Differences btn Madhyamaka, Yogacara and Tathagatagarbha

• JitKiat

  22 Oct 08, 01:44

  From Master Yin Shun:

   

  如賣藥一樣（楞伽經有醫師處方，陶家作器比喻），賣的是救命金丹。性空唯�系 (madhyamaka)，是�店，�講究�璜，�實賣藥，�有真識貨的人，�來買藥救命 。�是，有人嫌他�美觀，氣味�，�願�買。這�新設門�，講求推銷術。�上精美的瓶�，盒�，包上糖衣，膠囊。這樣，藥的銷路大了，救的命應該也多了。這如第三時教，虛妄唯識系 (Yogacara)一樣。�是，幼稚的孩�們，還是��。這��想方法，滲和大�的糖，��飛機，洋娃娃──玩具形�，滿街兜售。這樣，買的更多，照�救的命也更多了�這如真常唯心系 (Tatagatagarbha)一樣。其實，�到肚�，一樣的救命。但能救命的，並�瓶�，盒�，糖衣，膠囊，更�是糖和洋娃娃，而還是那救命金丹。這��方便，以方便而至究竟。方便是手段，�是目的。所以『方便為究竟�的謬譯，真是害盡眾生��使盒�，瓶�精美，竟然買盒�，瓶�，而��藥。��藥，那�錯了��使買了飛機，洋娃娃，越看越好，真的當作玩具玩，那真該死了�而且，糖和得太多，有時會藥力�足，有時會藥性變質，�了也救�到命。所以�實賣藥，也有他的好處。三系原是�歸一致的，「智者�應「善�巧地「貫��，使�為「一�一清淨�，一味一解脫的法門，�得多生爭執。最�緊的是：�能執著方便，忘記真實。讀 者�到底什麼是如來出世說法的大��

   

  一�性空唯�論：�『般若�等經，�樹��婆�清辨�月稱等論而安立。�這一系說，一切法無自性空，為最根本而最心�的。離�性空，生滅無常，�外是斷見。真常，更是神我的別�。惟有從性空中，貫徹常與無常，�能契三法��一法�，安立佛法，開顯佛法的深奧。

   

   

  　　性空，「�作用空無之義�。�中觀者說，�證法空性，雖都無所�（與唯 識者根本智證大�），而實�破壞一切。所以「畢竟空中�礙生死�，「�壞��而說實相�。這點，�曾為�者所注�，所以說：「性空則一法�立矣�。「性空，而�何所謂唯�耶�。�知�，性空�但�破壞一切法，�而一切法由性空而能�立。�樹說：「以有空義故，一切法得�。若無空義者，一切則���。「若誰有此空，彼有一切義。若誰無空性，彼一切�有�。性空�是什麼都沒有，�而能善巧安立一切，此為中觀學者唯一的特義。

  　　因為無自性，所以從緣而起；如有自性，���緣起，這是中觀者所常說的。緣起是沒有自性（空）的緣起，也就是��的緣起。因眾生無始以來，無明所蔽，��緣起的���空，執著自性有，自相有，便是生死根本。所以說：「諸法無所有，如是有，如是無所有，愚夫�知，�為無明�。如�緣起��而�無自性空，�得解脫。所以說：「離三解脫門，無�無果�。�婆稱此為：「無二寂�門� 。

  　　生死�轉的惑業苦事，生死還滅的涅槃如來事，如執有自性，�是什麼也� 能�立的，如『中論�等廣破。�之，「以有空義故，一切法得��：三寶�四諦，世出世法，一切都能善巧安立，決�破壞因果染淨（�空論者，是誤以為是破壞的）。由於性空而有修有證，如說：「以一切法��得故，乘是摩訶�，出三界，至薩婆若�。

  　　性空是�礙緣起的，緣起的�但是��，這�是中觀的特義。.....

  　　其他學派，除��有外，別有自相有或自性有的，��以�立一切。唯有中觀者，在法法性空的基點，宣說一切但有��，所以以「唯��來表示他。至於�空��的空有無礙，都是�此而�立，而通�。

   

  　　二�虛妄唯識論：唯識，大家都��，�消多說。這是彌勒�無著�世親以來的大�。

  　　唯識學，於三性中，著é‡�ä¾�他起性，說ä¾�他起是實有唯事。ä¾�他是自相有， ä¸�是å�‡å��有；å�‡å��有是無自性的，空的──é��計所執性，這ä¸�是因果法，ä¸�能安立世出世間因果。ä¾�他起性是有為生滅（無常）的，ä¸�是無為真常法；圓æˆ�實是空性，是ä¸�生滅的無為性，平等性，ä¸�能ä¾�此而立染淨因果。所以，惟有有為生滅的ä¾�他起性，æ‰�有æˆ�立染淨因果å�¯èƒ½ã€‚這是ä¸�å�¯ä¸�有的，沒有就一切都ä¸�æˆ�立。如說：「彼於虛å�‡è™•æ‰€å¯¦æœ‰å”¯äº‹ï¼ˆä¾�他），撥為é�žæœ‰ã€‚……彼於真實å�Šä»¥è™›å�‡ï¼ŒäºŒç¨®ä¿±è¬—ã€�。「若無ä¾�他起，圓æˆ�實亦無；一切種若無，æ�†æ™‚無染淨ã€�。

  　　�他起性是染淨�，在宗歸唯識時，�他起�虛妄分別的心心所法。�此說三性，�「虛妄分別有，於此二都無；此中唯有空，於彼亦有此�；也�是「境故，分別故，為二空故說�。�他起有，等於說內識是有；�計性空，等於說外境是無。唯識無境與三性有空，是這樣的一致。

  　　心心所法中，阿賴耶識是根本�，所知�，這是種��生，心境緣起，隨染轉淨的樞�。而阿賴耶識是有�有為生滅的妄識（�一定是妄執）；玄奘所傳的護法唯識，也確切如此。有有�的雜染（虛妄），�能說到無�的清淨。引生無 �清淨�行的種�，�論是本有�新�，雖�是賴耶自性所�，也還是�附阿賴耶識而轉。...著�虛妄的�他起性──識而�立一切，豈�是唯識宗的通義�

  　　

   

  　　三�真常唯心論：這是�宣說如來�，如來界，常�真心，大般涅槃等一分大乘經而立；�得『起信論�。...

  　　真常論，也�能�唯心。但真常大乘一致的傾�，是「自性清淨心�，「常�真心�，「如來�心�，「如來��識�等。本淨真性，總�於心性；以此真常心為�而有生死�涅槃事，為�轉�還滅的主體，所以稱之為真常唯心論。

  　　�者說：「此心指�者言，指凡夫言，抑指�凡二者言�。我的解答是：這是在凡�減，在��增，無分於�凡的真常心體。也許唯識學者�以為然，而真常唯心論者，�確以為如此。真常唯心論如此說，唯識與性空者�如此說，這當然�「以之而判教系�。

• An Eternal Now

  22 Oct 08, 03:28

  Interesting article... though I'm bad at reading traditional Chinese so I haven't read everything.

  I would also like to add also, with regard to the nature of mind, there is only a single nature of mind encompassing all experiences (be it samsara or nirvana), though different names are attributed to it.

   

  Academic and Zen teacher Dr. David Loy:
  
  

  http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-PHIL/david.htm

  That sa�s�ra is nirv�ṇa is a major tenet of Mah�y�na philosophy. "Nothing of sa�s�ra is different from nirv�ṇa, nothing of nirv�ṇa is different from sa�s�ra. That which is the limit of nirv�ṇa is also the limit of sa�s�ra; there is not the slightest difference between the two." [1] And yet there must be some difference between them, for otherwise no distinction would have been made and there would be no need for two words to describe the same state. So N�g�rjuna also distinguishes them: "That which, taken as causal or dependent, is the process of being born and passing on, is, taken noncausally and beyond all dependence, declared to be nirv�ṇa." [2] There is only one reality -- this world, right here -- but this world may be experienced in two different ways. Sa�s�ra is the "relative" world as usually experienced, in which "I" dualistically perceive "it" as a collection of objects which interact causally in space and time. Nirv�ṇa is the world as it is in itself, nondualistic in that it incorporates both subject and object into a whole which, M�dhyamika insists, cannot be characterized (Chandrakīrti: "Nirv�ṇa or Reality is that which is absolved of all thought-construction"), but which Yog�c�ra nevertheless sometimes calls "Mind" or "Buddhanature," and so forth.

• JitKiat

  22 Oct 08, 07:57

  If my understanding is correct, what Master Yin Shun is saying is that dependent origination (Madhyamaka) is the Ultimate Truth. However, there will be always a group of people that cannot accept it. Therefore, Yogacara is then trying to cover this group of people by saying that everything is consciousness only (i.e. consciousness is not empty). Yet another group of people are afraid of concept of no self so the teaching of Tathagatagarbha (which is not empty) is then used to suit this group of people.

• An Eternal Now

  22 Oct 08, 15:05

  Yet it's not that consciousness and tathagatagarbha is not empty. If it is not empty and have inherent existence, it is no different from Hinduism's understanding of a metaphysical essence (Atman-Brahman).

  In Buddhism, ultimate reality is the union of luminosity and emptiness, and which many names are given i.e. Tathagathagarbha, Mind, etc. But it is the emptiness (dependent origination) aspect that sets us aside from other religions, because other religions teach and lead practitioners to experience the luminous aspect as well (but misconstrue it as a metaphysical essence, a divine Self).

  Also I find it quite right that Master Yin Shun is saying that the Tathagatagarbha teachings are provisional teachings and skillful means, which indeed it is, to lead sentient beings to the understanding of Emptiness.

  In the case of Buddhism, as you said and as Loppon Namdrol said,

  "Tathagatagarbha exists principally to describe emptiness in terms that those frightened of absence of identity can handle."

  "This is what the Lanka-avatara sutra says:

  So one must be quite careful not to make an error. The Lanka states unequivocably that the tathagatagarbha doctrine is merely a device to lead those who grasp at a true self the inner meaning of the Dharma, non-arising, the two selflessnesses and so on, and explains the meaning of the literal examples some people constantly err about:
  
  "Similarly, that tathaagatagarbha taught in the suutras spoken by the Bhagavan, since the completely pure luminous clear nature is completely pure from the beginning, possessing the thirty two marks, the Bhagavan said it exists inside of the bodies of sentient beings.
  
  When the Bhagavan described that– like an extremely valuable jewel thoroughly wrapped in a soiled cloth, is thoroughly wrapped by cloth of the aggregates, aayatanas and elements, becoming impure by the conceptuality of the thorough conceptuality suppressed by the passion, anger and ignorance – as permanent, stable and eternal, how is the Bhagavan’s teaching this as the tathaagatagarbha is not similar with as the assertion of self of the non-Buddhists?
  
  Bhagavan, the non-Buddhists make assertion a Self as “A permanent creator, without qualities, pervasive and imperishable”.
  
  The Bhagavan replied:
  
  “Mahaamati, my teaching of tathaagatagarbha is not equivalent with the assertion of the Self of the non-Buddhists.
  
  Mahaamati, the Tathaagata, Arhat, Samyak Sambuddhas, having demonstrated the meaning of the words "emptiness, reality limit, nirvana, non-arisen, signless", etc. as tathaagatagarbha for the purpose of the immature complete forsaking the perishable abodes, demonstrate the expertiential range of the non-appearing abode of complete non-conceptuality by demonstrating the door of tathaagatagarbha.
  
  Mahaamati, a self should not be perceived as real by Bodhisattva Mahaasattvas enlightened in the future or presently.
  
  Mahaamati, for example, a potter, makes one mass of atoms of clay into various kinds containers from his hands, craft, a stick, thread and effort.
  
  Mahaamati, similarly, although Tathaagatas avoid the nature of conceptual selflessness in dharmas, they also appropriately demonstrate tathaagatagarbha or demonstrate emptiness by various kinds [of demonstrations] possessing prajñaa and skillful means; like a potter, they demonstrate with various enumerations of words and letters. As such, because of that,
  
  Mahaamati, the demonstration of Tathaagatagarbha is not similar with the Self demonstrated by the non-Buddhists.
  
  Mahaamati, the Tathaagatas as such, in order to guide those grasping to assertions of the Self of the Non-Buddhists, will demonstrate tathaagatagarbha with the demonstration of tathaagatagarbha. How else will the sentient beings who have fallen into a conceptual view of a True Self, possess the thought to abide in the three liberations and quickly attain the complete manifestation of Buddha in unsurpassed perfect, complete enlightenment?"
  
  Thus, the Lanka says:
  
  All yaanas are included
  in five dharmas, three natures,
  eight consciousnesses,
  and two selflessnesses
  
  It does not add anything about a true self and so on."
  
  ----------------
  It is how Chandrakirti understands the citation. And the sutra itself states:
  
  "Mahaamati, the Tathaagata, Arhat, Samyak Sambuddhas, having demonstrated the meaning of the words, emptiness, reality limit, nirvana, non-arisen, signless, etc. as tathaagatagarbha; for the purpose of the childish complete forsaking perishable realms, demonstrate the sphere of activity of the non-appearing abode of complete non-conceptuality by demonstrating the door of tathaagatagarbha. "
  
  Tathagatagarbha is therefore just a synonym of emptiness.
  
  N
  ----------------

  Sakya Pandita's approach to the issue is best: tathagatagarbha is a provisional teaching, not a definitive one."
  ----------------

  Next is about Yogaracara...

  Yogacara also have some form a true self teaching but it is not a metaphysical substance and is in accord with other Mahayana teachings, those that teach 'true self'.

  One of the founders of Yogacara Vasubandhu explained the meaning of 'true self' which is not the same as the metaphysical essence taught in other religions:

  Good Friends:
  
  I have been exploring Vasubandhu's 20 Verses and particularly Verse 10 which is the one under discussion, at times, in this thread. I posted the Anacker translation which some took issue with on the grounds that the Anacker translation was suspect. However, I have found another, more recent, translation which, for the most part, agrees with Anacker. It is by George Cronk, published in 1998. It is as follows:
  
  
  "And why did the Buddha present his teaching this way? Why did he present it in an exoteric form rather than simply revealing outright its esoteric meaining? The answer is as follows: 'In this way, the disciples are gradually initiated into an understanding of the insubstantiality of self and of the insubstantiality of objects, that is, self and objects as constructed in ordinary experience.' [Verse 10]
  
  "The six levels of perception are only representations (appearances) of consciousness that arise out of the unconscious (the alaya-vijnana). Once a disciple, through his study of the Dharma [the teaching of the Buddha], realizes that there is, in fact, no seer, no hearer, no smeller, no taster, no toucher, and no thinker, he will enter into an understanding of the insubstantiality of self. And when he learns that the objects of perception are also representations (appearances) of consciousness-only, and that there are, in fact, no experienced entities that have the characteristics of external objectivity, then the disciple will enter into an understanding of the insbustantiality of [experienced] objects.
  
  "However, as the last phrase of Verse 10 indicates, we must distinguish between reality [self and objects] as constructed by ordinary consciousness (especially the imagination) and reality as it is in itself, in its 'suchness' (tathata). Beyond the ordinary (constructed) self [ego] and its subject-object duality, there is an ineffable (anabhilapya) transcendent Self (in which the duality of subject and object does not arise), which is known by the Buddha and other enlightened ones. It is the constructed self and its constructed objects that are insubstantial, merely transformations and representations of consciousness . . ."
  
  
  I post this not to add fuel to the fire, but to offer it for consideration. At least two translators, translating from the Sanskrit, render this Verse of Vasubandhu's in such a way as to distinguish between a constructed self and a True, Ineffable Self. Are they correct?
  
  It depends on how one comprehends constructed and true self. I don't see anything in this verse which would argue for accepting a metaphysical substance. It seems to me to be in agreement with such Sutras as the Nirvana, Golden Light, and Lotus Sutras in the sense that the Golden Light and Lotus argue for the eternal life of the Tathagata, while, in addition, the Nirvana Sutra argues for the presence of a True Self. That is to say, I think that Vasubandhu could consistently argue against the existence of a constructed pudgala and for the existence of an unconstructed ineffable Self, which is the domain of Buddhas.
  
  Best wishes,
  
  Dharmajim

• An Eternal Now

  22 Oct 08, 15:13

  I still prefer Nagarjuna's explanation of Consicousness which Thusness also thinks is very precise.

  It talks about the nature of consciousness as empty and dependent originated, as well as the 18 Dhatus being themselves Buddha-Nature/Dharmadhatu.

  As I wrote,

  You'll see that consciousness is in manifestation and not something reflecting/perceiving something -- that in an act of seeing flower, there is neither a 'seer' 'seeing' a 'flower', there is only the manifestation of vision which is consciousness arising due to the aggregation of causes and conditions like the way consciousness manifest in the aggregation of the Dhatus -- and that act of consciousness is empty of any entity/'itness' that stay even a moment. There is no inner mirror reflecting external conditions. Thus there is no object cognized nor a cognizer. It is like the universe is giving its best for this moment of manifestation and each manifestation is self-luminous, empty, unsupported, discrete/disjoint, and complete yet.

  
  Nagarjuna:

  
  
  38. When eye and form assume their right relation,
  Appearances appear without a blur.
  Since these neither arise nor cease,
  They are the dharmadhatu, though they are imagined to be otherwise.
  
  39. When sound and ear assume their right relation,
  A consciousness free of thought occurs.
  These three are in essence the dharmadhatu, free of other characteristics,
  But they become "hearing" when thought of conceptually.
  
  40. Dependent upon the nose and an odor, one smells.
  And as with the example of form there is neither arising nor cessation,
  But in dependence upon the nose-consciousness’s experience,
  The dharmadhatu is thought to be smell.
  
  41. The tongue’s nature is emptiness.
  The sphere of taste is voidness as well.
  These are in essence the dharmadhatu
  And are not the causes of the taste consciousness.
  
  42. The pure body’s essence,
  The characteristics of the object touched,
  The tactile consciousness free of conditions—
  These are called the dharmadhatu.
  
  43. The phenomena that appear to the mental consciousness, the chief of them all,
  Are conceptualized and then superimposed.
  When this activity is abandoned, phenomena’s lack of self-essence is known.
  Knowing this, meditate on the dharmadhatu.
  
  44. And so is all that is seen or heard or smelled,
  Tasted, touched, and imagined,
  When yogis [and yoginis]* understand these in this manner,
  All their wonderful qualities are brought to consummation.
  
  45. Perception’s doors in eyes and ears and nose,
  In tongue and body and the mental gate—
  All these six are utterly pure.
  These consciousnesses’ purity itself is suchness’ defining characteristic.