Philosophy Now Forum

Wenge Huang wrote: ↑Thu Apr 03, 2025 4:37 am We summarize the progressive stages of “emptiness” in terms of a three-tier structure of “subject”, “be aware of” and “object”, bridging various Buddhist schools in a unified analytical framework:

Theravada Buddhism holds that the self does not exist (namely, “there is no personal self underlying the five aggregates”), but the external world does exist.

Mind-Only school holds that only the mind exists, and the external world does not really exist (namely, “there are no objects of the five aggregates”).

Madhyamaka school argues that even the mind does not exist (namely, “all the five aggregates are empty”), so all dharmas (or phenomenon) are empty.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Apr 03, 2025 7:06 am

Wenge Huang wrote: ↑Thu Apr 03, 2025 4:37 am We summarize the progressive stages of “emptiness” in terms of a three-tier structure of “subject”, “be aware of” and “object”, bridging various Buddhist schools in a unified analytical framework:

Theravada Buddhism holds that the self does not exist (namely, “there is no personal self underlying the five aggregates”), but the external world does exist.

Mind-Only school holds that only the mind exists, and the external world does not really exist (namely, “there are no objects of the five aggregates”).

Madhyamaka school argues that even the mind does not exist (namely, “all the five aggregates are empty”), so all dharmas (or phenomenon) are empty.

I am more inclined with the Madhyamaka.

However, the Two Truths Doctrine is fundamental and critical.
Also the Four Truths and Six Truths are also important.

It is a question of optimality, i.e. we apply whatever is optimal to the current situations and constraints; the advantage is to have more options of the truths in any practical situation to enable one to optimize one's well being and flourishing.

The extreme is where some Buddhists are dogmatic only to one truth and turn to asceticism which the Buddha learned from experience is not productive nor contributive to humanity.
What is advocated by the Buddha is the Middle-Way; one can veer to near both ends but always back to the middle, like the tightrope walker veering left to right to counter the forces of the winds or imbalances.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 03, 2025 2:07 pm ^^^ what happens when all of Asia spends a thousand years trying to do what David Hume did in ten minutes.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 03, 2025 2:07 pm ^^^ what happens when all of Asia spends a thousand years trying to do what David Hume did in ten minutes.

Wenge Huang wrote: ↑Thu Apr 03, 2025 9:24 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Apr 03, 2025 7:06 am

Wenge Huang wrote: ↑Thu Apr 03, 2025 4:37 am We summarize the progressive stages of “emptiness” in terms of a three-tier structure of “subject”, “be aware of” and “object”, bridging various Buddhist schools in a unified analytical framework:

Theravada Buddhism holds that the self does not exist (namely, “there is no personal self underlying the five aggregates”), but the external world does exist.

Mind-Only school holds that only the mind exists, and the external world does not really exist (namely, “there are no objects of the five aggregates”).

Madhyamaka school argues that even the mind does not exist (namely, “all the five aggregates are empty”), so all dharmas (or phenomenon) are empty.

I am more inclined with the Madhyamaka.

However, the Two Truths Doctrine is fundamental and critical.
Also the Four Truths and Six Truths are also important.

It is a question of optimality, i.e. we apply whatever is optimal to the current situations and constraints; the advantage is to have more options of the truths in any practical situation to enable one to optimize one's well being and flourishing.

The extreme is where some Buddhists are dogmatic only to one truth and turn to asceticism which the Buddha learned from experience is not productive nor contributive to humanity.
What is advocated by the Buddha is the Middle-Way; one can veer to near both ends but always back to the middle, like the tightrope walker veering left to right to counter the forces of the winds or imbalances.

From the perspective of Western philosophy, Theravada Buddhism is concerning “self-consciousness” (so called pudgala-nairatmya), while Mahayana Buddhism is concerning “consciousness” (so called dharma-nairatmya).

promethean75 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 03, 2025 2:07 pm ^^^ what happens when all of Asia spends a thousand years trying to do what David Hume did in ten minutes.

Wenge Huang wrote: ↑Tue Apr 01, 2025 4:59 am Beyond reciting and coping the popular Heart Sutra, what does “五蕴皆空” (“all the five aggregates are empty”) exactly mean? In addition, the most famous verse “色不异空，空不异色，色即是空，空即是色，受想行识亦复如是” also seems to be tautological and puzzling all along.

Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso Rinpoche’s view on the progressive stages of “emptiness” and we interpreting “non-self ” as no subject (or mental entity) of “awareness” by regarding the five aggregates as “awareness” are two keys to crack the enigma at the heart of the Heart Sutra.

The theme of the Heart Sutra is “emptiness”, the core doctrine of Buddhism. But different Buddhist schools do not interpret “emptiness” in the same way. Theravada Buddhism holds that the self does not exist, but the external world does exist; Mind-Only school holds that only the mind exists, and the external world does not really exist; Madhyamaka school argues that even the mind does not exist, so “all dharmas are empty”.

According to Thanissaro Bhikkhu, Rupert Gethin, Sue Hamilton and Alexander Wynne, different from the traditional mainstream view that the individual person consists of five ever-changing aggregates, the five aggregates should be regarded as descriptions of the individual’s subjective experience. We further argue that the five aggregates should be viewed directly as a stream of moments of consciousness, which are equivalent to awareness (or consciousness) in the modern sense, or what Mahayana Buddhism calls mind (or consciousness).

Therefore, to interpret “non-self” in Theravada Buddhism as that there is no personal self underlying the five aggregates (or “awareness”), would inevitably lead to interpret “五蕴皆空” (“all the five aggregates are empty”) at the beginning of the Heart Sutra as that even the mind does not exist, the same to the view of Madhyamaka school.

The famous verse that follows is the argument and explanation for this view. However, “异” in “色不异空，空不异色，色即是空，空即是色，受想行识亦复如是” does not mean “different”, but mean “separable”. Therefore, we translate this verse to English as “Body is inseparable from Emptiness, and Emptiness is inseparable from Body; thus, Body is just Emptiness, and Emptiness is just Body. The same is true for the Feelings, Perceptions, Mental Formations, and Consciousness.”

To go a step further, inspired by the logic used by the Madhyamaka school to refute the Mind-Only school according to Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso Rinpoche, we find out that the correlation between “consciousness” and “the objects of consciousness” is just the most logical and reasonable interpretation of this verse:

“Consciousness cannot arise without the arising of the objects that have been proved to be empty by Cittamatra Approach, and the objects that have been proved to be empty by Cittamatra Approach cannot arise without the arising of consciousness; thus, consciousness could be regarded as the objects or the objects could be regarded as consciousness.”

Then, what is trying to be argued here is that consciousness is also empty and does not exist independently.

To summarize, the true meaning of the popular Heart Sutra is to conclude that “all dharmas (or phenomenon) are empty” by arguing that even the mind does not exist.

Finally, we summarize the progressive stages of “emptiness” in terms of a three-tier structure of “subject”, “be aware of” and “object”, bridging various Buddhist schools in a unified analytical framework.