An intersubjective experience in Yogacara

General forum on the teachings of all schools of Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism. Topics specific to one school are best posted in the appropriate sub-forum.
User avatar
Supramundane
Posts: 621
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 11:38 am
Location: Jakarta, Indonesia

Re: An intersubjective experience in Yogacara

Post by Supramundane »

RonBucker wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 8:46 pm
PadmaVonSamba wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 7:51 pm
RonBucker wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 6:47 pm

"Furthermore, one naturally asks how the things around them (other people, solid objects, sounds, etc) can only be occurring in their own mind. But you have to look beyond that: the very experience of “things” as static entities is a mistaken perception. In other words, you might argue, “that chair is not just a figment of my imagination!” However, the very fact that you perceive and experience “that chair” as an intrinsically existing object (rather thsn as a slowly occurring stream of continuously changing events) is itself purely the experience within your own mind. On that level, or in that regard, every”thing” is only happening in your own mind. The fact that this is a shared delusion is collective karma."

Can you please explain what this means?

As I understand it, it means that in our world everything consists of atoms. Chairs, other people are all collections of atoms that interact according to physical laws. But people gave names to these collections of atoms (chairs, pencils and everything else) and so the concept of a chair is only in humans minds, (conventional truth), and in fact it's just a bunch of atoms that obey the laws of physics (absolute truth)

Am I wrong?
Thank you
In terms of physics, that’s true. But I’m not sure that the Buddhist meaning of conventional truth and absolute truth is about physics, although a scientist might interpret the two truths in that way for their own understanding.

The point I was making is that even with atoms, nothing is ever really established for even a second as a “thing” or entity. Conventionally, objects function as though frozen in time, and ‘cause-and-effect’ operates on that, within that context. If a brick falls on my head, it hurts (even though the atoms themselves don’t hurt). Ultimately, all is just constant movement.
It would be correct to say that all modern schools of Buddhism consider our world as a stream of constantly changing factors on an absolute level, but thanks to people, all these factors got their names and thus the conventional truth appeared?

That is, when we tell each other our thoughts and emotions about recent events in our world, is it more convenient for us to describe it by the conventional truth than to use absolute truth and constantly refer to the time and place, cause and condition of an event?

Thank you!
I think you are on the right track, RB.

It was in fact PvS who gave me the insight that many concepts in buddhism are easier to conceptualize if you think of them as verbs and not nouns or 'things', such as bodhicitta, nirvana (nibutti), karma, dependent origination, etc.
RonBucker
Posts: 21
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2021 7:00 pm

Re: An intersubjective experience in Yogacara

Post by RonBucker »

Johnny Dangerous wrote: Fri Apr 02, 2021 2:37 am
Arnold3000 wrote: Thu Apr 01, 2021 9:56 pm How can people in Yogacara interact with each other? According to Yogacara, all the objects that I see exist only in my mind. What about people? Each person has their own mind, but how do minds interact with each other? If every mind sees its imaginary world, then the people it sees in this world also imagination? That is, every mind can only communicate with imaginary people? What, then, is the meaning of karma if people are imagination?
Yogacara does not say that other people or things are imagination, it says that the way we see them is imaginary. The same would hold for the way others see us - that is all a part of what is called "the imaginary nature" - i.e. how things appear.

Anyway, there are writings out there on intersubjectivity in Yogacara, maybe find one.
Does this mean that the modern schools of Mahayana Buddhism do not adhere to the opinion that external objects do not exist?
RonBucker
Posts: 21
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2021 7:00 pm

Re: An intersubjective experience in Yogacara

Post by RonBucker »

PadmaVonSamba wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 3:30 am
RonBucker wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 8:46 pmIt would be correct to say that all modern schools of Buddhism consider our world as a stream of constantly changing factors on an absolute level, but thanks to people, all these factors got their names and thus the conventional truth appeared?

That is, when we tell each other our thoughts and emotions about recent events in our world, is it more convenient for us to describe it by the conventional truth than to use absolute truth and constantly refer to the time and place, cause and condition of an event?

Thank you!
I think so. You’d probably like the Diamond Sutra.
That is sort of its focus.
Thank you.
May I ask one more question?

Does this mean that modern Mahayana Buddhists of all schools do not adhere to the Yogacara point of view, according to which external objects do not exist?
Thank you
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 9438
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: An intersubjective experience in Yogacara

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

RonBucker wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 12:48 pm Does this mean that modern Mahayana Buddhists of all schools do not adhere to the Yogacara point of view, according to which external objects do not exist?
Thank you
I don’t think Mahayanists reject yogacara. It’s part of the whole philosophical structure.

Something I have mentioned a few times is the problem that many Dharma students run into,
which is saying:
“here is a thing but it doesn’t exist”
which is actually a contradiction.
People go nuts trying to unravel that one.

It’s more accurate to say:
“there is nothing within this object where an ultimate existence can be found”.

There is a tiny but very important difference in those two phrases.

Here is an article that is a pretty good summation of yogacara. It’s not as simple as “objects do not exist”. I’m not even sure it’s accurate to say that yogacarans (mind-only school) think that everything is just a figment of the imagination:
https://www.lionsroar.com/dharma-dictionary-yogacara/

...
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
User avatar
Queequeg
Former staff member
Posts: 14457
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: An intersubjective experience in Yogacara

Post by Queequeg »

PadmaVonSamba wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 2:27 pm
RonBucker wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 12:48 pm Does this mean that modern Mahayana Buddhists of all schools do not adhere to the Yogacara point of view, according to which external objects do not exist?
Thank you
I don’t think Mahayanists reject yogacara. It’s part of the whole philosophical structure.

Something I have mentioned a few times is the problem that many Dharma students run into,
which is saying:
“here is a thing but it doesn’t exist”
which is actually a contradiction.
People go nuts trying to unravel that one.

It’s more accurate to say:
“there is nothing within this object where an ultimate existence can be found”.

There is a tiny but very important difference in those two phrases.

Here is an article that is a pretty good summation of yogacara. It’s not as simple as “objects do not exist”. I’m not even sure it’s accurate to say that yogacarans (mind-only school) think that everything is just a figment of the imagination:
https://www.lionsroar.com/dharma-dictionary-yogacara/

...
I think the reason this problem keeps coming up is because we, as modern people, are conditioned into the materialist view. The materialist view assumes a naive objective reality. It shunts the mind into an exists/does not exist dichotomy by which to organize experience.

After years of watching this conversation play out on DW, I am convinced this medium alone will not adequately address the issue. These people need to sit down and examine experience. This is what they don't get - all these teachings are not philosophical propositions within the materialist view. This comes from a perspective that prioritizes consciousness. Until they get this paradigm, nothing that is explained will make sense to them.
There is no suffering to be severed. Ignorance and klesas are indivisible from bodhi. There is no cause of suffering to be abandoned. Since extremes and the false are the Middle and genuine, there is no path to be practiced. Samsara is nirvana. No severance achieved. No suffering nor its cause. No path, no end. There is no transcendent realm; there is only the one true aspect. There is nothing separate from the true aspect.
-Guanding, Perfect and Sudden Contemplation,
narhwal90
Global Moderator
Posts: 3509
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 3:10 am
Location: Baltimore, MD

Re: An intersubjective experience in Yogacara

Post by narhwal90 »

PadmaVonSamba wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 2:27 pm
Here is an article that is a pretty good summation of yogacara. It’s not as simple as “objects do not exist”. I’m not even sure it’s accurate to say that yogacarans (mind-only school) think that everything is just a figment of the imagination:
https://www.lionsroar.com/dharma-dictionary-yogacara/
...
I've viewed the proposition as "since the senses mediate all experience with objects, definitive statements of existence or non-existence cannot be made".
User avatar
Queequeg
Former staff member
Posts: 14457
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: An intersubjective experience in Yogacara

Post by Queequeg »

narhwal90 wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 3:24 pm
PadmaVonSamba wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 2:27 pm
Here is an article that is a pretty good summation of yogacara. It’s not as simple as “objects do not exist”. I’m not even sure it’s accurate to say that yogacarans (mind-only school) think that everything is just a figment of the imagination:
https://www.lionsroar.com/dharma-dictionary-yogacara/
...
I've viewed the proposition as "since the senses mediate all experience with objects, definitive statements of existence or non-existence cannot be made".
I believe it goes further than that. Existence and non-existence are compound categories on a rather abstract level. On analysis, they don't hold up. Going back to experience is the starting point. Shamatha to eliminate all distractions and Vipashyana to examine what's left, Upaya to apply the insight and build the dharmas back up as devices to conduct beings to bodhi.
There is no suffering to be severed. Ignorance and klesas are indivisible from bodhi. There is no cause of suffering to be abandoned. Since extremes and the false are the Middle and genuine, there is no path to be practiced. Samsara is nirvana. No severance achieved. No suffering nor its cause. No path, no end. There is no transcendent realm; there is only the one true aspect. There is nothing separate from the true aspect.
-Guanding, Perfect and Sudden Contemplation,
RonBucker
Posts: 21
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2021 7:00 pm

Re: An intersubjective experience in Yogacara

Post by RonBucker »

PadmaVonSamba wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 2:27 pm
RonBucker wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 12:48 pm Does this mean that modern Mahayana Buddhists of all schools do not adhere to the Yogacara point of view, according to which external objects do not exist?
Thank you
I don’t think Mahayanists reject yogacara. It’s part of the whole philosophical structure.

Something I have mentioned a few times is the problem that many Dharma students run into,
which is saying:
“here is a thing but it doesn’t exist”
which is actually a contradiction.
People go nuts trying to unravel that one.

It’s more accurate to say:
“there is nothing within this object where an ultimate existence can be found”.

There is a tiny but very important difference in those two phrases.

Here is an article that is a pretty good summation of yogacara. It’s not as simple as “objects do not exist”. I’m not even sure it’s accurate to say that yogacarans (mind-only school) think that everything is just a figment of the imagination:
https://www.lionsroar.com/dharma-dictionary-yogacara/

...
Thank you. Sorry, I probably ask a lot of questions.
As far as I understand, no modern Chan / Zen, Pure Land Buddhists is of the opinion that external objects do not exist or that everything exists only in their imagination?
RonBucker
Posts: 21
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2021 7:00 pm

Re: An intersubjective experience in Yogacara

Post by RonBucker »

Queequeg wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 2:43 pm
PadmaVonSamba wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 2:27 pm
RonBucker wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 12:48 pm Does this mean that modern Mahayana Buddhists of all schools do not adhere to the Yogacara point of view, according to which external objects do not exist?
Thank you
I don’t think Mahayanists reject yogacara. It’s part of the whole philosophical structure.

Something I have mentioned a few times is the problem that many Dharma students run into,
which is saying:
“here is a thing but it doesn’t exist”
which is actually a contradiction.
People go nuts trying to unravel that one.

It’s more accurate to say:
“there is nothing within this object where an ultimate existence can be found”.

There is a tiny but very important difference in those two phrases.

Here is an article that is a pretty good summation of yogacara. It’s not as simple as “objects do not exist”. I’m not even sure it’s accurate to say that yogacarans (mind-only school) think that everything is just a figment of the imagination:
https://www.lionsroar.com/dharma-dictionary-yogacara/

...
I think the reason this problem keeps coming up is because we, as modern people, are conditioned into the materialist view. The materialist view assumes a naive objective reality. It shunts the mind into an exists/does not exist dichotomy by which to organize experience.

After years of watching this conversation play out on DW, I am convinced this medium alone will not adequately address the issue. These people need to sit down and examine experience. This is what they don't get - all these teachings are not philosophical propositions within the materialist view. This comes from a perspective that prioritizes consciousness. Until they get this paradigm, nothing that is explained will make sense to them.
Thank you. Are you saying that in order to be a Buddhist, you cannot be a materialist and you can not believe in a naive objective reality?

As far as I understand, the only difference is that everything in our world does not have an independent existence and consists of a constant stream of factors that we given names, and the essence of awakening is learning how to look at the world without names, associations and concepts?
Or am I wrong?
Last edited by RonBucker on Sun Apr 18, 2021 5:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
RonBucker
Posts: 21
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2021 7:00 pm

Re: An intersubjective experience in Yogacara

Post by RonBucker »

narhwal90 wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 3:24 pm
PadmaVonSamba wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 2:27 pm
Here is an article that is a pretty good summation of yogacara. It’s not as simple as “objects do not exist”. I’m not even sure it’s accurate to say that yogacarans (mind-only school) think that everything is just a figment of the imagination:
https://www.lionsroar.com/dharma-dictionary-yogacara/
...
I've viewed the proposition as "since the senses mediate all experience with objects, definitive statements of existence or non-existence cannot be made".
Let me ask? The fact that I do not understand: in order to practice, I need to change my views on the world? For example, I am a materialist, but in order to practice I need to change my views?
narhwal90
Global Moderator
Posts: 3509
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 3:10 am
Location: Baltimore, MD

Re: An intersubjective experience in Yogacara

Post by narhwal90 »

You may find your beliefs changing as a consequence of practice. Matters considered to be certainties might become more clearly experienced as views, subject to ambiguity and evolution..

As a materialist you might become more aware of the limits of such a view and see it more of a convention than an identity.

Your experience of your own mind may become more comfortable.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: An intersubjective experience in Yogacara

Post by Malcolm »

RonBucker wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 12:36 pm
Does this mean that the modern schools of Mahayana Buddhism do not adhere to the opinion that external objects do not exist?
Generally, speaking, no.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: An intersubjective experience in Yogacara

Post by Malcolm »

RonBucker wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 5:22 pm

Thank you. Are you saying that in order to be a Buddhist, you cannot be a materialist and you can not believe in a naive objective reality?

As far as I understand, the only difference is that everything in our world does not have an independent existence and consists of a constant stream of factors that we given names, and the essence of awakening is learning how to look at the world without names, associations and concepts?
Or am I wrong?
There are three concepts that distinguish Buddhist thought from the materialist: 1) mind is a nonphysical continuum that interacts with matter; and thus Buddhists accept 2) rebirth and 3) karma.
RonBucker
Posts: 21
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2021 7:00 pm

Re: An intersubjective experience in Yogacara

Post by RonBucker »

narhwal90 wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 6:04 pm You may find your beliefs changing as a consequence of practice. Matters considered to be certainties might become more clearly experienced as views, subject to ambiguity and evolution..

As a materialist you might become more aware of the limits of such a view and see it more of a convention than an identity.

Your experience of your own mind may become more comfortable.
Thank you, how about believing in objective reality?
The modern Buddhist view of Yogachara is: There are no external objects and the whole world is my imagination?

Or
There is an objective world and external objects, it's just that our perception of these objects is different.
For example, we see the same flower. I like this flower but you don’t.
The flower exists independently of our minds, but if it were not for our minds and eyes, we would not be able to perceive this flower, and if the flower did not exist, then we would have nothing to perceive?
RonBucker
Posts: 21
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2021 7:00 pm

Re: An intersubjective experience in Yogacara

Post by RonBucker »

Malcolm wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 6:09 pm
RonBucker wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 12:36 pm
Does this mean that the modern schools of Mahayana Buddhism do not adhere to the opinion that external objects do not exist?
Generally, speaking, no.
that is, they don't believe in external objects? Then I didn't understand anything. Does everyone imagine their own world?
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 9438
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: An intersubjective experience in Yogacara

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

RonBucker wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 4:03 pm Sorry, I probably ask a lot of questions.
As far as I understand, no modern Chan / Zen, Pure Land Buddhists is of the opinion that external objects do not exist or that everything exists only in their imagination?
I think Buddhism only allows for 20 questions and they all have to have yes/no answers.
:rolling:

My understanding is that Chan/Zen doesn’t doesn’t spend too much time puzzling over this question when a swift bonk on the head with a stick is much more practical.
If you ask a Roshi they might whack you with a stick and then ask you if what you experienced is real or in your mind.

Mahayana Buddhists for the most part, however, I think accept the two-truths formula:
1. Conventionally, what we experience is conditional and therefore a projection of mind;
2. Ultimately, everything is emptiness (sunyata) devoid of any intrinsic or self-arising essential “self-ness”.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 9438
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: An intersubjective experience in Yogacara

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

RonBucker wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 6:25 pm
Malcolm wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 6:09 pm
RonBucker wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 12:36 pm
Does this mean that the modern schools of Mahayana Buddhism do not adhere to the opinion that external objects do not exist?
Generally, speaking, no.
that is, they don't believe in external objects? Then I didn't understand anything. Does everyone imagine their own world?
Be careful asking questions with double-negatives because
This may be confusing in this type (web forum) of format.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
narhwal90
Global Moderator
Posts: 3509
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 3:10 am
Location: Baltimore, MD

Re: An intersubjective experience in Yogacara

Post by narhwal90 »

RonBucker wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 6:21 pm
narhwal90 wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 6:04 pm You may find your beliefs changing as a consequence of practice. Matters considered to be certainties might become more clearly experienced as views, subject to ambiguity and evolution..

As a materialist you might become more aware of the limits of such a view and see it more of a convention than an identity.

Your experience of your own mind may become more comfortable.
Thank you, how about believing in objective reality?
The modern Buddhist view of Yogachara is: There are no external objects and the whole world is my imagination?

Or
There is an objective world and external objects, it's just that our perception of these objects is different.
For example, we see the same flower. I like this flower but you don’t.
The flower exists independently of our minds, but if it were not for our minds and eyes, we would not be able to perceive this flower, and if the flower did not exist, then we would have nothing to perceive?
I suppose you could believe in some kind of objective reality if you want but any such conceot us fundamentally subjective and prone to all the illusory, delusory aspects of cognition.

Something that I call the flower may well exist but i understand that i only experience it subjectively, and do not perceive its entirety.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: An intersubjective experience in Yogacara

Post by Malcolm »

RonBucker wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 6:25 pm
Malcolm wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 6:09 pm
RonBucker wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 12:36 pm
Does this mean that the modern schools of Mahayana Buddhism do not adhere to the opinion that external objects do not exist?
Generally, speaking, no.
that is, they don't believe in external objects? Then I didn't understand anything. Does everyone imagine their own world?
No, as in "No, modern schools of Mahayana Buddhism do not adhere to the opinion that external objects do not exist."
RonBucker
Posts: 21
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2021 7:00 pm

Re: An intersubjective experience in Yogacara

Post by RonBucker »

Malcolm wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 7:14 pm
RonBucker wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 6:25 pm
Malcolm wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 6:09 pm

Generally, speaking, no.
that is, they don't believe in external objects? Then I didn't understand anything. Does everyone imagine their own world?
No, as in "No, modern schools of Mahayana Buddhism do not adhere to the opinion that external objects do not exist."
Thank you. Sorry, this is my mistake. That is, modern schools of Mahayana Buddhism believe that external objects exist, but they exist as constant streams of factors?
Post Reply

Return to “Mahāyāna Buddhism”