Sooner or Later: Yogacara

[tobes]

Perhaps we are not taking seriously enough the idea of the dependent nature, without which, Yogacara moves in the direction of solipsism.

I like this assertion from Ven.Thera's study of the Theravadan Abhidharma:

".....allows us to formulate an important axiom of Buddhist philosophy: a complete description of a thing requires, besides its analysis, also a statement of its relation to other things."

Talking about an independent consciousness seems to radically depart from that axiom.

[Astus]

I try to clarify the problem I see. If we say there's a common perception it means that two people share the same thought (vijnapti), or that their thoughts are similar. It could be that that thought was given from one person to the other or it came from a third mind. Both for sharing and causing-receiving there's a need for some sort of connection between minds. That connection, however, is problematical because the identity of the mind-stream has to be maintained. If it is possible to directly influence another's mind there's a chance of mixing karma for instance, so it'd become possible for buddhas to liberate beings instantly.

[Jnana]

Both for sharing and causing-receiving there's a need for some sort of connection between minds. That connection, however, is problematical because the identity of the mind-stream has to be maintained.

Phenomena and mind-streams are not real. Appearances are only delusion (bhrāntimātra). The Dharmadharmatāvibhāagavṛtti:

Unreal imagination (abhūtaparikalpa) is the basis (āśraya) for the designations (prajñapti) of own-nature (svarūpa) and distinctive marks (viśeṣa).

Appearances arise through the bifurcating power of mind. Ju Mipham's commentary:

The objection could then be raised: “What would be the problem in thinking, ‘Well, then, the minds of others exist but are experienced, not directly, but through the medium of an image, and the same would apply to outer objects?’”

In reply, if it were not the case that it is the consciousness itself appearing as an object due to the wakening of internal residual patterns, even granted that outer referents existed, they would not appear, comparable to the case of water for hungry ghosts and forms for the gods of infinite space. If, on the contrary, it were a case of internal residual tendencies manifesting explicitly, outer referents existing on their own would not be needed, comparable to the case of pus for hungry ghosts and the appearance of space literally everywhere for a god of infinite space.

Hence it is evident that it is appearance that manifests through the power of mind, not mind through the power of appearances. Similarly, all others’ mindstreams could not be the product of any one mind, since it is not possible to claim that, when one has achieved nirvana, all would have done so.

All the best,

Geoff

[Astus]

Geoff,

Then it seems what I thought as the resolution agrees with what Mipham (and others before) have said. Well, it is sad.

[Jnana]

Well, it is sad.

Why do you consider this sad?

All the best,

Geoff

[Astus]

Because I was looking for a new explanation, a new view, a different method to solve the question.

[Jnana]

The Yogācāra authors are simply explicating prajñāpāramitā. The Aṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra:

Like a magical illusion are those beings, like a dream. For not two different things are magical illusion and beings, are dreams and beings. All objective facts also are like a magical illusion, like a dream. The various classes of noble ones, from streamwinner to buddhahood, also are like a magical illusion, like a dream. Even nirvāṇa, I say, is like a magical illusion, is like a dream. How much more so anything else! Even if perchance there could be anything more distinguished, of that too I would say that it is like an illusion, like a dream. For not two different things are illusion and nirvāṇa, are dreams and nirvāṇa.

The Mañjuśrīparivartāparaparyāyā Saptaśatikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra:

The development of prajñāpāramitā is where no phenomenon arises or ceases.

The Ratnaguṇasaṃcayagāthā:

Not seeing form, not seeing feelings,
Not seeing apperception, not seeing volitional intention,
Not seeing consciousness, mind, or cognition —
This has been indicated as the vision of reality (dharmadarśana) by the Tathāgata.

The Aṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra:

Thus, there is no mind in the mind, but the nature of the mind is luminous-clarity (prabhāsvarā).

The Jñānālokālaṃkāra Sūtra:

Mañjuśrī, enlightenment by its nature consists of luminous-clarity, because the mind's nature is luminously clear. Why is it so designated? The mind's nature is detached from any inner defilement and is like the nature of space, while encompassing space through its identical characteristics. For all these reasons it is designated as being luminous-clarity.

[Mr. G]

I don't have this particular book:

Living Yogacara: An Introduction to Consciousness-Only Buddhism

Is it worth picking up?

[Astus]

I don't have this particular book:

Living Yogacara: An Introduction to Consciousness-Only Buddhism

Is it worth picking up?

Certainly it is. Very good intro.

[Mr. G]

I don't have this particular book:

Living Yogacara: An Introduction to Consciousness-Only Buddhism

Is it worth picking up?

Certainly it is. Very good intro.

Thanks Astus. I've added it to my wishlist.

[White Lotus]

it is neither mind, nor nothingness, nor awareness. beyond all names and forms. it glows like the moon within the breast.
own nature is impermanent, awareness is impermanent. it is not a thing, and yet within it own nature may 'appear' to exist for a while. it is beyond even nothingness. words will not suffice. not one nor many, nor anything whatsoever, still it glows... until the cessation of subject altogether. purer even that 'that' awareness is loving kindness.

white lotus. x