PDA

View Full Version : Question about Mind Only School



Kunsang
14 Sep 11, 04:36
Hello, does anyone knows if from the Mind only School, do the Followers of the Scriptures and Followers of Reasoning accept the self-knower consciousness? I know the first accept the consciousness bases of all and the afflicted consciousness and three final vehicles, whilst the second one doesn't accept those two consciousness and only one final vehicle, but what about the self knower? Is it common to all the Cittamatra schools?

Element
14 Sep 11, 05:32
http://i54.tinypic.com/1zx5rnl.png

see: Emptiness in the mind-only school of Buddhism: dynamic responses to Dzong ...
By Jeffrey Hopkins, Tsoṅ-kha-pa Blo-bzaṅ-grags-pa (http://books.google.com.au/books?id=yYx_6y40htcC&pg=PA163&lpg=PA163&dq=self-knower+consciousness+mind+only&source=bl&ots=SheW12XSwk&sig=hDDL1eHjE9XUnLdbUSIG_xJxKPY&hl=en&ei=UixwTojNFM-XiQfIgaG7CQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&sqi=2&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=self-knower%20&f=false)

;D

Element
14 Sep 11, 05:47
welcome Kunsang

i am not sure how many members here have the knowledge to answer your question

however, i sent a message to your hotmail about another chatsite

with metta

Element ;D

Kunsang
14 Sep 11, 06:03
thanks, but that is not exactly what I was asking, I'll check out the other address you gave me.

Kunsang
14 Sep 11, 06:07
Ok thank you :hands:

Lazy Eye
14 Sep 11, 14:42
Hi Kunsang,

Welcome to Buddhism without Boundaries, and glad to meet you!

I think it would be helpful to members if you could explain your question in a little more detail, and maybe give some background information about the Mind Only school and the particular doctrines you mention. What is the "self knower consciousness"? Who are the "followers of scriptures" and "followers of reasoning"? In short, what does all this terminology refer to?

Also what are the relevant Mahayana sutras or other canonical texts?

Thanks much!

Kunsang
14 Sep 11, 15:09
ok, I just found in Cutting Through Appearances by Geshe Lhundup Sopa that all the Cittamatras accept the 4 kinds of self-knower, just in case someone is curious to know the answer. :neutral:

tjampel
14 Sep 11, 15:25
Hello, does anyone knows if from the Mind only School, do the Followers of the Scriptures and Followers of Reasoning accept the self-knower consciousness? I know the first accept the consciousness bases of all and the afflicted consciousness and three final vehicles, whilst the second one doesn't accept those two consciousness and only one final vehicle, but what about the self knower? Is it common to all the Cittamatra schools?

Seems you're conflating the Chittamatra (mind only) School, which is a Mahayana school, with Sautantrika and Vaibashika two earlier "Individual Vehicle" schools.

Mind only asserts what Tibetans call "RANG RIK" or, as you state, "knower" consciousness, kind of a watcher of one's own mind. This is not asserted in the Madyamika Prasangika philosophy, which ultimately took hold in Tibet, though some of the lineages still seem to use the term to describe this kind of mind.

The Vaibashika accept a physical basis for the universe; they assert the impermanence of all compounded phenomena; however, while that phenomena was manifesting they would assert that it has a physical basis. They further assert a very "atheist" (IMO) interpretation of paranirvana---total extinction of consciousness, when a person who achieves liberation passes.

Sautantrika (sutra school) , like Vaibashika, was one of the 18 schools believed to exist beginning several hundred years after the passing of the Buddha; it asserts that phenomena are transient, like the Vaibashika school, but also dismisses the idea, held by Vaibashika, that there actually exist partless particles, which make up the universe. It refers to these as the product of convention. See http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/en/archives/sutra/level5_analysis_mind_reality/truths/2_truths_vaibhashika_sautrantika.html


for a really in-depth overview of these schools and how they differ

Kunsang
14 Sep 11, 15:32
Hi Kunsang,

Welcome to Buddhism without Boundaries, and glad to meet you!

I think it would be helpful to members if you could explain your question in a little more detail, and maybe give some background information about the Mind Only school and the particular doctrines you mention. What is the "self knower consciousness"? Who are the "followers of scriptures" and "followers of reasoning"? In short, what does all this terminology refer to?

Also what are the relevant Mahayana sutras or other canonical texts?

Thanks much!


It's ok I just found the answer. But juts for information:

-The self knower or self awareness is a kind of mind asserted by some buddhist philosofical schools to 'aprehend the aspect of a mind', therefore 'knows itslef' in the sense that is a mind and its object is only mind, and has the capacity of remembering the experience of the perception from the side pf the subject and not from the object itself.

- Mind only School are the Yogācāra (Sanskrit; literally: "yoga practice"; "one whose practice is yoga")[1] is an influential school of Buddhist philosophy and psychology emphasizing phenomenology and (some argue) ontology[2] through the interior lens of meditative and yogic practices. It developed within Indian Mahāyāna Buddhism in about the 4th century CE.[3] Yogācāra discourse is founded on the existential truth of the human condition: there is nothing that humans experience that is not mediated by mind. (this was from wikipedia). In brief, they refute the existence of external objects and assert that the three realms (desire, form and formless) are only mind, are made of the same substance than the mind.

-The followers of Scriptures is one division of the Cittamatra school, the one that follows mainly the five treatises on the Bhumis (grounds) by Asanga. They accept the consciousness bases of all and the afflicted consciousness and three final vehicles.

-The followers of reasoning, another division of Cittamatra school, follow mainly the seven texts on Valid Cognition (pramana) by Dharmakirti. They don't accept the consciousness bases of all and the afflicted consciousness and only propose one final vehicle (i.e. Buddhahood, Mahayana).

the basic terminology comes from the 'precious garland of established limits of reality' by the tibetan master Konchog Jigme Wangpo, which is only a summary of the main aspects, definitions and divisions of the main buddhist and non-buddhist schools in India, at the times of the Buddha Shakyamuni. For more information you can check out Geshe Lhundrub Soepa's 'cutting through appearances', which is a translation + commentary of this text, or you can check also any other text about buddhist tenets.

tnx
bye

Kunsang
14 Sep 11, 15:44
Seems you're conflating the Chittamatra (mind only) School, which is a Mahayana school, with Sautantrika and Vaibashika two earlier "Individual Vehicle" schools.

Mind only asserts what Tibetans call "RANG RIK" or, as you state, "knower" consciousness, kind of a watcher of one's own mind. This is not asserted in the Madyamika Prasangika philosophy, which ultimately took hold in Tibet, though some of the lineages still seem to use the term to describe this kind of mind.

The Vaibashika accept a physical basis for the universe; they assert the impermanence of all compounded phenomena; however, while that phenomena was manifesting they would assert that it has a physical basis. They further assert a very "atheist" (IMO) interpretation of paranirvana---total extinction of consciousness, when a person who achieves liberation passes.

Sautantrika (sutra school) , like Vaibashika, was one of the 18 schools believed to exist beginning several hundred years after the passing of the Buddha; it asserts that phenomena are transient, like the Vaibashika school, but also dismisses the idea, held by Vaibashika, that there actually exist partless particles, which make up the universe. It refers to these as the product of convention. See http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/en/archives/sutra/level5_analysis_mind_reality/truths/2_truths_vaibhashika_sautrantika.html


for a really in-depth overview of these schools and how they differ

Oh no, I was not conflating those schools, I was talking about two divisions of Cittamatra school itself, as I just explained above. I know the assertions of the other schools (vaibhashika, sutrantika, svatantrika and prasangika) about the 'rang rig'.
Maybe you thought I was refering to the Sutrantikas fofllowers of scriptures and the Sutrantikas followers of reasoning, as they also have a similar division.

tnx anyway

tjampel
15 Sep 11, 04:14
Oh no, I was not conflating those schools, I was talking about two divisions of Cittamatra school itself, as I just explained above. I know the assertions of the other schools (vaibhashika, sutrantika, svatantrika and prasangika) about the 'rang rig'.
Maybe you thought I was refering to the Sutrantikas fofllowers of scriptures and the Sutrantikas followers of reasoning, as they also have a similar division.

tnx anyway

Thanks for enlightening me on this! That's the first time I've read about this division within the Mind only school.

Kunsang
15 Sep 11, 08:32
ok ;D you're welcome

Aloka
15 Sep 11, 08:54
Members who are unfamiliar with the terms 'mind only' and 'Cittamatra' might find this information helpful.

The Two Truths

Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamptso

http://www.bodhicitta.net/The%20Two%20Truths-1.htm

Excerpt from the link :



Today he will begin by briefly explaining how the two truths are posited in the Cittamatra or Mind-Only tradition.

First there is the root text from the "All-Pervasive Knowledge," and it goes like this: "The tradition of the Mind Only school posits a dualistic appearance depending on objects and object perceivers. The ultimate truth is the nature of the consciousness of there not being two." In the commentary to this, "The Ocean of Limitless Knowledge," there is an explanation concerning this root verse, and Rinpoche is going to extract the essence of that and give a brief presentation or explanation.

In this tradition, what is said to be conventional truth is the dualistic appearance of the outer, "held" object and the inner, "holding" entity, or the perceiving mind. So these two, holder and held, grasper and grasped, apprehender and apprehended, constitute the conventional level or the conventional truth. The mind that is beyond that, that is free from that, that sees both as being simply mind, that is the ultimate truth or the ultimate level.

In this tradition, the dualistic appearance of holder and held, the consciousness that makes this division or separation, the thoughts or conceptualisations that make this distinction, need to be exhausted. For the purpose of exhausting this dualistic clinging, one needs to realise that the essence or nature is empty of these two.


So the dualistic appearance, the seeming appearing of grasper and grasped, has no true existence, no reality, no truth. It is simply confusion, bewilderment, artificiality. One needs to understand that it is all of these things, that this seeming dualism does not exist, has no true reality.

This dualistic appearance is like a dream. For the purpose of resolving this seeming duality, this appearing as two (grasper and grasped), it is necessary to realise the nature of the ultimate truth. If one does not understand that this dualism is bewilderment and confusion, one will not be able to realise its nature as being that of the ultimate truth.

The best example to illustrate how these two truths function is the example of the dream. When we are dreaming, there appears to be a duality between the appearances in the dream and the perception of these appearances. However, this seeming duality is only conventional, only artificial; it has no true existence or true reality. This appearance of two, perceiver and perceived, is simply the bewilderment or the confusion of the mind. Both of these, holder and held, are simply the mind itself, simply the clear cognition of the mind itself, the luminous knowing of the mind itself.

Rinpoche says that this is the brief explanation of this particular view, of the Cittamatra, in terms of the two truths.



.