Emptiness in Yogacara

[Malcolm]

As an aside, what the Madhyamakas are trying to explain to the Yogacarin is that they cannot have their cake and eat it too.

[conebeckham]

Cake? What cake? Who said anything about cake...???

Hey Namdrol, Kongtrul makes an interesting statement in his Sheja Dzo, in the chapter about "Cittamatra." He says, "Some Tibetans cite the teachings of the master Vasubhandu as a scriptural [source] for these [Cittamatra views]. This is simply the mistake of those who speak deviously by not distinguishing between [Vasubhandu's] assertion that primordial wisdom is truly existent and [the Cittamatra system's] statement that consciousness is truly existent." (p.191).

My take on what is "asserted as real" by the Yogacaras is the "Perfect Nature," (Parinishpanna)--but this has two aspects:

1. The "Unchanging" which is described as a nonimplicative negation, unconditioned, and which is dharmata. It is empty, in my mind, in the same way Madhyamika asserts the Ultimate truth of self and phenomena are empty. No?

2. The "Unerring" which is reflexive awareness, nonconceptual nondual cognition. This is what is "asserted" as perhaps "not empty." But it's not "mind," in the sense that Madhyamika famously says that consciousness does not exist ultimately. Even The Madhyamakaprajnavatara says:
"Let the Nonconceptual mind remain in its own peace.
Without identifying anything or being distracted,
meditate with clarity, free from characteristics."

Save me some cake, would you?

[Malcolm]

Cake? What cake? Who said anything about cake...???

Read this, especially the conclusion.

http://wordpress.tsadra.org/?p=1215

[conebeckham]

Great article by detective Khenpo Karl....thanks!
So, it appears the Bṛhaṭṭīkā's authorship is questioned...I wonder if that was the source of Kongtrul's comment? There's no footnote or further explanation, unfortunately. I'm not familiar with the vast corpus of texts that are referred to, of course...it's fascinating stuff. 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.

[Malcolm]

Interesting, also, that even in India there were a variety of interpretations.

Not until quite late. The salient point is that Maitreyanatha, Asanga, and Vasubandhu all use the type 1 presentation which means they all were cittamatrins by gshan stong pa standards.

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.

The issue has been, as always, whether post-Yogacara Madhyamakas like Bhavaviveka were justified in their critiques of Maitreyanatha, Asanga, and Vasubandhu.

It is clear that after the attacks of Bhavaviveka and so on on the Yogacara school, that there was a response which involved a) altering the Perfection of Wisdom in 25 and 18 thousand lines with the addition of the Maitreya chapter in order to b) provide justification of the reworking the three nature model.

Basically, we can identify three phases of Yogacara: the sutra period, original commentatator period, and the post-Madhyamaka response period.

What we observe in period two is trenchent attacks by Asanga in particular on the austerity of the perfection of wisdom vision and a concern that it lead to a form of annihilationism.

What we observe in period three is a revamping of Yogacara, recasting the three natures in terms of the two truths.

This latter phase represents a defeat for the Yogacara system in general, since the three natures are completely unnecessary given the presentation of two truths. However, late Yogacarin partisans managed to communicate their ideas to Tibet, and since the time of Dolbupa, centuries of followers of gshan stong have been seriously confused about what the actual teaching of Maitreyanatha, Asanga, and Vasubandhu might have been, especially as this has been conflated with the tathagatagarbha theory.

N

[conebeckham]

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?

[Malcolm]

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?

There is some justification for Dolbupa's position in so-called the three bodhisattva commentaries i.e. on Kalacakra, Hevajra, and Cakrasamvara.

What is clear to me is the rigid typological boundaries in the four tenet systems tend to fall apart when it comes to Vajrayāna, since in Vajrayāna, the view is not an intellectual construct, but rather, an experiential introduction. That being the case, whether one's intellectual view is cittamatra or madhyamaka is not very important since one's practice will be based on the view communicated during the empowerment, not a view arrived at analytically.

However, here 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.

N