiiaparamita, Indian "gzhan stong pas", And the Beginning of Tibetan gzhan stong

p.16


Model (2) (which is found in the Brhattlkii and the Amniiyiinusiirini as well as in . most Tibetan works on gzhan stong) is:
that parinispanna itself is empty of both paratantra and parikaipita (the perfect nature is empty of both the imaginary and the dependent nature )

p.99

The author of the
Amna yanusarifll obviously regards his pres entation of the three natures as
repres enting Madhyamaka and not as the common Y ogadira or Vi jfianavada
position (its Sakara-Vi jfianavadin branch in particular is sharply criticized) .
While always promoting model (2) of the relationship between the three
nature s, the soteriolo gical sufficiency of the usual Y ogacara model (1) is
explicitly denied.

p.122

Prasastrasena 's Arya pra jfia paramitahrda yati ka clos ely
follows the Brhattz ka and the Satasahasrikapra jfia paramitabrhattz ka in us­
ing this threef old division of phenomena, thus also pres enting model (2) of
the relationship between the three natures.

p.195-196

Among modern scholars , it seems to be generally accepted that Dol po pa
was the first one to use the terms rang stong and gzhan stong in a systematic
and extensive way and widely propagated the gzhan stong system.

However, as the excerpts from the above works show, at least in
terms of the contents, if not the name, there clearly were Indian and Tibetan
precursors who discussed crucial elements of what came to be called the
gzhan stong view in Tibet, though they did not use that term and did not
necessarily give full-fledged or systematic presentations of gzhan stong as
found in later Tibetan works by Dol po pa and others .

Theref ore , it seems to be justified to ref er to the au­
thors of the Brhattz kii, the Amniiyiinusiirt1J z, and the Satasiihasrikiipra jfiii pii­
ramitiibrhattz kii, Sa jj ana, Ratnakarasanti, and maybe Prasastrasena as (at
least partial) Indian forerunners of "Great Madhyamaka" in the sense of
being an equivalent of the gzhan stong view.

Karl Brunnholzl
MINING FOR WISDOM WITHIN DELUSION

p.145

Jftanacandra
explains that, just as the dharmadhatu is constituted by the
lack of the false imaginary nature, wisdom is also characterized by seeing the
lack of apprehender and apprehended.343
However, it is not that, by .virtue
of nonconceptual wisdom not seeing any duality, it is one of the four kinds
of nonexistents. Nonconceptual wisdom is neither something that did not
exist before nor something that has become nonexistent after having been
destroyed, because arising and ceasing appear only in conditioned phenomena.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 21, 2014 2:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2012 11:30 am
Posts: 3848
All of these authors you mention are quite late in the game, and Karl B admits that Maitrreya, Asanga and Vasubandhu indeed are type one, i.e. common Yogacara.

_________________
Belief is useless.

-- Chogyal Namkhai Norbu


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 22, 2014 9:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2012 8:59 pm
Posts: 105
Malcolm wrote:
All of these authors you mention are quite late in the game, and Karl B admits that Maitrreya, Asanga and Vasubandhu indeed are type one, i.e. common Yogacara.
so???


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 23, 2014 8:38 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2012 11:30 am
Posts: 3848
mariusz wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
All of these authors you mention are quite late in the game, and Karl B admits that Maitrreya, Asanga and Vasubandhu indeed are type one, i.e. common Yogacara.
so???



So it means your lead in is entirely misleading since the founders of the Yogacara system arguably were cittamatrins.

_________________
Belief is useless.

-- Chogyal Namkhai Norbu


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 23, 2014 10:37 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2012 8:59 pm
Posts: 105
Malcolm wrote:
mariusz wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
All of these authors you mention are quite late in the game, and Karl B admits that Maitrreya, Asanga and Vasubandhu indeed are type one, i.e. common Yogacara.
so???



So it means your lead in is entirely misleading since the founders of the Yogacara system arguably were cittamatrins.
entirely misleading? Perhaps you should consider:
Karl Brunnholzl's The Center of the Sunlit Sky- "In general, the masters of the Yogacara tradition saw their system as a continuation of all the preceding developments in Buddhism (be it in terms of Abhidharma or Centrism) and not as a radical departure from them or even as a distinct new school per se"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 23, 2014 11:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2012 11:30 am
Posts: 3848
mariusz wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
mariusz wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
All of these authors you mention are quite late in the game, and Karl B admits that Maitrreya, Asanga and Vasubandhu indeed are type one, i.e. common Yogacara.
so???



So it means your lead in is entirely misleading since the founders of the Yogacara system arguably were cittamatrins.
entirely misleading? Perhaps you should consider:
Karl Brunnholzl's The Center of the Sunlit Sky- "In general, the masters of the Yogacara tradition saw their system as a continuation of all the preceding developments in Buddhism (be it in terms of Abhidharma or Centrism) and not as a radical departure from them or even as a distinct new school per se"


Your reply is a total non-sequitar.

Yes, your lead in is entirely misleading. It implies that all Indian Yogacara works are not mind only. And even this is problematical.

Anyone who reads the book you cite will discover that the so called "cittamatrin" presentation of the three natures is the type one presentation as presented by Maitreya, as well as Asanga, Vasubandhu, Sthiramati and so on. You should read Tsongkhapa's book on Yogacara where he clearly demonstrates how this is so, as well as the Legs bshad snying po, and Gorampa's lta ba shan byed where they explain the gzhan stong errors of interpretation of the three natures.

_________________
Belief is useless.

-- Chogyal Namkhai Norbu


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 23, 2014 11:17 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2012 8:59 pm
Posts: 105
Malcolm wrote:
It implies that all Indian Yogacara works are not mind only
all?

:shock: where????


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 23, 2014 12:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2012 11:30 am
Posts: 3848
mariusz wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
It implies that all Indian Yogacara works are not mind only
all?

:shock: where????


Quote:
Indian works on Yogacara were not "mind only"!


If you wish to restrict this sentence, you would have to have said "Some Indian works on Yogacara were not "mind only"!"

Otherwise, in the English language, your title means "[All] Indian works on Yogacara were not "mind only"!."

That is just how English works.

_________________
Belief is useless.

-- Chogyal Namkhai Norbu


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 24, 2014 5:00 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2012 8:59 pm
Posts: 105
Thanks for grammar - always good to learn it.

Karl concluded in "Prajnaparamita, Indian "gzhan stong pas", And the Beginning of Tibetan gzhan stong" (p.195):

the excerpts from the above works show, at least in
terms of the contents, if not the name, there clearly were Indian and Tibetan
precursors who discussed crucial elements of what came to be called the
gzhan stong view in Tibet, though they did not use that term and did not
necessarily give full-fledged or systematic presentations of gzhan stong as
found in later Tibetan works by Dolpo pa and others .


It works for me but other interpretations failed. The echo of these "some" indians is still crucial now.

For example Zurchungpa’s Testament by Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche (p.235) use it:

All phenomena that arise interdependently, when investigated with
reasoning directed at their ultimate status, have no inherent birth, so what
is born is unborn, like the horses and oxen in a magical illusion.

What is uncompounded and has not been born through causes and
conditionsis unborn, like space.
Compounded phenomena do not exist as such, sowhat will never be
born is unborn, like the son of a barren woman.
Forms and suchlike have no intrinsic existence, sowhat appears is
unborn, like a dream.
There is nothing that can produce emptiness, soemptiness is unborn,
like the horn of a rabbit.

Since it cannot be grasped with certainty—one cannot say, “This is it”—
awareness is unborn, like the eight consciousnesses of a person in an illusion.
Since the unborn—or emptiness—is not one-sided, it has the potential to
appear in every possible way:the unborn appears, like an optical illusion.
Since it is beyond intellectual investigation and has been unborn from
the very beginning,the unborn is primordially nonexistent, like space,
which has always been so.

The unborn is not affected by the concepts of the eight extremes—
existence, nonexistence, and so forth—just as one cannot say, “Space is this
(or that),” so the unborn is free from extremes.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 24, 2014 7:18 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2012 11:30 am
Posts: 3848
mariusz wrote:
Thanks for grammar - always good to learn it.

Karl concluded in "Prajnaparamita, Indian "gzhan stong pas", And the Beginning of Tibetan gzhan stong" (p.195):

the excerpts from the above works show, at least in
terms of the contents, if not the name, there clearly were Indian and Tibetan
precursors who discussed crucial elements of what came to be called the
gzhan stong view in Tibet, though they did not use that term and did not
necessarily give full-fledged or systematic presentations of gzhan stong as
found in later Tibetan works by Dolpo pa and others .


It works for me but other interpretations failed. The echo of these "some" indians is still crucial now.

For example Zurchungpa’s Testament by Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche (p.235) use it:

All phenomena that arise interdependently, when investigated with
reasoning directed at their ultimate status, have no inherent birth, so what
is born is unborn, like the horses and oxen in a magical illusion.

What is uncompounded and has not been born through causes and
conditionsis unborn, like space.
Compounded phenomena do not exist as such, sowhat will never be
born is unborn, like the son of a barren woman.
Forms and suchlike have no intrinsic existence, sowhat appears is
unborn, like a dream.
There is nothing that can produce emptiness, soemptiness is unborn,
like the horn of a rabbit.

Since it cannot be grasped with certainty—one cannot say, “This is it”—
awareness is unborn, like the eight consciousnesses of a person in an illusion.
Since the unborn—or emptiness—is not one-sided, it has the potential to
appear in every possible way:the unborn appears, like an optical illusion.
Since it is beyond intellectual investigation and has been unborn from
the very beginning,the unborn is primordially nonexistent, like space,
which has always been so.

The unborn is not affected by the concepts of the eight extremes—
existence, nonexistence, and so forth—just as one cannot say, “Space is this
(or that),” so the unborn is free from extremes.


This this just standard madhyamaka.

_________________
Belief is useless.

-- Chogyal Namkhai Norbu


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 13 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group