A question to the Buddhist schollars.

[Seth Ananda]

Hi fellow Tibetan Buddhist Bums, {and you lurking Taoists too lol}

 

I have been reading Nargajuna and Longchenpa. I personally really love them both and am getting lots out of my study.

To me It seems they are speaking the same language, but I hear they are considered to be belonging to two different schools of thought, Shen Tong and Rang Tong.

 

These two schools have had epic debates over the centuries.

I have tried finding some easy to understand descriptions of the differences in thought of these schools, but so far only found heavy schollarly readings.

 

Can someone describe the schools and the differences in thought, and what they took Issue with, an fairly plane english.

 

I find it easier to deal with heavy schollar lingo when somone has given me a good simple explanation first.

 

So, Hit me!

[goldisheavy]

Hi fellow Tibetan Buddhist Bums, {and you lurking Taoists too lol}

 

I have been reading Nargajuna and Longchenpa. I personally really love them both and am getting lots out of my study.

To me It seems they are speaking the same language, but I hear they are considered to be belonging to two different schools of thought, Shen Tong and Rang Tong.

 

These two schools have had epic debates over the centuries.

I have tried finding some easy to understand descriptions of the differences in thought of these schools, but so far only found heavy schollarly readings.

 

Can someone describe the schools and the differences in thought, and what they took Issue with, an fairly plane english.

 

I find it easier to deal with heavy schollar lingo when somone has given me a good simple explanation first.

 

So, Hit me!

 

Forget about this. The main debate right now is between physicalism and everything else. No Buddhist school of thought embraces physicalism to my knowledge. Both tongs reject physicalist explanations because physicalism is precisely the idea that substance, something inherent, exists. Substance is considered inherently existent. That's kind of what the law of the conservation of energy is all about. It says that there is an eternally fixed amount of stuff and this stuff transforms itself according to laws of physics and mind is simply brain activity. This is the view of physicalism.

 

This is the view that gets heavy representation at this time.

Edited July 19, 2011 by goldisheavy

[rex]

I'm no scholar but there is a nice exposition in the preface of Issue 3 of Shenpen Osel:

 

http://www.shenpen-osel.org/issue3.pdf

 

In the Nyingma the official view is rangtong though I've been taught to view the approaches as tools. Use shentong to gain confidence, use rangtong not to limit oneself to what arises (though don't disregard it either).

[xabir2005]

Forget about this. The main debate right now is between physicalism and everything else. No Buddhist school of thought embraces physicalism to my knowledge. Both tongs reject physicalist explanations because physicalism is precisely the idea that substance, something inherent, exists. Substance is considered inherently existent. That's kind of what the law of the conservation of energy is all about. It says that there is an eternally fixed amount of stuff and this stuff transforms itself according to laws of physics and mind is simply brain activity. This is the view of physicalism.

 

This is the view that gets heavy representation at this time.

on the contrary, sravaka schools up till today assert the reality of mind + matter.

 

Mahayana schools accept the distinction of mind and matter but only as conventions since mind and matter are empty.

 

However, no Buddhist schools except some extreme strain of shentong leaning towards the eternalist view of mind... Actually assert an unchanging overarching mind subsuming everything. That is hindu view. Even yogacara mind-only only goes as far as to describe all as unique, impermanent mindstreams and treats this as real.

[xabir2005]

Hi fellow Tibetan Buddhist Bums, {and you lurking Taoists too lol}

 

I have been reading Nargajuna and Longchenpa. I personally really love them both and am getting lots out of my study.

To me It seems they are speaking the same language, but I hear they are considered to be belonging to two different schools of thought, Shen Tong and Rang Tong.

 

These two schools have had epic debates over the centuries.

I have tried finding some easy to understand descriptions of the differences in thought of these schools, but so far only found heavy schollarly readings.

 

Can someone describe the schools and the differences in thought, and what they took Issue with, an fairly plane english.

 

I find it easier to deal with heavy schollar lingo when somone has given me a good simple explanation first.

 

So, Hit me!

actually shentong is an interpretation of nagarjuna's middle way, and shentong people delineates two interpretation of nagarjuna: shentong and rangtong.

But in reality shentong and rangtong are bogeyman distinctions of shentong.

 

Nagarjuna's refutation of rang stong [instrinsic emptiness]:

 

If there something subtle not empty,

there would be something subtle to be empty;

as there is nothing not empty,

where is there something to be empty?

 

And his refutation of gzhan stong [extrinsic emptiness]:

 

Since arising, abiding and perishing are not established,

the conditioned is not established;

since the conditioned is never established,

how can the unconditioned be established?

Edited July 19, 2011 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

on the contrary, sravaka schools up till today assert the reality of mind + matter.

 

Mahayana schools accept the distinction of mind and matter but only as conventions since mind and matter are empty.

 

However, no Buddhist schools except some extreme strain of shentong leaning towards the eternalist view of mind... Actually assert an unchanging overarching mind subsuming everything. That is hindu view. Even yogacara mind-only only goes as far as to describe all as unique, impermanent mindstreams and treats this as real.

that said in reality many masters in various traditions only go as far as substantial nonduality and fail to realize anatta and shunyata

[Apech]

Hi seth,

 

I'm going to try to answer your OP (rather than tell you you asked the wrong question!).

 

I studied Buddhist philosophy about ten years ago and this is from memory and also I will just say how I understand it in my own terms (i.e simple English).

 

The whole philosophical journey starts with asking whether or not anything exists which is fundamentally real in and of itself. In other words is there anything, object, idea or essence which does not depend on anything else to exist, is permanent and is wholly itself (i.e. has not parts). If there is - then it has a self.

 

Its fairly easy to look round the observable world and see that there isn't anything like this. Just ask yourself about the objects in the room where you are sitting one by one, was it brought about by some process external to itself? will it last forever? is it made of parts? the answer to all three is always yes. So no ordinary objects have a 'self'. Having done this then turn the spotlight on the thoughts and ideas in your mind and you will similarly see that they arise dependent on causes, have a finite lifetime and can be broken down into parts - although it is slightly harder to see than with objects this is still the case. Lastly turn the spotlight on yourself. How did you arise? Will you live for ever? Do you have parts? And you will see just like everything else you have no self.

 

In essence this is the Rantong view. Everything is empty of self. And that's it. Obviously it has huge ramifications but in itself it is as simple as that.

 

Some people's reaction to this is to suggest either that as things appear to exist then there must be some eternal essence underpinning them - even though those things in themselves have no self - the essence does have a self. This is Eternalism. otherwise some people go the other way and say because nothing has a self then everything is meaningless and there is just a complete absence of anything. This is Nihilism. The Rantong view refutes both of these positions although it holds resolutely to the view of emptiness of self and refuses to accept the underlying essence of Eternalists or the complete absence of the Nihilists.

 

The 'problem' arises then in examining what are viewed as the positive qualities of Buddhahood, or the enlightened mind. For instance the enlightened mind is compassionate. From where does compassion arise? Same for generosity, patience and so on. Where do these qualities come from? Is the compassion of the enlightened mind actually real? the Zhentong school would say yes. They would say that although the Rantong view is correct in that nothing has a self, in fact Buddha-nature is a real existent and the origin of the positive qualities of the enlightened mind and Buddhahood. In this case the Zhentong Buddhists say that everything is 'empty of other', that is empty of anything other than Buddha-nature itself.

 

So Rantong = empty of self

Zhentong = empty of other

 

The Rantong Buddhist would say oh this is just reintroducing the self when we got rid of it. But the Zhentong Buddhists would say if you practice any kind of tantra then you are already implicitly accepting the Zhentong view (because of the yiddam).

 

In the end these are philosophical views which are not the same as inner realization - following which there will be no conflict at all.

 

This is my go at answering your questions. Hope it helps. I'm sure if I got something fundamentally wrong I will be corrected by our 'real' Buddhists.

[goldisheavy]

on the contrary, sravaka schools up till today assert the reality of mind + matter.

 

Mahayana schools accept the distinction of mind and matter but only as conventions since mind and matter are empty.

 

However, no Buddhist schools except some extreme strain of shentong leaning towards the eternalist view of mind... Actually assert an unchanging overarching mind subsuming everything. That is hindu view. Even yogacara mind-only only goes as far as to describe all as unique, impermanent mindstreams and treats this as real.

 

I'm not buying it. In my personal experience most Buddhists cling to physicalism no matter what they claim. Once you start asking them hard questions physicalism reveals itself almost invariably. I'm talking about the Buddhists that hang out on the Internet, which are mostly the Western kind. I don't know what the actual Tibetans believe, but I wouldn't be surprised if they too are physicalists by and large, who learned how to pepper their physicalist views with the Middle Way rhetoric.

 

Part of the reason for this state of affairs is that physicalism in the West has become extremely subtle and refined. We have ideas like quantum fluctuations, probability waves, and so on. This makes Western physicalism almost like Rangtong in and of itself. Modern physicalism denies solidity of ordinary objects. Of course modern physicalism has no theory of mind, other than to say the mind is a result of a specific type of brain activity. So many people who claim Rangtong view simply patch this up a bit by saying mind is real, but then they leave the entire non-mind side of the equation untouched, with all the probability waves, laws of physics, quantum mechanics, etc... so it ends up being an incoherent mishmash of a view.

Edited July 19, 2011 by goldisheavy

[goldisheavy]

Hi seth,

 

I'm going to try to answer your OP (rather than tell you you asked the wrong question!).

 

I studied Buddhist philosophy about ten years ago and this is from memory and also I will just say how I understand it in my own terms (i.e simple English).

 

The whole philosophical journey starts with asking whether or not anything exists which is fundamentally real in and of itself. In other words is there anything, object, idea or essence which does not depend on anything else to exist, is permanent and is wholly itself (i.e. has not parts). If there is - then it has a self.

 

Its fairly easy to look round the observable world and see that there isn't anything like this. Just ask yourself about the objects in the room where you are sitting one by one, was it brought about by some process external to itself? will it last forever? is it made of parts? the answer to all three is always yes. So no ordinary objects have a 'self'. Having done this then turn the spotlight on the thoughts and ideas in your mind and you will similarly see that they arise dependent on causes, have a finite lifetime and can be broken down into parts - although it is slightly harder to see than with objects this is still the case. Lastly turn the spotlight on yourself. How did you arise? Will you live for ever? Do you have parts? And you will see just like everything else you have no self.

 

In essence this is the Rantong view. Everything is empty of self. And that's it. Obviously it has huge ramifications but in itself it is as simple as that.

 

Some people's reaction to this is to suggest either that as things appear to exist then there must be some eternal essence underpinning them - even though those things in themselves have no self - the essence does have a self. This is Eternalism. otherwise some people go the other way and say because nothing has a self then everything is meaningless and there is just a complete absence of anything. This is Nihilism. The Rantong view refutes both of these positions although it holds resolutely to the view of emptiness of self and refuses to accept the underlying essence of Eternalists or the complete absence of the Nihilists.

 

The 'problem' arises then in examining what are viewed as the positive qualities of Buddhahood, or the enlightened mind. For instance the enlightened mind is compassionate. From where does compassion arise? Same for generosity, patience and so on. Where do these qualities come from? Is the compassion of the enlightened mind actually real? the Zhentong school would say yes. They would say that although the Rantong view is correct in that nothing has a self, in fact Buddha-nature is a real existent and the origin of the positive qualities of the enlightened mind and Buddhahood. In this case the Zhentong Buddhists say that everything is 'empty of other', that is empty of anything other than Buddha-nature itself.

 

So Rantong = empty of self

Zhentong = empty of other

 

The Rantong Buddhist would say oh this is just reintroducing the self when we got rid of it. But the Zhentong Buddhists would say if you practice any kind of tantra then you are already implicitly accepting the Zhentong view (because of the yiddam).

 

In the end these are philosophical views which are not the same as inner realization - following which there will be no conflict at all.

 

This is my go at answering your questions. Hope it helps. I'm sure if I got something fundamentally wrong I will be corrected by our 'real' Buddhists.

 

This is more or less what I've read on other pages on the net.

 

The problem with Rangtong view is that it's leaning toward nihilism. It gets rid of the self fixation, but it doesn't give you anything to live for. In Rangtong view, once you get rid of fixation, you just passively and meekly live out your life, accepting whatever life throws at you.

 

Further, Rangtong view cannot explain intentionality. It says intentionality does not actually occur, which is crazy and completely contradicts everything Buddha said. Buddha stressed right action and meditation. Meditation is not going to happen when the conditions are right. Instead you have to decide to meditate. It's not the case that when the planets align in a certain pattern, the tide is just so, and the time of day is just so, the temperature and humidity is just so, in other words, all the conditions are right, then meditation happens.

 

At the same time, you can even analyze the inner dimension of the mind, and from Rangton point of view, there is nothing in this inner dimension that is not dependently arisen. Thus, everything internal to mind arises from pre-existing and external-to-phenomena conditions. So again, everything is completely explained in terms of everything else, such as, current thought happens thanks to the previous thought, current feeling is caused by other past thoughts and feelings and so on. This view describes a kind of fatalism which Buddha has rejected. It's obvious why modern physicalists would be attracted to this view.

 

The most subtle Rangton logic denies causes and conditions and denies absence of causes and conditions. That's Nagarjuna. Nagarjuna says that the present is not caused by the past, but at the same time, the present does not arise without a cause. So he's using weasel language, somewhat justifiably, but he's operating purely in rejecting terms, hoping that once the false views are abandoned, an inner realization will spontaneously dawn. The problem is that hardly anyone understands what it means for phenomena to not be caused and to not be uncaused. Hardly anyone understands that phenomena are illusions of mind basically just by hearing this kind of logic. And like with the previous view, just hearing that phenomena are neither caused nor uncaused one doesn't get any kind of positive vision for life. Instead one gets the idea that fatalism is not quite right and not quite wrong. This is a lukewarm point to be at.

 

This is why most serious practitioners rely on the Yogacara view in Buddhism.

 

Rangton tends to get people entrenched in looking for self in all things and trying to argue against self. This becomes a habit, and it's not a productive habit beyond a certain point. Elimination of self is only useful if you get stuck on something. But it's useless beyond that. Once you do not experience stuckness, you need a different, more positive and more fun view. Rangtong is basically like acid that melts everything. Shengtong is like sweet nectar. Rangtong tears down, Shengtong nurtures.

 

In truth there is only one cause anywhere: intent. Intent is the cause. Everything else is a condition. Because intent is the cause, it is able to become arbitrarily conditioned given enough practice to overcome past habits. This explains mundane and supermundane phenomena.

Edited July 19, 2011 by goldisheavy

[C T]

These two articles might help bring some clarification on the subject - -

 

http://greatmiddleway.wordpress.com/zhentong-other-emptiness/

http://www.thebuddhadharma.com/web-archive/2003/9/1/emptiness-buddhanature.html

 

 

(Seth... linking the above cos feeling lazy at the moment, so apologies. Please glean what you need, and discard the rest. )

[goldisheavy]

These two articles might help bring some clarification on the subject - -

 

http://greatmiddleway.wordpress.com/zhentong-other-emptiness/

http://www.thebuddhadharma.com/web-archive/2003/9/1/emptiness-buddhanature.html

 

 

(Seth... linking the above cos feeling lazy at the moment, so apologies. Please glean what you need, and discard the rest. )

 

From the second link:

 

Shentongpas regard the nature of mind as empty of defilements but not empty of its intrinsic nature. The notion of buddhanature, however, does not in itself imply that mind has any intrinsic nature.

 

It's the nature of mind to know and intend. These qualities cannot be reasoned away.

 

When Buddha has finished his task, he declared, paraphrased, "This is it, the task of the holy life completed, there is nothing further for this life." Buddha declared this over and over in many Suttas. What is this declaration indicative of? It indicates recognition. What is recognition? It is knowledge. So Buddha did not empty his mind of knowledge even at the end of his path.

 

Nor did Buddha empty his mind of the views of intent, since Buddha was always opposed to fatalism and held that 1) intent is morally significant and has implications beyond this life and 2) supernormal actions are possible when intent is not conditioned by false beliefs about reality, and Buddha even told people how to train themselves in the supernormal actions. So intent is hugely, hugely significant. One could say it is the very core and center of the Buddhist path.

Edited July 19, 2011 by goldisheavy

[thuscomeone]

If mind or Buddha nature, according to Shentong and GIH, has qualities, qualities plural, it has parts. If it has parts, it is empty.

 

GIH, no one is arguing for physicalism, why do you keep going on and on about it? I wonder if you are familiar with the Buddha's teaching of the middle way? I don't think you are.

Edited July 19, 2011 by thuscomeone

[Lucky7Strikes]

Here is a flashy video.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oePY_MH3mqk&feature=related

[Lucky7Strikes]

If mind or Buddha nature, according to Shentong and GIH, has qualities, qualities plural, it has parts. If it has parts, it is empty.

 

GIH, no one is arguing for physicalism, why do you keep going on and on about it? I wonder if you are familiar with the Buddha's teaching of the middle way? I don't think you are.

Ok. Go live your deterministic life. .

 

Accept whatever this dependent origination throws at you.

Edited July 19, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[goldisheavy]

If mind or Buddha nature, according to Shentong and GIH, has qualities, qualities plural, it has parts. If it has parts, it is empty.

 

It has no parts. A ray of sunlight has no parts. And yet it is shiny and bright. It is directional. Etc... in other words, qualities do not require parts.

 

Another example, space. Space has qualities but no parts. And these are merely mundane examples.

 

GIH, no one is arguing for physicalism, why do you keep going on and on about it?

 

Because I am not convinced by superficial bursts of Madhyamaka rhetoric. I dig deeper to see what's up really. People learn to repeat all the cool words while in the hearts of hearts continuing with the old limited beliefs. This happens all the time. All the time.

Edited July 19, 2011 by goldisheavy

[thuscomeone]

...

Edited July 19, 2011 by thuscomeone

[thuscomeone]

It has no parts. A ray of sunlight has no parts. And yet it is shiny and bright. It is directional. Etc... in other words, qualities do not require parts.

 

Another example, space. Space has qualities but no parts. And these are merely mundane examples.

 

 

 

Because I am not convinced by superficial bursts of Madhyamaka rhetoric. I dig deeper to see what's up really. People learn to repeat all the cool words while in the hearts of hearts continuing with the old limited beliefs. This happens all the time. All the time.

Of course space has parts. North, south, east, and west.

 

Further, there really isn't space apart from objects that make up space.

 

Qualities are parts. A book has several qualities that make it a book. It has pages, a front cover and back cover, it has words, it has a spine, it has an author, etc.

 

All these qualities (aka parts) have to come together to make a "book."

 

I know you are going to say the mind is not an object so this doesn't apply. That's crap. This mind you speak of must be some thing. It must either have parts that make it what it is or it must be independent. You've now contradicted yourself because you've first said that it is independent. Now you've said it has qualities. Which is it?

Edited July 19, 2011 by thuscomeone

[goldisheavy]

What is your problem?

 

I was kind to you and apologized to you. Now you come back and take advantage of my kindness by throwing more snotty remarks at me?

 

You're a jerk and a little snot. Mods, do you what you have to do to me for insulting him. I don't care.

 

Relax thuscomeone. I hope no one takes the nanny approach with this. It's OK for people to get a little heated. We are all relatively mature and we know that if we can't stand the heat, we don't belong in the kitchen.

[thuscomeone]

Relax thuscomeone. I hope no one takes the nanny approach with this. It's OK for people to get a little heated. We are all relatively mature and we know that if we can't stand the heat, we don't belong in the kitchen.

No. Don't give me that. When someone gets angry at me for insulting them, then I apologize to them and they turn around and start insulting me? You just don't do that. If you think that's ok, you and lucky belong together.

[C T]

Of course space has parts. North, south, east, and west.

 

Further, there really isn't space apart from objects that make up space.

 

NSEW are designations of directions, no?

 

How do objects 'create' space?

 

Care to elaborate, Thuscomeone?

[goldisheavy]

Of course space has parts. North, south, east, and west.

 

Those are not parts, but arbitrary imaginary designations.

 

Further, there really isn't space apart from objects that make up space.

 

Not exactly true. What you should say is "there is no physical space apart from the possibility of spacial characteristics such as width, length, distance and spacial relations." This describes the limitation of the physical space in a language that is hard to argue with. In your formulation you tie space to objects, which is a mistake, because people can conceive of an endless expanse of an empty space. This is done in mathematics all the time. But mathematical space (which is used in physics) is not something other than the possibility to apply spacial characteristics coherently.

 

Qualities are parts. A book has several qualities that make it a book. It has pages, a front cover and back cover, it has words, it has a spine, it has an author, etc.

 

Which part of the book is the quality of readability or joy of reading?

 

All these qualities (aka parts) have to come together to make a "book."

 

This is a tragically simplistic, formulaic view. You should abandon it.

[thuscomeone]

NSEW are designations of directions, no?

 

How do objects 'create' space?

 

Care to elaborate, Thuscomeone?

Find me space apart from things in space. Mind and matter make up space.

 

When we say space, we're referring to an expanse or an area. Does that area have parts? Of course. The directions are the parts. There is left side, right side and up and down

[thuscomeone]

No, I shouldn't abandon it until you actually give me a more than one line criticism.

 

Your view is basically solipsism. You should abandon it.

Edited July 19, 2011 by thuscomeone

[goldisheavy]

No. Don't give me that. When someone gets angry at me for insulting them, then I apologize to them and they turn around and start insulting me? You just don't do that. If you think that's ok, you and lucky belong together.

 

thuscomeone, please understand that even if people generally regard you with warmth, unless the people are Buddhas, they are bound to get upset at this or that thing you are saying. Once people are upset, it's only natural to throw in an insult, or to use curt language. If we take a hard and unforgiving line toward this behavior, we'll have to limit our conversation only to noncontroversial topics. This means we'll destroy every useful and significant conversation.

 

So when I say it's OK to get heated up, I am not saying let's just insult each other with abandon. I am not normalizing limitless amounts of insults. I am normalizing some amount of insult for the reason I described above. Plus, beings have to practice tolerance and if everyone is sweet to you, why do you need tolerance for? The whole point of tolerance is so that you can allow people to treat you harshly from time to time, up to a certain reasonable limit.

[goldisheavy]

No, I shouldn't abandon it until you actually give me a more than one line criticism.

 

No. Even if I gave you 500 lines of criticism you shouldn't abandon your false views. You should only abandon your false views when you become personally convinced they are false through your own personal investigation. Whatever anyone says at best should serve as inspiration to investigate.

 

So what I am saying is basically a suggestion that, hey, there is something wrong with this view. Why not check it out?