Originally posted by Taoman
I tried to post a Wiki segment on Yogacara and its subtle differences to Madhyamika, within Mahayana systems. The cut and paste failed.
Here's the link, I was looking particularly at the section on emptiness.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness-only
It appears that this understanding arose out of the difficulties posed by the concept of karma and rebirth.
Yogacara is based on Madhymaka. Both schools accept that cognition is the main fundamental function of the ground of manifestation (nondual awareness), from which the worlds of manifestation emerge. Hence nondual awareness-cognition is the stuff from which all sentient beings are made of, and at the same time it responds to al the intentional actions that are carried out by the sum of the sentient beings. Early on, Yogacara master Asanga pointed out that all the cognitive appearances that we see and all the sense consciousness that sees them both are of the same natal ground of being, and that whatever we see (cognitive appearances) are like an illusion, because they appear to arise from objectively existing objects separated from everything else out there… But They Do Not Exist In That Impossible Way.
Later on, Santaraksita’s product of the implementation of Two Truths focused on a Yogacara/ Madhyamaka( Mind-Only/ Middle Way) synthesis, is that the nature of the conventional truths is of the nature of the consciousness. To him, the conventional acceptance of self-cognizing consciousness and of reflexive awareness is a given; also, he exploits in full Nagarjuna’s point as regards reality (which is never metaphysical). To both systems, understanding the non-inherent existence of things/ sunyhata, is indeed equal to the elimination of ignorance (as regards reality). Since reality is not beyond the limit of what is known by a valid direct perceiver, we have for one the examination of various things/ truths of conventional reality (so that we determine whether we designate these objects suitably for each of our purposes). And for two, we compare the different aspects of each object to each other and to their designations. Both schools lead to a mental image of sunyata, whose actual limit corresponds to the limit of the reality; their distinctions are not ontological, since both accept that to employ words, teachings and conceptual systems as if they were not empty, undermines the elucidation of sunyata.
Santaraksita showed also that first one understands that the nature of entities is not of a distinct nature from that of the mind (Cittamatra/ Mind-Only), and only then one gets to realize that nothing exists in and of itself (Madhyamaka/ Centrism - Middle Way), even the mind. So methinks the main difference between Yogacara and Madhyamaka is just the way the practitioners of the schools engage with conventional truths. Yogacara’s perspective is related to the point of the attention of the disciple who, say, wants to go to the Other Shore (whilst a Madyamika is already there, so his point of attention is beyond). The Elder Brothers, Ch’an and Dzogchen use different pedagogical routines (as I see it, the Elders train the common man, Ch’ an points towards the Middle Way, Dzogchen is a bodhisattva’s training center) according to the level of the disciple. The system tolerates well the idea of an ultimately non-expressible reality that triggers interdependent and seemingly contradictory perspectives (hence the various pedagogical methods and approaches of the schools)
๐ต