conebeckham wrote:Cake? What cake? Who said anything about cake...???
conebeckham wrote: Interesting, also, that even in India there were a variety of interpretations.
As an aside, I tend to think of all this ultimately as less about ontology, and more about practice and experience. I always come to the conclusion that conceptual mind cannot directly know reality, much less formulate some sort of framework describing it.
conebeckham wrote:I'm not sure the "Three Natures" is completely irrelevant, I think it has some value--even if it's "wrong." After all, it takes a mind, even one that doesn't ultimately exist, to even say that things are empty or come to that (non)conclusion! There's some soteriological value to some of these concepts and ideas........But I certainly can't disagree with your assessments about "revisionism," or about the confusion regarding what "early" or "True" Yogacara's positions and doctrines were, given the plethora of late Indian versions, and the Tibetan penchant for logorrhoea.
BTW, speaking of "frameworks of Buddhist philosophy," I bet you love Kongtruls' "Secret Mantra Madhyamaka," the apex of that portion of the Sheja Dzod, eh?
If something is regarded as empty of that which is not present in it, yet that which is then left over is truthfully recognized as being present here, then this is called truthful, unerring penetration of emptiness. For example, a factor that is by nature the designation of visible form, etc., is not present in a thing designated as visible form, etc., as we have called it above. Therefore, this given thing designated as visible form, etc., is empty of the nature of the designation of visible form, etc. So then what is left of this thing designated as visible form, etc? That which forms the basis of the designation of visible form, etc.
Now, if one truthfuly recognizes these two, namely, the present thing in itself and the mere designation of the thing in itself, if the unreal is not attributed and the real is not denied, if nothing is added and nothing taken away, nothing is inserted and nothing eliminated, then true suchness, the inexpressible nature, is truthfully understood. This is called correctly comprehended emptiness, well-discerned through correct insight.
Malcolm wrote:conebeckham wrote:Regarding your comments about the internal contradiction in the three natures, my understanding of the Three Natures is that the False Nature is purely imaginary, thus obviously nonexistent, the Dependent nature is empty dependent origination, and the Perfect nature is neither existent nor nonexistent.
And this is a perfectly gzhan stong interpretation.
The way this is parsed in authentic Yogacara texts is that the non-existence of the imagined in the dependent is the perfected nature. Hence the citation above states that the imagination of the false is empty and not empty as well has existence, non-existence, and as well as existence.
The ālayavijñāna is the dependent nature; when the seeds within it are exhausted, there is a transformation in the basis, it's nature as the ālayavijñana ceases, becoming wisdom. Why? The Yogacara designate the ālayavijñāna based upon the storage of seeds. When there are no more seeds, then there is no basis for designation of a container or storage place of seeds. What remains is a non-dual consciousness. That is not longer termed "mind", it is now termed "wisdom".
The sole thing that is refuted by the Yogacara school as being non-existent is duality. Duality does not exist in the imagination of the unreal. But the imagination itself exists. It's emptiness is soley emptiness of the unreal.
For this reason then we can understand their school is a non-dual realism i.e. "everything is not only empty".
Malcolm wrote:Read this, especially the conclusion.
http://wordpress.tsadra.org/?p=1215" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I'm not sure the "Three Natures" is completely irrelevant, I think it has some value--even if it's "wrong."
Malcolm wrote:we are dicussing emptiness in yogacara, and whether it really is true that they posit non-dual consciousness that substantially exists. I think in face of the evidence it is a little hard to deny that in fact they did so.
Astus wrote:As for the ultimate accomplishment, Yogacara has non-abiding nirvana, so it doesn't look like something that accepts any substantially existent things or minds.
Users browsing this forum: Serenity509 and 8 guests