Madhyamaka/Yogacara Confusion

General forum on Mahayana.

Re: Madhyamaka/Yogacara Confusion

Postby Sherab » Fri Aug 13, 2010 4:25 am

5heaps wrote:
Sherab wrote:Hard to accept without further elaboration on why it makes your case.

by quoting that coarse object of negation as the yogacara position youre illustrating that there is a basic difference because early on people such as buddhapalita, aryadeva, shantideva, etc were identifying subtler objects of negation in nagarjuna

Different schools interprets the meaning of middleway differently. The question is which interpretation of middleway is correct.

yes every school thinks theyre the real middle way between the two extremes but here middleway refers to the school named middleway (Madhyamika)

You are following the standard Gelugpa line of interpretation which I don't happen to subscribe to. That is why I mentioned earlier about different interpretations by different schools.
User avatar
Sherab
 
Posts: 765
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am

Re: Madhyamaka/Yogacara Confusion

Postby 5heaps » Fri Aug 13, 2010 8:47 am

Sherab wrote:You are following the standard Gelugpa line of interpretation which I don't happen to subscribe to. That is why I mentioned earlier about different interpretations by different schools.

its not a matter of schools, its historical fact that very early on there was already massive opposition to yogacara ideas. in the same way that the realist schools argued so too did people who had even more radical ideas about ultimate truth
5heaps
 
Posts: 432
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 6:09 am

Re: Madhyamaka/Yogacara Confusion

Postby Sherab » Fri Aug 13, 2010 9:44 am

5heaps wrote:
Sherab wrote:You are following the standard Gelugpa line of interpretation which I don't happen to subscribe to. That is why I mentioned earlier about different interpretations by different schools.

its not a matter of schools, its historical fact that very early on there was already massive opposition to yogacara ideas. in the same way that the realist schools argued so too did people who had even more radical ideas about ultimate truth

It is for me since I subscribe to the view that a coarse object of negation is all that is needed. The Buddha talk only about coarse object of negation. Normal human beings don't think in terms of subtle object of negation. Nagarjuna did not talk about the need to negate subtle object of negation.
User avatar
Sherab
 
Posts: 765
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am

Re: Madhyamaka/Yogacara Confusion

Postby 5heaps » Fri Aug 13, 2010 3:41 pm

Sherab wrote:The Buddha talk only about coarse object of negation.

there are sutras which middleway says explain the subtle object, but yogacara says these are figurative explanations that should be understood within the context of the literal sutras which outline the 3 natures. you probably knew that though
5heaps
 
Posts: 432
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 6:09 am

Re: Madhyamaka/Yogacara Confusion

Postby Sherab » Mon Aug 16, 2010 12:53 am

5heaps wrote:there are sutras which middleway says explain the subtle object, but yogacara says these are figurative explanations that should be understood within the context of the literal sutras which outline the 3 natures ...

I have not come across sutras that talk about subtle object of negation and would be very happy for you to point out to me which sutras you had in mind, what it says and if possible the actual verses themselves.
User avatar
Sherab
 
Posts: 765
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am

Re: Madhyamaka/Yogacara Confusion

Postby catmoon » Tue Aug 17, 2010 12:35 am

Just thought I'd pop in and check - do we have any agreed differences between the schools yet?
Sergeant Schultz knew everything there was to know.
User avatar
catmoon
Former staff member
 
Posts: 3006
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 3:20 am
Location: British Columbia

Re: Madhyamaka/Yogacara Confusion

Postby Sherab » Thu Aug 19, 2010 6:11 am

Hi Catmoon,

My view is that there is no difference in view

Here's a couple of quotes from sutras that are associated with yogacara:

From Lankavatara Sutra
Is not this Tathagata-garbha taught by the Blessed One the same as the ego-substance taught by the philosophers? The ego as taught in the systems of the philosophers is an eternal creator, unqualified, omnipresent, and imperishable.
The Blessed One replied: No, Mahamati, my Tathagata-garbha is not the same as the ego taught by the philosophers; for what the Tathagatas teach is the Tathagata-garbha in the sense, Mahamati, that it is emptiness, reality-limit, Nirvana, being unborn, unqualified, and devoid of will-effort

From Samdhinimocana Sutra
"Phenomena all have three kinds of characteristics. First is the characteristic of mere conceptual grasping. Second is the characteristic of dependent origination. Third is the perfect characteristic of reality.
"The merely conceptual characteristic of phenomena as grasped refers to the differences in the identities of things as provisionally defined by names in order to talk about them.
"The characteristic of dependent origination of phenomena means that the inherent nature of all things is dependent origination. When something exists, then something else exists; when something is produced, something else is produced. For example, ignorance conditions actions, and so on, ultimately bringing together a mass of suffering.
"The perfect characteristic of reality in phenomena is true thusness, which is equal in all things.
User avatar
Sherab
 
Posts: 765
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am

Re: Madhyamaka/Yogacara Confusion

Postby catmoon » Sat Aug 21, 2010 8:11 am

Tnks for the summary!
Sergeant Schultz knew everything there was to know.
User avatar
catmoon
Former staff member
 
Posts: 3006
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 3:20 am
Location: British Columbia

Previous

Return to Mahāyāna Buddhism

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: namoh and 10 guests

>