The 4 schools...

Well the easiest to distinguish for me are the latest 2, Chitamatra, Mind Only, asserts that all external phenomena are interdependent and empty of inherent existence, thus relying on the Two Truths doctrine of Nagarjuna, but not taking it quite as far as the latest (historical) development, Mahadyamika, Middle Way. A simple way of understanding Mind Only school is to say that they believed all reality to be a projection of mind; to be interdependent and to be empty of inherent existence. In some ways they treated the mind that did all of this fragmenting and projecting as inherently existing, particularly the so-called Ground or Storehouse consciousness. They had tremendous realizations, all of their philosophy was based upon the experience of highly realized beings, but they did not go as far as the middle way school in asserting the interdependence and emtptiness of mind itself. They understood that consciousness fragments and projects, thus "creating" the mundane world and other realities, and they knew that mind was indestructible, but by asserting the inherent existence of Alaya consciousness, the ground consciousness (sometimes referred to as store house consciousness) they underestimated the transformation potential of consciousness. In other words, by realizing that even the most subtle aspects of mind are empty, the middle way school saw and began to realize a far greater potential for universal enlightenment.

So to over simplify: Mind Only: all external reality is a projection of mind, is interdependent and is empty of inherent existence, the subtlest form of mind is real.
Middle Way: All external reality is a projection of mind, is interdependent and empty of inherent existence. Even the mind that projects realities is equally interdependent and empty.

I have listened to teachings that describe these four schools as a simple progression where in each school more of reality and consciousness is understood to be interdependent and empty, but as I look them up on wikipedia, I see that is really a gross oversimplification of their positions and the distinctions between them. It gets complicated, and you can do that research as well as I can. Perhaps if you have a specific question as to one of their positions, I can look it up and offer my own interpretation of what it says. But to me the most relevant are the post Nagarjuna philosophical systems of Yogacaran, which tends to be largely informed by Cittimatra, and the later Middle Way, which takes those insights farther.

We need the middle way to understand that all phenomena are ultimately the mind of Buddha.

I agree with Matt that the four tenet system is much more complicated than what is presented, partly because the "schools" didn't exist as such. They are defined from an amalgamation of loosely related teachings of diverse schools. However, I think the point is that the four tenet system is specifically a Prasangika technique for expressing the progression of an ever more subtle understanding of selflessness. It is meant to show, not that the "lower" schools are wrong, but that there is a natural path leading to the ability to grasp that absolutely nothing whatsoever can possess even the slightest self-nature.

It is important to study for two reasons. First it helps us identify our own level of ability to understand emptiness and second, for advanced practitioners, it catalogs how to present the path to students at different levels. The principle is that Buddha's teachings encompass everything that a single being, over myriad lifetimes, must understand to attain enlightenment. Therefore I think it is good to over simplify it at first. I also find it difficult to keep straight, but here's what I've got so far.

Vaibashikas understand that the self is not permanent, unitary, or independent. This is the lowest level of Buddhist understanding which rejects the concept of a created and everlasting soul.

Sautrantikas go further to say the self is not a self-sufficient, substantially existent entity. In other words, the self is not somehow separate from the five aggregates and in control of them. For both Vaibashika and Sautrantika, selflessness refers only to the person while the aggregates and other phenomena possess inherent existence.

Chittamatrins take the next step to reject the inherent existence of phenomena. For them both subject and object arise from the same karmic imprint in the mind. The delusion of a self is this false dichotomy of subject and object. Selflessness is the realization that they are not substantially different. However, Chittamatrins do hold as self-existent the mind from which that illusion arises and which comes to realize the unity of subject and object.

There are two schools of Madhymaka: Svantantrika and Prasangika. They express an extremely subtle distinction in which they both agree that both persons and phenomena lack an ultimate self-nature and that all phenomena depend upon imputation by mind. However Svatantrikas insist that in order for a phenomenon to be a suitable basis of imputation, there must be something about the conventional phenomenon itself that defines it. Prasangikas say, no, if a phenomenon has any qualities from its own side whatsoever, ultimately or conventionally, that constitutes self-nature, making it an independent entity and that is impossible.

That was a very good explanation, Jeff H, I enjoyed reading it.



Anyway, I agree with both of you that it is well worth the effort to learn about these systems, and it is very interesting stuff!

The border between being and non-being, sentient and non-sentient is interesting in this context. Does saying that a sentient being is made out of non-sentient stuff, imply 'non-' is just 'less-'? I don't think that is widespread position in Buddhism, and I think there are good reasons for that. A universal ground of being, a universal mind, leads I think in the opposite direction to Buddhism - to universal laws held in the mind of god.

In physics consciousness is described as an emergent property, a self-stabilising domain of order. In Buddhist thought I think they point to mind-made phenomena as having physical non-sentient objects as emergent phenomena, as necessary projections and props for the unfolding of minds.

The way I see it either view is fine - but there is a problem if you treat people as meat-robots, or if you expect the world at large to tell you what it is for. Mind-ness, sentience, may be explicable in principle from 'dead' matter, or subjective awareness may be the ground of being in which matter arises. But there is still the problem that different modes, different ways to understand and act are linked to sentient and non-sentient. The approaches can be made compatible, in seeing how minds can arise according to conditions, but seek to generalise themselves, seek to be able to understand the causes and conditions and perspectives of others, and tend to integrae them, coming in the long run to similar conclusions about how best to be. I.e, the path to awakening.

The point I am trying to make, is that these can be described as four steps for students to progress through. But you can also turn back, and see there is something special about subjective-consciousnesses, even if they are composed of constituent types of consciousness, or even in a wider conscious-tending fabric. Minds pop up as lumps of pattern that try to understand themselves. And that is their buddha-nature. Not a universal mind trying to understand itself, but the defining quality of consciousness to ask, who am I? - and keep asking

I am trying to say the four tenet system seems to point to elevating the realm we have affinity with, essentially it goes all philosophical. But that is not the only way to go, taking the idea of beings and minds can work perfectly well for liberation too, and not going into the minutae of interdependence doesn't have to be seen as being a less capable practicioner

Well, that is an interesting point, the mind of gods is different than an enlightened Buddha mind. Gods are sentient, and Enlightenment from the Buddhist perspective is different, has different qualities than the subjective qualities that obscure the consciousness of sentient beings. Buddhas are said to be omniscient, though. Wisdom consciousness is pervasive and aware. If you ask for help from a Buddha, you will get it from inside your mind. This can tell us many things about the mundane and ultimate natures of our own mind.

Dzongzar Kyhentse Rinpoche once said that Buddhism does not postulate a universal mind. I think this statement is deceptive, because we certainly do not postulate the opposite or the absence of a universal mind. When one realizes the emptiness of phenomena and understands the implications of this emptiness, then it is effortless to discover that what we regarded as a thought or feeling or object actually has all the qualities of an enlightened mind. In addition all sentient beings are present within the object in a way. When all sentient beings are present simultaneously, no one individual or individual bias or negative emotion can be. In this way sentient beings are our wish fulfilling jewel. They are the key to the purification of our consciousness and our own liberation.

Enlightened mind has a quality that is like no mind. It has no boundaries, and no limitations. Also, there is cessation of suffering and its causes, so in these ways it is like there is no mind. In some ways it is more accurate to say there is no mind, because mind is a concept that must be defined. Buddha mind is beyond conceptual constraints and can not be described in any way that limits it. Buddhists often describe this Wisdom Conciousness as containing all good qualities. This is an accurate description that does not impose conceptual constraints.

Also, Mahayana Buddhists believe in a Great or Universal Enlightenment. This is an aspiration we commit ourselves to daily. I believe that about the time one understands what is meant by Great Enlightenment, one begins to discover that it has always been here. We need the commitment and the aspiration and be able to feel the compassion within them, but we do not need to create or bring about Universal Enlightenment. Rather we need commitment and aspiration, dedication and sincerity to unlock our own ultimate nature and discover the true potentials within the mundane.

Yeah, Jeff, I think you predicted a good answer for me. It is gratifying to see how smart I am. lol

Next morning: I just realize that my post might come over as pretty annoying

On the other hand, is it annoying to be pulled/pushed away from concepts ?

There is another annoying writing: The Heart Sutra....



Tamara

I did not find your post annoying. And I agree that the Wisdom Heart Sutra is really wonderful and says it all in succinct ways. It is interesting, because Dan and I have been exchanging emails about this thread, which, in case you were wondering is rare, we don't spend a lot of time discussing or recapitulating the conversations here, but in this case we spent some time talking to each other about mind and no-mind, and the Wisdom Heart Sutra did come up. Dan told me a while back about a comment Lama Zopa made, how emptiness is closer to Nihlism than to materialism, and I spent some time telling him my understanding of no-mind, trying to capture what it is really saying, which of course is impossible to put into words, but one tries, you know.

I think Buddhists, like Buddha, tend to consider their audience. With some people one needs to really stress the distinction between emptiness and what a Nihilist means by nothing, but if people already have that understanding, with the right audience that is, then the statement, "There is no mind," can be appropriate and complete.

I believe as much as there is a mind, in other words as much as there is your mind or my mind, then there is only one fractured mind. Ultimately there is no mind, there is no-thing, but this nothing is really wonderful. There is cessation, nirvana and enlightenment. All sentient beings will have happiness and its causes, they will overcome suffering. This is the commitment and truth meant by no-mind, in my opinion. On the other hand it is simply the ultimate nature of things.