This little Opus was my answer to the final essay of the last module of the class I am taking regarding Tsongkhapa's Great Treatise. It is a refutation of the 6 assertions implied by other Buddhist masters as they challenge the Madyamika Prasongika's school of thought regarding Emptiness. Specifically the 6 assertions are attempts to challenge the idea that things either exist intrinsically (meaning they have a definable, certain, concrete essence) or not at all. Kay (my tutor of this course and the prior course Foundations of Buddhist Thought) liked everything but thought my example of Happiness as an example of production was a bit abstract.
The 6 Assertions
This has been the most difficult part of the course so far and I’m not sure that the content is exactly the reason. The hard part is really narrowing down the 6 assertions because they are not listed as such in the text and Geshe Tashi doesn’t exactly state them as 1,2,3 etc... So I took rather drastic measures by emailing Guy Newland, reading his book almost entirely again, reading parts of the Emptiness book by Geshe Tashi and speaking to Geshe Jampa. I listened to Geshe Tashi’s teachings over and over ... and over. Oh and of course LTK’s Great Treatise. So I’m sitting here on Christmas eve with the book and Geshe Tashi going through them!
- The first assertion is that everything from form through omniscient consciousness is refuted by rational analysis. Nothing can stand up against rational analysis. This type of analysis is specifically whether things and events have intrinsic reality. They are correct in one sense that nothing can withstand this type of rational analysis. However, things are not “refuted” in the sense that refuted would mean that they do not exist. This assertion then refutes too much.
I’ll use this one example and refer back to it as we go along. We take the object of analysis as a car. When we begin through rational analysis to challenge the idea of the car by repeatedly asking ourselves questions such as “Is the color the car? Is the metal body the car? Is the engine the car? Is the spark plug the car? Is the steering wheel the car? ad absurdum (as the method is known as) we will never find a single element that can be attributed to as the intrinsic nature that IS the car. The “car” cannot withstand rational analysis. However to refute to much is undone by taking the example that you walk up and and we decide to go for ride in the car. If the car didn’t exist even conventionally (ie not at all) then we certainly could not go for a ride in the car. In fact, we couldn’t reference the car at all because it would not exist.
- A noble being’s sublime wisdom which perceives reality (and realizes emptiness directly) would not perceive conventional reality. While a noble being sublime wisdom does in fact perceive emptiness directly, that doesn’t mean that this same wisdom would refute conventional reality. If we take the Buddha as a noble being who perceived emptiness directly as our example then we know that he did in fact interact with conventional reality. He taught others. He walked long distances. He meditated under the bodhi tree. Production existed obviously or he would have never been able to complete any of those task - including awakening.
This assertion deals with production - which is phenomena arising from causes and conditions. The argument is made that production cannot withstand the same rational analysis as assertion one. If so then production would be truly existent or if not production would not exist. If we take an emotion as our example - say happiness, which is produced then our opponents would ask if under analysis does happiness exist. Happiness appears to us in that one moment I am not happy, then I am happy, and then I am not happy again. If using rational analysis, I would concede that I am unable to pin point the intrinsic nature of happiness. But that does not refute it because I certainly experience happiness and the rise and fall of happiness as stated earlier. Happiness also is evidenced by temporary physical changes such as a smile or laughter. Happiness is produced and also serves as a continuation of the chain of production.
- The 4th assertion states that production cannot be established using conventional consciousnesses only by noble beings sublime wisdom. If conventional consciousnesses were valid then why do we even need noble beings? This is taken from the King of the Concentration Sutra. But the meaning of the sutra states that these conventionally valid consciousnesses, eye, ear, nose, sense consciousnesses etc..., simply do not the capacity to realize emptiness. My eye can see a table lamp on my desk. But the eye consciousness can only relay the information to my mental consciousness for processing. The eye consciousness itself does not have any way to recognize and analyze the nature of the lamp. It has no conceptual ability. However, my eye does relate valuable information to me by showing me the table lamp. I then can reach and turn on the lamp when it begins to get dark so that I can finish writing this paper.
This on a side note is why Mindfulness and the practices associated with it fall short over all because simply being present (however profound and unusual in today’s society) will not ultimately free us from suffering. Holding the mind in a nonconceptual state and allowing our sense consciousnesses a more expansive view really brings a wonderful poetic view of the world. But, it doesn’t bring much understanding of our situation over all. We just experience it differently.
- This assertion is in regards to Candrakirti’s Clear Words. Production is untenable in both the context of ultimate reality as well as conventional reality. The real dilemma is because we are not given the answer to the question. “What argument will demonstrate the production you believe in?” The answer is further along in the course! Again this actually follows along with the first assertion because even though conventional production is being held as lacking intrinsic existence, it is not being refuted. It is like the 1st assertion in that regard and reminds me of the 2nd because the critics are taking a slice of scripture and using it to validate their points without giving regards to the meaning of the scriptures. (Sounds like modern day society)
- The 6th assertion uses the diamond sliver reasoning to refute all four modes of production. 1) Production must be produced by themselves, 2) Must be produced by Other, 3) Must be produced by neither, or 4) Must be produced by both. In my example for the question for class, I discussed my confusion here because I thought that we were trying to use the 4 corner idea to prove that production was produced by Others. Which it seems to - by causes and conditions. However if you add “intrinsic” to the 4 corners the logic clearly shows that production cannot occur from intrinsically existing others. An intrinsic Other would never be a result because since it exist intrinsically it would have no causal factor. Conventionally, if I had the same car from assertion 1 and I ran off the road into a stop sign leaving a large dent in the sign, could you prove the “car” caused the “dent”. First we already have proven that there is no intrinsically existing car (iec) so this iec could not be responsible for the intrinsically existing dent in the sign. Furthermore under analysis of the production of the dent, it also could not be proven that the car was the cause of the dent which was the result. Conventionally then it also shows that it fails the second logic as being produced by others. Under further analysis could you even show that the car and the dent exist as separate entities?
Again the large difficulty here is because the answer to Candrakirti’s question would seem to be Dependent Arising. Which is the actual way that production occurs. Cause and effect is representative of dependent arising but seems to be a grosser level or an over simplification. In the car/dent scenario above we could not exactly prove that the car is the cause of the dent. In fact, the car, the sign, the dent, and the other 10,000 things that arose together to create that moment and situation all contributed to the dent. All things arise together, influence each other and are influenced by each other simultaneously. (I think)
Chad
No comments:
Post a Comment