Talk:Yogachara/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Yogachara. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Recommendation removed

Removed:

But as the Western understanding of Buddhism matures, it will be very useful for us if we can round out our theoretical understanding of Buddhism by studying a bit about Yogācāra.

Since it's unneccessary and very POV. Simon 81.229.85.178 23:38, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

maybe unnecessary, but not sure about POV - studying yogacara is typically a precursor to studying madyamaka in tibetan monastery education; since madyamaka and yogacara evolved relating to one another, it is at least in that system considered that for better understanding of madyamaka, some knowledge of yogacara is at least welcome --Aryah 05:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

re Where the karma is stored?

When reading about complex yogacarin concepts, I recalled this: Once a monk asked the Buddha (Shakyamuni) about something, saying that if he won't fulfill his curiosity immediately, he will leave the sangha (he probably was a very smart and scholarly monk). Buddha then asked him whether he ever promised him that he will be given answers to such questions when he asked permission to join sangha. The monk replied that no, he did not indeed. Buddha then told him a story about the poisoned arrow ("please do not remove this poisoned arrow until you tell me who exactly fired it, with what bow, from what angle" etc). It is interesting to know where exactly karma is stored before it manifests but I heard a good answer to similar question once: "when (if) you attain enlightement, you will see it yourself". This is indeed a rare piece of humor, IMO. The said monk had an advantage, to be honest: he was able to ask the Buddha himself.

translations of rangtong and shentong

in the article are translated as 'noble conduct' and 'noble view' in actuality, they literally mean 'emptiness of self' and 'emptiness of other', respectively

I'm not familiar with the 'conduct/view' interpretation of these concepts.

Nor me; I've corrected those glosses.

--MrDemeanour 16:32, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Better still, and more accurately, perhaps one could use "intrinsic emptiness" and "extrinsic emptiness"--Stephen Hodge 01:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Yogacara in English

I don't think it's accurate to say, as the conclusion of this article does, that "there are really no good, accessible books on the topic [of yogacara] in English." To mention just one, there is William Waldron's book on the Alayavijnana, a thoroughgoing and eminently readable examination of this basic Yogacara concept, which also compares it to the concept of the unconscious as explicated by Jung and Freud. Indeedy, the book is a revision of Waldron's Ph.D. thesis.

That's just one example of a very good book on Yogacara in English. There are others.

Practice-oriented

I'm uneasy about the paragraph contrasting the Yogacara with "more practice-oriented" traditions. The Yogacarins were so named because they were dedicated and expert at meditation practice. I appreciate that the remark is referring to the transmission of Buddhism in the west, and I'm not sure how to fix this at the moment; so I've done nothing. -- MrDemeanour 10:26, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Merge?

cittamatra allready redirects here, and the consciousness-only article is at least totaly unsourced, and some info sounds dubious. I also dont think one could systematically make a distinction of thinking about yogacara as a school and cittamatra as that schools philosophy; both names are usually used interchangably, and its not really clear that typical presentation of yogachara in tibetan buddhism (at least) is not just a straw-man for madyamaka, so that there ever was a real school having exactly the positions now called cittamatera/yogachara - this is mentioned in the shentong article. --Aryah 05:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

fact

I tuned up the language a bit around a statement that 'It is said' that Yogacara is a preliminary path, but I cannot provide a reference. Zero sharp 06:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit in section Legacy of the Yogacara

I changed 'probably' to 'perhaps' [plz see diff in history] . The statement as it was is unsourced _and_ kind of POV. I weakened it a little to try to soften the possibly POV tone, but didn't flag it as {{Fact}} because it's not a WILDLY out of joint statement. It probably would be better if it were fleshed out and sourced at some point though.

Comment welcome Zero sharp 08:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Potential source list to expand article

Anacker, Stefan. Seven Works of Vasubandhu. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. 1984.
Beyer, Steven. The Twenty Verses by Vasubandhu with an anonymous commentary. Typescript.
Clack, Joseph and Panish, Paul. Remarks on Vasubandhu's "Thirty Verses Proving the Doctrine of Mind Only. Typescript. 1974.
Epstein, Ronald. Verse Delineating the Eight Consciousnesses. Typescript.
Epstein, Ronald. Tranformation of Consciousness into Wisdom in the Chinese Consciousness-Only School according to Cheng Wei-Shr Lun. Vajra Bodhi Sea Journal. January-March, 1985.
Epstein, Ronald. General Pathways of Discrimination/Differentiation. Chart.
Epstein, Ronald. Interrelation of the Eight Consciousnesses. Chart.
Epstein, Ronald. Levels of Meditation Prior to Enlightenment. Chart.
Harvey, Peter. An Introduction to Buddhism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1990.
Huntington, C.W. The Emptiness of Emptiness. Honolulu: University of Hawaii. 1989.
Liu, Ming-Wood. Madhyamaka thought in China. Leiden: Brill. 1994.
Masaaki, Hattori. "Yogacara." The Encyclopedia of Religion. New York: Macmillan. 1987. Vol. 15.
Nagao, G. M. Madhyamika and Yogacara. Trans. L. S. Kawamura. Albany: State University of New York Press. 1991.
Sangharakshita, Bhikshu. A Survey of Buddhism. Boulder: Shambhala. 1980.
Sutton, Florin G. Existence and Enlightenment in the Lankavatara- sutra. Albany: State University of New York Press. 1991.
Vasubandhu. Shasta on the Door to Understanding the Hundred Dharmas. Trans. Hsuan Hua. Talmage. 1983.
Verdu, Alfonso. The Philosophy of Buddhism: A "Totalistic" Synthesis. Boston: Martinus Nijhoff. 1981.
Wood, Thomas. Mind Only. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. 1994. —Preceding unsigned comment added by B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 07:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Recent Edits to this article

I am a little concerned that, among the recent avalanche of edits by the clearly learned and (no doubt) well-meaning User:B9_hummingbird_hovering are additions and changes that are:

un- or inadequately sourced
original research
unclear or otherwise un-encyclopedic in tone due to excessively idiosyncratic or overly baroque word choice

I will try to address these in due course, but as always any comments or discussion here are welcome, and in fact solicited. Thanks. Zero sharp (talk) 00:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Might I suggest a change to the opening paragraph in that respect? "emphasizing phenomenology and (some argue) ontology[2] through the interior lens of meditative and yogic practices" in my opinion is "un-encyclopedic in tone due to excessively idiosyncratic or overly baroque word choice".

--174.7.56.10 (talk) 00:35, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Is this grammatical?

"Moreover, Yogācāra discourse survey and syncretically redact, all Three Turnings"

I can't parse it. MrDemeanour (talk) 14:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Moreover, I'm not sure what point was being made. Perhaps that yogacara both is categorized as third turning and simultaneously refutes the three turnings? (according to the Tibetans or Chinese commenters?) Further, the emphasis within that paragraph isn't necessary and I fear it implies that there was a more 'defined' self-identification of a 'school' of thought than was probably really the case. Though I really appreciate the work that has gone on with this article and the related buddhist philosophy articles over the last year, they're getting much more rich. onward! - Owlmonkey (talk) 18:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I suspect it's more overblown, opaque garbage from B9_Hummingbird_Hovering.

omg this is difficult to read. I can't edit it because i have no knowledge of the topic, but this passage could be made infinitely more readable 71.198.169.7 (talk) 23:09, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Various notions (on grammar and such)

Hello there everyone! I made a few notions about some passages that were rather difficult to understand while I was reading the article. Please find some of the notions I made below:

Yogācāra and Mādhyamaka

As evidenced by Tibetan sources, this school was in protracted dialectic with the Mādhyamaka. However, there is disagreement among contemporary Western and traditional Buddhist scholars about the degree to which they were opposed, if at all.

They were opposed? The previous sentence said that they ere "in protracted dialectic ith the Madhyamaka" school. How did this turn into a matter of supposed opposition all of a sudden? I think an inline citation might serve the case, don't you think?. Oh, and if I am talking total nonsense, please feel free to tell me :) Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:46, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Yogācāra in Tibet

Perhaps the following sentence could be rephrased to make it more clear and understandable? The sentence goes as follows:

Although Je Tsongkhapa (whose reforms to Atisha's Kadam tradition are generally considered the beginnings of what would come to be called the Gelug school within Tibet) argued in favour of Yogācāra views (specifically regarding the existence and functioning of eight consciousnesses) early in his career, the prevailing Gelug view eventually came to hold Yogācāra views as a matter of interpretable meaning, therefore distinct from Mādhyamaka logic which was held to be of definitive meaning in terms of buddhist two truths doctrine.

At now, it is a rather lenghty one and hard to understand. =P Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:46, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Karma, seeds and storehouse-consciousness

In the opening of subsection === Karma, seeds and storehouse-consciousness===, it is stated that:

According to the traditional explanation, the theory of the consciousnesses attempted to explain all the phenomena of cyclic existence, including how rebirth occurs and precisely how karma functions on an individual basis.

However, there isn't any source provided for this. I added a {{Citation needed}} tag there, but honestly I haven't been able to find a nice source to back it up. If somebody wants to help with finding a proper source, I'd highly appreciat that! Also extending the passage to explain "how the traditional explanation explains the cycle of existence" would be more than welcome. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:46, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Transformations of consciousness

In this subsection, there is a following passage:

According to scholar Roger R. Jackson, a "'fundamental unconstructed awareness' (mūla-nirvikalpa-jñāna)" is "described [...] frequently in Yogacara literature.",[55] Vasubandhu's work

Here, the sentence suddenly stops, never being completed. I wonder if the original author is roaming the Talk Page, (s)he would know how it is meant to be and fix it easily. :P Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:46, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Shentong Madhyamaka and ‘mind-only’ (Cittamatra) tenets

Tibetans draw a distinction between Shentong Madhyamaka and ‘mind-only’ (Cittamatra) tenets. The formers is, for all intents and purposes, the Yogacara of Asanga and Vasubandhu. This view is understood to arrive at an understanding of emptiness that is similar to Madhyamaka, whereas the latter is purported to posit a consciousness that really and truly exists. For that reason it is regarded as a lower view. Because there is that distinction, it would be inappropriate to merge the pages. Furthermore, there's not a little debate about whether or not there ever were scholars or practitioners who held the so-called 'mind-only' view of the Cittamatrans - or if instead that label wasn’t wrongly fobbed off on later Yogacarans. So, for this reason as well it would be inappropriate to merge the essays.

In addition to Waldron's book, there are also Dan Lusthaus's "Buddhist Phenomenology: A Philosophical Investigation of Yogacara Buddhism", Ian Charles Harris' "The Continuity of Madhyamaka & Yogacara in Indian Mahayana Buddhism", Stephan Anaker's "Seven Works of Vasubandhu" and Gadjin Nagao's "Madhyamaka and Yogacara" to name but a few. Also, Karl Brunnholzl's "Center of the Sunlit Sky" devotes nearly 100 pages to the development and tenets of the Yogacara system in India, the rangtong -- shentong contraversy in Tibetan Buddhism, but also the question of whether or not there ever were Cittamatrans (i.e. people who argued that mind ultimately exists), or whether that was a mis-reading of Yogacara texts. Gyatso 05:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC) Gyatso

Wow, very interesting. Thank you, Gyatso Zero sharp 05:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

it is true that shentong and cittamatra are not the same, and that some authors propose that shentong is just yogachara understood properly. However, this is not a typical equation - im sure many on the rangtong side at least would consider authors like vasubandhu and asangha to be cittamatra - like you say, cittamatra itself might be a straw-men for the later madhyamaka authors, and to have never even existed. That shentong might be yogachara is allready mentioned on the shentong page. Maybe then less yogachara philosophy should be presented on this page, and only an explanation of the contraversy of wheter they held a cittamatra or shentong philosophy be made here, and the cittamatra and shentong pages having those philosophies explained in more details (cittamatra page inheriting the philosophy explanations from this page)? but at least, it has to be then somehow prevented that cittamatra redirect here!!!!! Alternatively, we could merege yogachara and cittamatra, as at least a common, habitual identification (after all, the text as it stands now claims cittamatra to be the philosophy of yogachara!) , and the contraversy of whether shentong is a more correct understanding of yogachara philosophy and whether cittamatra even existed be explained as a subsection? I would preffer the latter suggestion, since it minimises the number of pages and gives the reader a clearer picture of the extent of identification of yogachara and cittamatra, while not ommiting the contraversy about it; if cittamatra and shentong are presented as equally present interpretations of yogachara philosophy, the reader might find it confusing to face the fact that yogachara and cittamatra can often be used interchangibly. Lama Gyatso, would you please comment on the cittamatra article too? there are i think even greater problems on that artice? --aryah 83.131.141.239 15:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

One might also note that the term "cittamatra" is not used in any of the classical Yogacara texts, except once by Vasubandhu for causa metri. The term seems to have been lifted by the Tibetans from the Lankavatarasutra, which is a late syncretic text and not a pure Yogacara text. --Stephen Hodge 01:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Xuanzang did not seem to make any distinction between "Yogacara" and "Consciousness-Only," and tended to use the term "Consciousness-Only." He studied Yogacara at Nalanda University for several years along with thousands of Indian monks and then founded his own Consciousness-Only school in China. Vasubandhu's Thirty Verses on Consciousness-Only and Twenty Verses on Consciousness-Only set a precedent of using the term "Consciousness-Only" for what many people call Yogacara now. If we are going to take Consciousness-Only to mean something different than Yogacara, then are we really prepared to say that the Thirty Verses are not part of Yogacara? Or that the Yogacarabhumi Sastra is not a part of Consciousness-Only? In the Indian and Chinese tradition, there is no real evidence of a difference that I have ever heard of.

Also, it is notable that Xuanzang considered the Lankavatara Sutra to fall into the category of Consciousness-Only. He cites the text numerous times in his Complete Discourse on Consciousness-Only, and it is one of the main sutras of the Chinese Consciousness-Only school. It is reasonable to assume that at Nalanda during his stay, there was no large distinction between so-called "pure" Consciousness-Only texts and those that used slightly different modes of expression. I think that people forget at times that writers of the basic Yogacara texts went to great lengths to explain exactly how Yogacara agreed with previous Buddhist teachings, and to draw the logical connections.

As I understand it, there is no clear evidence for separate Yogacara and Consciousness-Only schools in India. The Consciousness-Only page is also poorly-written and unorganized, and it mostly exists to repeat what is already written more accurately on the Yogacara page. I suggest a merge. Tengu800 (talk) 20:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not that there were two different schools. Cittamatra was the name of the central doctrine and Yogachara was the name of the school.Sylvain1972 (talk) 21:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Except that no Indic Yogacara text ever talks about "cittamatra" (mind-only), but "vijnapti-matra" ! Vijnapti-matra is totally different in meaning from "citta-matra". The term "citta-matra" is only found ONCE in genuine Indian Yogacara texts (the Lankavatara is not one of those, pace Xuanzang), but is popular in Western books as "Mind-only" because that's the ideological and mistaken tag the Tibetans used. This has to do with complicated siddhanta polemics in Tibet, which were dominated by the Madhyamika view of Yogacara ~ it is important to remember that Yogacara was never transmitted to Tibet as a school, just as a textual lineage.

So I have no problems with a "Consciousness-only (a very poor translation for "vijnapti-matra" anyway) merge with Yogacara, but definitely not with "Mind-only".-- अनाम गुमनाम 00:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

So you are saying that "cittamatra" is an incorrect back translation from sems tsam or wéi shí? It would be nice to have a source for that. It seems to me that so few Yogacara texts survive in Sanskrit that one cannot say conclusively that "cittamatra" is absent as a term.Sylvain1972 (talk) 14:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Whichever one may personally view as "right", I think the article at least needs to point out that while many Tibetan writers regard Cittamatra and Yogacara as virtually synonymous there are other Tibetan writers who have held that they were distinct schools with quite different views - with a neutral explanation of why they held that the two are different. Chris Fynn (talk) 11:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Yogachara. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:23, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Yogachara. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140714232918/http://www.buddhismuskunde.uni-hamburg.de/fileadmin/pdf/digitale_texte/Bayer_2012-AS-Karman-Corrigenda.pdf to http://www.buddhismuskunde.uni-hamburg.de/fileadmin/pdf/digitale_texte/Bayer_2012-AS-Karman-Corrigenda.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:25, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Yogachara. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131208153924/http://www.acmuller.net/yogacara/thinkers/xuanzang-bio-uni.htm to http://www.acmuller.net/yogacara/thinkers/xuanzang-bio-uni.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:33, 16 July 2016 (UTC)