Solo

I’m over here in the Zen side of things, and we practice a little differently. Aware of what is occurring, might be an easy way of summarizing it. And I can relate that my experience is thus (perhaps this perspective will help you in appreciating the difference between the two schools. Which I personally do not see any conflict in):

I suspect that we humans are so accustomed to perceiving objective reality, that when we “see” the real thing, our immediate impression is “this is emptiness”. And really, there is no thing “there”. However, if you drop this emptiness idea, then you can begin to realize what the “real thing” is (as in Thusness). And this is where it really gets interesting, by the way.

It’s actually pretty cool. If you calm your mind enough, you will become aware that you are projecting your imagination out from you, painting with your imagination the scene that you then perceive with your senses. You become aware that it all comes into focus, a point of concentration, at a small spot a couple of feet in front of your face. Surrounding this point of focus, things get progressively, slightly, more blurry the farther away from that point they get. But, whenever you shift your gaze, you shift the location of that point, so that wherever you are looking directly, always seems to be fully articulated reality.

If you meditate more deeply, then you can become aware of your self “receiving” bits of “information”, as well as originating bits itself, which it then “processes” into the projections, to manifest the world that you then believe that you are perceiving. We all do this so habitually, though, that few really take the time to notice what is going on.

It seems to me, albeit an outsider to the Tibetan schools, that this is what the Prasangikas are trying to refer to: this ultimate that is realized even as it is “not” emptiness. (An ultimate that is not made of existents, etc, etc…).

An interesting side light to this distinction is that of intention: If ones intention were to describe this ultimate, theorize about it, speculate about it, then one might choose several words from the resource language at hand that might give the reader (or listener) some sort of idea about what this ultimate is like.

However, if ones intention were to Know this ultimate, then unfortunately, trying to know it, led on by the word makers description of it, one would never come to truly know it or even begin to realize It. Because to realize It, one must let go of all notions, whether well intentioned or not. And even then, let go of the letting go. It is that kind of Knowing.

So if I wanted to direct you to the realization of this ultimate, I would not begin by making some statement on what it is. And this makes sense to me as to the Prasangika direction in their practice. (However, this is not to say that the Cittamatra school does not have similar intentions. But, perhaps their “method” is to point to emptiness, and in that emptiness, realize the ultimate.) I hope I haven’t made this only more confusing.