Here monists doesn't mean the same thing as the oneness in Hinduism means. He is saying Nagarjuna is a monist in contrast to the substance dualism of Descartes.
@@vatsdimri3675 correct monism doesnt mean 'nonduality' it means 'only one fundamental substance at the basis of all,' which both yogacara and middkeway are, as opposed to for example sautrantika which asserts that mind and form are separate continuums
Madhyamaka is not just promoting as a middle way between eternalism and annihilationism, but by deeply analyzing eternalism and annilationism, finding eternalism and annilationism are the same inherent existence conception even though they are seems totally different. Madhyamaka is talking about all phenomena are lack of own nature(empty of inherent existence). Call Madhyamaka as middle way at first are those people who didn't really understand Madhyamaka thoroughly.
One small correction: Nagarjuna is not a monist because he does not assert emptiness as a fundamental substance; in fact, he argues that emptiness itself is empty. It would be more accurate to call him a non-dualist. All monists are non-dualists, but not all non-dualists are monists. Yogachara is, arguably, monist in asserting that all is mind, though it could also be idealist if it is asserting that all we can know is mind but there is a reality beyond mind. However, it's better to explore these traditions on their own terms than to shoehorn them into Western categories. This is especially true because the aim of Buddhist philosophy differs from that of most Western philosophy. Whether a teaching is true is judged not based on whether it accurately describes the way most people experience the world but whether it can lead one to liberation. So, Buddhist schools do not claim to describe the way things really are, but that liberating insight can result from engaging with their teachings.
@@pedersolvang4794 Would it not however be correct to assert that Shunyata is a fundamental feature of reality? Not in the sense of some mystical substrate, but in the sense that everything that exists is shunyata in some way?
Yogacara is not monist per se, they are idealists (though some like Lusthaus have argued against that and say that they are jut phenomenologists) but they hold there are multiple minds instead of one big mind (ala Advaita Vedanta).
@@FearlessWisdom Advaita Vedanta dsnt posit the theory of one single mind.... rather it puts forth the theory of multiple minds,but one consciousness... consciousness and minds are defined differently in Buddhism and Hinduism......multiple modes of perceptions ,but one fundamental matrix of consciousness....But den also it z kind of an unjustified conjecture...e.g,I can say dat while contents of our mind maybe different but dere z hardly any difference between the nature of my consciousness and urs,...but such kind of logic z subject to multiple flaws,e.g just coz the nature of my consciousness and urs z same dsnt mean dey r the same,but dsnt mean dey r different eidr....dese r areas of actual psychological uncertainty,as dey point at the limitations of the human mind and sense apparatus in perceiving reality......!!!....
@@FearlessWisdom yogachara in India was actually dualism or may say pluralism in a certain sense (the operation system of our "mind" is somehow multifold). Nevertheless yogachara in China (also other east asian traditions) could be seen as monism
10:15, When they say samsara and nirvana are the same, is exactly the basic concept of Zen, as far as I have understood it. As far as I see it, most (if not all) of the various forms of Buddhism (or Religion for that matter) are fundamentally explaning the same thing from differing points of view. Very cool discussion.
Do not take this as an idealism, though. The "mind only" means that we only interact with the inner (thoughts and emotions...) and outer (seeing, smelling, body sensations...) experiences through the mind. It's an epistemological. When one becomes enlightened, the layer of concept abstractions and interpretations is removed and one sees the world for what it really is, so to speak. The sandhinirmocana sutra explains this in great detail in many different ways.
So basically Madyamaka and Yogachara look at the same 'reality' from objective and subjective POV respectively? And, that 'reality' is that Samsara is Nirvana and both of them are 'empty'?
The "mind only" according to Vasubandhu in his authoritative work Triṃśikā-vijñaptimātratā, means simply that the perceived is exactly the perceiver. You can learn more by further reading the article "Two Main Streams of Thought in Yogācāra Philosophy" by Yoshifumi Ueda.
So... where to begin... Does that mean that yogacara and madhyamaka aren't necessarily fundimentally opposed in that everything is mind and that mind is also empty. Or is it that nagarjuna asserts that there's no fundamental substance and some madhyamakists (?) see "mind only" as an assertion of a fundamental substance?
You can resolve the two by saying that because everything is ultimately empty, every notion you have is "mind only". But we don't interact with things as they are, but rather through your notions about those things, one could say that your personal reality is "mind only". That's how it's been explained to me, anyway.
@@SonofSethoitae dis mind-only logic z faulty,if it z taken very seriously......and taking it literally actually betrays the spirit of Yogachara Buddhism,as far as Asangas' work z concerned,....coz the world z marvelously consistent for being a seemingly unreal one......it may b a very intelligently created simulation,yet at the end of the day,if u jump from a cliff and expect the end of the cliff to be projection of ur mind,u probably wnt survive to find the answer....!!.... Mind-only part stresses dat the world z dere,butz it's not how it appears in the domain of our mind,senses and consciousness,so our experiences about the world are mostly hallucinatory. ..and every mental process,sense perception and everything else happen in our domain of our consciousness,making it the prima-facie first principle,of observing "reality".....!....dis z where Yogachara z somewhat similar to Advaita Vedanta.....
@@constipatedbowels3473 That's what I'm saying. "Mind only" is true insofar as we interact with our own minds, not with things as they are, even though external things do exist.
![Megan Thee Stallion - Neva Play (feat. RM) [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/TpYTyAaTRts/mqdefault.jpg)
8:42 Nagarjuna is absolutely, positively was not a monist. Nowhere does he ever equate sunyata with 'oneness.' The Hindu view is monist.
Yeah that's a tragic sad error of this speaker. I hope he's not a scholar because this is some profound mind bending mistake.
Not really, Hindu view is also not completely monist.
Hindu view is not monist. Rather non dual literally meaning "not- two". Monist means completely oneness.
Here monists doesn't mean the same thing as the oneness in Hinduism means. He is saying Nagarjuna is a monist in contrast to the substance dualism of Descartes.
@@vatsdimri3675 correct monism doesnt mean 'nonduality' it means 'only one fundamental substance at the basis of all,' which both yogacara and middkeway are, as opposed to for example sautrantika which asserts that mind and form are separate continuums
Madhyamaka is not just promoting as a middle way between eternalism and annihilationism, but by deeply analyzing eternalism and annilationism, finding eternalism and annilationism are the same inherent existence conception even though they are seems totally different. Madhyamaka is talking about all phenomena are lack of own nature(empty of inherent existence).
Call Madhyamaka as middle way at first are those people who didn't really understand Madhyamaka thoroughly.
calling sunyata monism is a clear misunderstanding of sunyata
One small correction: Nagarjuna is not a monist because he does not assert emptiness as a fundamental substance; in fact, he argues that emptiness itself is empty. It would be more accurate to call him a non-dualist. All monists are non-dualists, but not all non-dualists are monists.
Yogachara is, arguably, monist in asserting that all is mind, though it could also be idealist if it is asserting that all we can know is mind but there is a reality beyond mind.
However, it's better to explore these traditions on their own terms than to shoehorn them into Western categories. This is especially true because the aim of Buddhist philosophy differs from that of most Western philosophy. Whether a teaching is true is judged not based on whether it accurately describes the way most people experience the world but whether it can lead one to liberation. So, Buddhist schools do not claim to describe the way things really are, but that liberating insight can result from engaging with their teachings.
@@pedersolvang4794 Would it not however be correct to assert that Shunyata is a fundamental feature of reality? Not in the sense of some mystical substrate, but in the sense that everything that exists is shunyata in some way?
Yogacara is not monist per se, they are idealists (though some like Lusthaus have argued against that and say that they are jut phenomenologists) but they hold there are multiple minds instead of one big mind (ala Advaita Vedanta).
@@FearlessWisdom Advaita Vedanta dsnt posit the theory of one single mind.... rather it puts forth the theory of multiple minds,but one consciousness... consciousness and minds are defined differently in Buddhism and Hinduism......multiple modes of perceptions ,but one fundamental matrix of consciousness....But den also it z kind of an unjustified conjecture...e.g,I can say dat while contents of our mind maybe different but dere z hardly any difference between the nature of my consciousness and urs,...but such kind of logic z subject to multiple flaws,e.g just coz the nature of my consciousness and urs z same dsnt mean dey r the same,but dsnt mean dey r different eidr....dese r areas of actual psychological uncertainty,as dey point at the limitations of the human mind and sense apparatus in perceiving reality......!!!....
@@FearlessWisdom yogachara in India was actually dualism or may say pluralism in a certain sense (the operation system of our "mind" is somehow multifold). Nevertheless yogachara in China (also other east asian traditions) could be seen as monism
This is a great discussion, I appreciate how stimulating it is, and I enjoyed the questions and ideas that were raised.
10:15, When they say samsara and nirvana are the same, is exactly the basic concept of Zen, as far as I have understood it. As far as I see it, most (if not all) of the various forms of Buddhism (or Religion for that matter) are fundamentally explaning the same thing from differing points of view. Very cool discussion.
Do not take this as an idealism, though. The "mind only" means that we only interact with the inner (thoughts and emotions...) and outer (seeing, smelling, body sensations...) experiences through the mind. It's an epistemological. When one becomes enlightened, the layer of concept abstractions and interpretations is removed and one sees the world for what it really is, so to speak.
The sandhinirmocana sutra explains this in great detail in many different ways.
So basically Madyamaka and Yogachara look at the same 'reality' from objective and subjective POV respectively? And, that 'reality' is that Samsara is Nirvana and both of them are 'empty'?
This is not at all accurate - this is the view of other schools that was rejected by the yogacara
@@samt1705 not empty at all but empty of inherent existence or lack of own nature.
The "mind only" according to Vasubandhu in his authoritative work Triṃśikā-vijñaptimātratā, means simply that the perceived is exactly the perceiver. You can learn more by further reading the article "Two Main Streams of Thought in Yogācāra Philosophy" by Yoshifumi Ueda.
So... where to begin...
Does that mean that yogacara and madhyamaka aren't necessarily fundimentally opposed in that everything is mind and that mind is also empty. Or is it that nagarjuna asserts that there's no fundamental substance and some madhyamakists (?) see "mind only" as an assertion of a fundamental substance?
You can resolve the two by saying that because everything is ultimately empty, every notion you have is "mind only". But we don't interact with things as they are, but rather through your notions about those things, one could say that your personal reality is "mind only". That's how it's been explained to me, anyway.
Nice articles on this question www.amazon.com/Madhyamaka-Yogacara-Jay-L-Garfield/dp/0190231297
@@SonofSethoitae dis mind-only logic z faulty,if it z taken very seriously......and taking it literally actually betrays the spirit of Yogachara Buddhism,as far as Asangas' work z concerned,....coz the world z marvelously consistent for being a seemingly unreal one......it may b a very intelligently created simulation,yet at the end of the day,if u jump from a cliff and expect the end of the cliff to be projection of ur mind,u probably wnt survive to find the answer....!!.... Mind-only part stresses dat the world z dere,butz it's not how it appears in the domain of our mind,senses and consciousness,so our experiences about the world are mostly hallucinatory. ..and every mental process,sense perception and everything else happen in our domain of our consciousness,making it the prima-facie first principle,of observing "reality".....!....dis z where Yogachara z somewhat similar to Advaita Vedanta.....
@@constipatedbowels3473 That's what I'm saying. "Mind only" is true insofar as we interact with our own minds, not with things as they are, even though external things do exist.
Really nice. Subscribed. Thanks.
I see an extremely combative and defensive vibe between the two guys.
Pity the fool who drives round a blind corner thinking the world is just a creation of mind, and crashes thinking there is nothing there.
True, mate ....!!!...on an unrelated topic,Yogachara dsnt dismiss the world as a mere creation of mind...!!!...