Tenets Cittamatra (The objects of the path/selflessness of person/emptiness) Flashcards
What are the object of meditation of the path of Cittamatra?
1.The sixteen aspects of the four [noble] truths, such as impermanence.
2.Emptiness of permanent, unitary and independent self is the gross selflessness of person,
3.The emptiness of autonomous substantial self is the subtle selflessness of person.
==» just as Shravakas and Pratyekabuddhas
1.Emptiness of [the substantial] separateness of form and the valid cognition apprehending form
2.Emptiness of form being established as self-characterized adherent referent of the conceptual mind apprehending form are posited as the subtle selflessness of phenomena
==> Cittamatra only
((Both the subtle selflessness [of person and of phenomena] are posited as emptiness. Emptiness may not necessarily be either of the two [subtle selflessness], as the truth of cessation and nirvana as well are posited as emptiness.
Composite phenomena are asserted as substantially one with the valid cognition apprehending them.
Non-composite phenomena are viewed as same entity with respect to the valid cognition apprehending them.))
What is required for the attainment of Nirvana acc. to all schools except Prasangika?
Just for attaining Nirvana only the selflessness of person is required, the selflessness of phenomena is not required (all schools except Prasangika)
What is the subtle selflessness of person? (Cittamatra)
Emptiness of autonomous substantial self is the subtle selflessness of person
In Prasangika and in the lower schools, is the selflessness of person applicable to the selflessness of all phenomena?
Prasangika: No, with respect to autonomous substantial reality
Lower schools: Yes, with respect to autonomous substantial reality
What is the meaning of the selflessness of person of a flower?
(all lower schools)
The flower is empty of being the object of utility of the autonomous substantial self/person
Think of Tashi being substantially real and wanting to have a flower => I see him as substantially real and the flower is his object of utility
==» Therefore the selflessness of person is applicable to all phenomena!!
What is the meaning of grasping at the flower as the selfhood of the person, or grasping at the selfhood of the person of the flower?
(all lower schools)
The autonomous substantially real flower is the utility of the person who is autonomous substantially real.
For Prasangika what means the selflessness of person?
The object on which the selflessness is established should be a person, it can not be a non person like a flower
==» Therefore the selflessness of person is not applicable to all phenomena
What are primarily the objects of meditation of the path of Shravakas and Pratyekabuddhas?
The selflessness of person of any phenomena (aggregates, flower, table, etc.)
What is emptiness acc. to Cittamatra?
Emptiness of external reality!
1.Emptiness of [the substantial] separateness of form and the valid cognition apprehending form.
2.Emptiness of form being established as self-characterized (true) adherent referent of the conceptual mind apprehending form are posited as the subtle selflessness of phenomena.
=>
(The flower is empty of being the true referent of the label of flower. But it is not empty of being the referent for the label.)
Both the subtle selflessness [of person and of phenomena] are posited as emptiness. Emptiness may not necessarily be either of the two
===»> Everything is the NATURE of mind!!
There is no external reality.
Subject and it’s externality are:
Like the dreamer and the dreamed.
Like the mirror and its reflection.
==> they are the same entity, substantially not separate!!
What are composite and non-composite phenomena for Cittamatra?
Composite phenomena are asserted as substantially one with the valid cognition apprehending them.
Non-composite phenomena are viewed as same entity with respect to the valid cognition apprehending them.
(Cittamatra) Eye conciousness seeing an phenomena, what are they concerning entity wise and isolate wise?
Eye conciousness seeing an object and object are entity wise one and isolate wise different!! They are substantially the same and can not be separated.
How does Cittramatra resolve the contradiction to the conventional (conceptual) thinking (believing in externality), when saying object and eye conciousness seeing the object are entity wise the same. Which means that my conciousness is in my hands, when seeing an object in my hands?
They called f.ex.: the object flower in my hand => the “referent of the label flower”, to be able to make the distinction in between eye conciousness and object.
The flower as the object of observation of the eye conciousness seeing the flower, does not exist as the self characterized nature, as the object of observation of the eye conciousness seeing the flower.
Or in other words:
This flower is not intrinsically/truly the referent of the label flower (being one entity with my eye conciousness)
When saying the referent of the flower, is it a true referent or not?
NOT TRUE means not independent from conceptual mind (imputation)
TRUE means existence which is independent of the imputation of conceptual mind.
Answer to question:
The flower being the referent of the label flower and eye conciousness being the flower, not being the referent of the flower is created from the conceptual mind and not from the object flower, therefore it is NOT TRUE!
