Path: typhoon.sonic.net!vnetnews.value.net!nntp.primenet.com!nntp.gctr.net!triton.skycache.com!199.45.45.8!cyclone1.ba-dsg.net!typhoon1.ba-dsg.net.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Nevermind Newsgroups: alt.magick.tyagi,alt.magick.tantra,alt.religion.buddhism.tibetan,alt.religion.tantra,alt.religion.buddhism,talk.religion.buddhism Subject: Re: History of Mahayana, Metaphysics (was Sunyata and Maya ...) Message-ID: References: <8ff2to$4oq@bolt.sonic.net> <8foges$lgv@bolt.sonic.net> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.7/32.534 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 110 Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 11:25:15 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 151.202.92.149 X-Complaints-To: newsadmin@bellatlantic.net X-Trace: typhoon1.ba-dsg.net 958389915 151.202.92.149 (Mon, 15 May 2000 07:25:15 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 07:25:15 EDT Xref: typhoon.sonic.net alt.magick.tyagi:23056 alt.magick.tantra:15919 alt.religion.buddhism.tibetan:72556 alt.religion.tantra:2546 talk.religion.buddhism:123786 On Mon, 15 May 2000 09:36:10 GMT, nagasiva@luckymojo.com (nagasiva yronwode) wrote: >I would partially agree. the Yogacarins, by my understanding, >posit that "suchness" is the nature of reality, that 'mind' is >at best a passing phenomenon that obscures perception of this >reality. their metaphysics (if it can be called this) include >not just mental phenomena but more: Actually, the Yogacarins posit the mind (in their case what they refer to as alaya-vijnana, the storehouse consciousness) as a substantially existent entity, which is why they're considered wrong from the Prasangika perspective, which considers ALL phenomena as devoid of intrinsic characteristics (lakshanas, or marks). >>Nagarjuna and Asanga are considered to be founders of both >>the Yogacara and the Prasangika school. The prasangika part >>of Mahayana can be considered a later elaboration of the >>Yogacara school. > >that's odd. my sources indicate that the Madhyamika and >Yogacara schools were rivals, and critiqued one another's >reflections on reality. You are correct. >I'd understood that the originators >of the Yogacara were Asanga, possibly Maitreyanatha, and >Asanga's half-brother Vasubandhu. Again, right on. The original poster has his facts confused. >>Not true, Yogacara is part of the Madhyamika school > >that is a VERY unusual claim in my experience, since these >two are almost consistently described as rival schools. It's not only very unusual, it's dead-wrong. Yogacara is mercilessly refuted by all Madhyamikins (at least Prasangikas, perhaps not fully by the Madhyamika-Svatantrika-Yogacararins, for example). >>In the Tibetan tantras, the mode of philosophising is >>definately reflected... in the practice. > >are you saying that debate and discussion are presumed to >have the capacity to lead to awakening in Tibetan Buddhism? Absolutely. The point of debate is to produce the correct "inferential cognizer" in the mind of one's interlocutor. In this way one falsifies invalid propositions about the nature of reality which normally ensnare one. This style is what "Prasanga" refers to: the technique that uses logic to falsify eternalistic or nihilistic views of existence, thus leading one to the correct conclusion about the Middle Way by inference. This is very important in some schools of Tibetan Buddhism -- the Geluk school, for example. And this most definitely leads directly to awakening. This fact sometimes engenders disbelief in those who've only read a few books on Zen, for example, or who wrongly believe that emptiness is some fuzzy, inchoate thing one must break koans to experience -- that the intellect is a mere hindrance to realization. In reality, nothing could be further from the truth. Right View depends on eliminating wrong views, and that can only happen after one has eradicated intellectual flavors of wrong views in the first place. To understand how this is so, one must consider that there are three valid modes of cognition: 1) direct cognition (i.e. the sense organs come in contact with an object); 2) inferential cognition, where one sees the truth of a thing via logic, in this case, emptiness; and 3) yogic direct perception, which occurs in the mind in deep meditation and is the final stop: direct perception of emptiness. Since the first is impossible with a "deeply hidden" object like emptiness, only the last two modes obtain. However, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to have a direct perception without having generated the correct inferential cognizers via logic, and one is otherwise likely to be entangled in a thicket of wrong views that directly block direct perception in deep meditation. The point of logic is to eradicate wrong views intellectually. Koans serve a similar purpose: to get the discursive intellect out of the way by blasting it to smithereens. The two approaches are nearly opposiute, yet produce the same effect. The Tibetans use the intellect to bootstrap itself out of mistaken views via logic, whereas koans attempt to indiscriminately nuke all types of discursiveness by throwing nonsense at the mind. Personally I find the logic approach superior, all other things being equal, because it is very systematic and leaves far less room for error about what emptiness is not, and as a result I think it is a superior pedagogical strategy. >is there a discernment made between ('mere') "intellectual >comprehension" and "realization"? or are these considered >to be coincident? See the "three modes" of cognition above. There is a world of diffecence between inferential and direct perception. The direct preception is the sine qua non of Buddhist practice. It is the only wway one can permently destroy mental afflictions (kleshas). Inferential congnition is merely a stepping-stone to direct perception.