Madhyamaka and Yogacara: Allies or Rivals? (Jay L. Garfield and Jan Westerhoff)
11 Blind Men Examine an ElephantÂ
[My 1-star Amazon review (NDA) of “Madhyamaka and Yogacara: Allies or Rival?†by Jay l. Garfield and Jan Westerhoff.]
This collection of essays by eleven pointy-headed academics is so bad, it isn’t worth .02 cents, let alone the $20 I had to dish out for the Kindle edition (which is now $30!) The groundwork for the text is laid out in the Introduction by Professor Jay Garfield, who informs us, “We don’t fully understand them†(meaning the Madhyamika and Yogacara doctrines that the professors consider in their attempts to compare and contrast these two Mahayana schools). Thank goodness some of us do understand them and don’t have to depend on these ivory tower Buddhist academics to enlighten us.Garfield further informs us that “philosophically, Madhyamika and Yogacara are each attempts to spell out the metaphysics of emptiness characteristic of Mahayana.†If Garfield had studied Ayn Rand’s Objectivist epistemology (as every good academician should), he would know that emptiness has no ontological status, hence he would not reduce esoteric Yogacara, which is all about universal Substance – Mind – to a metaphysics of emptiness (or perverted dependent origination).
Because this is just a review and not a tome – which is what it would take to deconstruct the pervasive philosophic prattle in this text – I will delimit my critique to a consideration of just a few of the arguments put forth in some these essays, and most importantly, I will point out the direction in which a true examination of Madhyamika and Yogacara should proceed.
In Chapter 1, Pratityasautpada and Dharmadhatu in Early Mahayana Buddhism by Dr. Chaisit Suwanvarangkul, the professor defines Dharmadhatu as “the domain of reality,†and states that Dharmadhatu has come to represent the universe as completely correlative, generally interdependent, and mutually originating.â€
First of all, the true, or esoteric, definition of Dharmadhatu is: the Dharmakaya (timeless Awareness, or Mind) as the unmanifest spaceless Context in which the universe manifests. Only ignorant exoteric reductionists bring the uncreated “Basic Space of Phenomena†into creation, as Suwanvarangkul does; and by his so doing, his thesis collapses. Moreover, he describes the universe as “completely correlative.†Correlative with what? Blank out. And “generally interdependent� Where is it not wholly interdependent (as his qualifier “generally†implies)? And “mutually originating� Only in the flawed Hua-yen Buddhism that has influenced his thinking. All things originate from Mind, the Dharmakaya.
Suwanvaranghul writes, “The physical body of the Buddhas and the Bodhisattvas are nonself, and also all the sentient beings are nonself. They are all one in the Dharmadhatu, and all work together. This does not mean that the Dharmadhatu turns into a contaminated become or becomes clean by any other force. Rather, the two truths of Madhyamika and Yogacara are alliesâ€: they have a relationship, rely upon on each other and can be undertood as one.â€
What foggy mumbo-jumbo! It blows my mind that a university PhD can compose and teach such crap, and it buttresses my claim that, in the field of philosophy, universities are institutions of lower, not higher, learning.
Rightly, or esoterically, understood, Yogacara is not an ally of Madhyamika. Rightly, or esoterically, understood, Yogacara is Cittamatra (Consciousness-Only), not Vijnaptimatra (mind-only). In other words, the One Mind, the Dharmakaya, universal timeless Awareness, has become everything. Every thing is a manifestation of Mind (Cit), not a mental construct stemming from one’s mind (manas). But not one of these eleven Buddhist professors is willing to consider Yogacara from this radical (or gone-to-the root) perspective. They all drop Context and jump on the exoteric Vijnaptimatra bandwagon, because it reduces Yogic, or Ontic, Yogacara to the epistemology and phenomenology that accords with their lowly, un-Initiated, level of evolutionary spiritual development.
Unbeknownst to these professors, Yogacara is about the practice of Yoga (Union) – and this union of the yogi (or bodhisattva) is with the One Mind, the unmanifest Consciousness-Only that has manifested as all matter and energy. Emptiness, which is an ontological zero, has nothing to do with union. Yes, the One Mind is formless, but it is not formlessness, or emptiness, which is a non-existent. Further – though space permits me from elaborating – a doctrine of emptiness is entirely superfluous to dependent origination, and Nagarjuna’s Dharma can be exposed as sophistry, as a perversion of original, or Pali, Buddhism.
In Chapter 2, Language and Existence in Madhyamika and Yogacara by Mattia Salvini, Dr. Salvini argues that “the referential binding force of consciousness is fundamentally mirrored in the structure of language.â€
No, it’s not; it’s rooted in the very act (s) of attention itself (on objects, gross and subtle), which contracts the field and flow of consciousness into successive bound states.
Dr. Salvini concludes, “I have tried to highlight, at every turn, the debate between Yogacara and Madhyamika depends on a sophisticated use and understanding of language.†Wrong again. The difference is rooted in ontology – the distinction between a non-existent (emptiness) and the all-subsuming (or “all-swallowing,†according to Plato) universal Existent itself, Consciousness, or Mind.
In Chapter 3, Reification and Nihilism, The Three Nature Theory and Its Implications by Sonam Thakchoe, Dr. Thakchoe wrongly (in the opinion of those those with an esoteric, or Cittamatra, viewpoint) states that “The central thesis of Yogacara philosophy is that what appears to be external reality is actually only the ideas, images, and creation of mind, outside of which no corresponding object exists.â€Â But unlike the majority of the other ten professors, he at least rightly concludes that “The gap between the two schools [Madhyamika and Yogacara] is unbridgeable.â€
Because this review is already too long, I will put my copious notes (of criticisms of the book’s remaining chapters) aside, and end my discourse by explaining how Yogacara can best be understood so that one can properly compare and contrast it with Madhyamika.
True, or esoteric, Yogacara is a poor man’s Hindu Kashmir Shaivism mixed with Patanjali’s Yoga Sutras. According to Kashmir Shaivism, Siva (or Consciousnesss Itself) has manifested as everything via a hierearchical, stepped-down emanation (described via a 36-tattva schema). True, or esoteric, Yogacara shares this vision of Consciousness (or Mind) becoming the all. True Yogacara also shares a similar geography of the mind with Patanjali’s classical (Raja) yoga. Kashmir Shaivism and Patanjali have no need or use for Nagarjuna’s emptiness Dharma, and anyone of real intelligence who studies these traditions along with Yogacara and Madhyamika, will not only grok Yogacara, but also understand why it is not an ally of Madhyamika.
A final word. This book illustrates the sad degradation of Buddhist scholarship since the days of W. Y. Evans-Wentz, Ananda Coomeraswamy, Christmas Humphreys, Alan Watts, et al. Unlike contemporary pinhead Buddhist parochialists (such as the authors of this text), who are incapable of considering Buddhism within a grand Perennial Philosophy framework, these men understood Buddhism as a Yoga that accorded with other great spiritual traditions. In short, I have more respect for the toilet paper in my bathroom than the sheepskins of the authors of this book.
[My 1-star Amazon review (NDA) of “Madhyamaka and Yogacara: Allies or Rival?†by Jay l. Garfield and Jan Westerhoff.]
This collection of essays by eleven pointy-headed academics is so bad, it isn’t worth .02 cents, let alone the $20 I had to dish out for the Kindle edition (which is now $30!) The groundwork for the text is laid out in the Introduction by Professor Jay Garfield, who informs us, “We don’t fully understand them†(meaning the Madhyamika and Yogacara doctrines that the professors consider in their attempts to compare and contrast these two Mahayana schools). Thank goodness some of us do understand them and don’t have to depend on these ivory tower Buddhist academics to enlighten us.Garfield further informs us that “philosophically, Madhyamika and Yogacara are each attempts to spell out the metaphysics of emptiness characteristic of Mahayana.†If Garfield had studied Ayn Rand’s Objectivist epistemology (as every good academician should), he would know that emptiness has no ontological status, hence he would not reduce esoteric Yogacara, which is all about universal Substance – Mind – to a metaphysics of emptiness (or perverted dependent origination).
Because this is just a review and not a tome – which is what it would take to deconstruct the pervasive philosophic prattle in this text – I will delimit my critique to a consideration of just a few of the arguments put forth in some these essays, and most importantly, I will point out the direction in which a true examination of Madhyamika and Yogacara should proceed.
In Chapter 1, Pratityasautpada and Dharmadhatu in Early Mahayana Buddhism by Dr. Chaisit Suwanvarangkul, the professor defines Dharmadhatu as “the domain of reality,†and states that Dharmadhatu has come to represent the universe as completely correlative, generally interdependent, and mutually originating.â€
First of all, the true, or esoteric, definition of Dharmadhatu is: the Dharmakaya (timeless Awareness, or Mind) as the unmanifest spaceless Context in which the universe manifests. Only ignorant exoteric reductionists bring the uncreated “Basic Space of Phenomena†into creation, as Suwanvarangkul does; and by his so doing, his thesis collapses. Moreover, he describes the universe as “completely correlative.†Correlative with what? Blank out. And “generally interdependent� Where is it not wholly interdependent (as his qualifier “generally†implies)? And “mutually originating� Only in the flawed Hua-yen Buddhism that has influenced his thinking. All things originate from Mind, the Dharmakaya.
Suwanvaranghul writes, “The physical body of the Buddhas and the Bodhisattvas are nonself, and also all the sentient beings are nonself. They are all one in the Dharmadhatu, and all work together. This does not mean that the Dharmadhatu turns into a contaminated become or becomes clean by any other force. Rather, the two truths of Madhyamika and Yogacara are alliesâ€: they have a relationship, rely upon on each other and can be undertood as one.â€
What foggy mumbo-jumbo! It blows my mind that a university PhD can compose and teach such crap, and it buttresses my claim that, in the field of philosophy, universities are institutions of lower, not higher, learning.
Rightly, or esoterically, understood, Yogacara is not an ally of Madhyamika. Rightly, or esoterically, understood, Yogacara is Cittamatra (Consciousness-Only), not Vijnaptimatra (mind-only). In other words, the One Mind, the Dharmakaya, universal timeless Awareness, has become everything. Every thing is a manifestation of Mind (Cit), not a mental construct stemming from one’s mind (manas). But not one of these eleven Buddhist professors is willing to consider Yogacara from this radical (or gone-to-the root) perspective. They all drop Context and jump on the exoteric Vijnaptimatra bandwagon, because it reduces Yogic, or Ontic, Yogacara to the epistemology and phenomenology that accords with their lowly, un-Initiated, level of evolutionary spiritual development.
Unbeknownst to these professors, Yogacara is about the practice of Yoga (Union) – and this union of the yogi (or bodhisattva) is with the One Mind, the unmanifest Consciousness-Only that has manifested as all matter and energy. Emptiness, which is an ontological zero, has nothing to do with union. Yes, the One Mind is formless, but it is not formlessness, or emptiness, which is a non-existent. Further – though space permits me from elaborating – a doctrine of emptiness is entirely superfluous to dependent origination, and Nagarjuna’s Dharma can be exposed as sophistry, as a perversion of original, or Pali, Buddhism.
In Chapter 2, Language and Existence in Madhyamika and Yogacara by Mattia Salvini, Dr. Salvini argues that “the referential binding force of consciousness is fundamentally mirrored in the structure of language.â€
No, it’s not; it’s rooted in the very act (s) of attention itself (on objects, gross and subtle), which contracts the field and flow of consciousness into successive bound states.
Dr. Salvini concludes, “I have tried to highlight, at every turn, the debate between Yogacara and Madhyamika depends on a sophisticated use and understanding of language.†Wrong again. The difference is rooted in ontology – the distinction between a non-existent (emptiness) and the all-subsuming (or “all-swallowing,†according to Plato) universal Existent itself, Consciousness, or Mind.
In Chapter 3, Reification and Nihilism, The Three Nature Theory and Its Implications by Sonam Thakchoe, Dr. Thakchoe wrongly (in the opinion of those those with an esoteric, or Cittamatra, viewpoint) states that “The central thesis of Yogacara philosophy is that what appears to be external reality is actually only the ideas, images, and creation of mind, outside of which no corresponding object exists.â€Â But unlike the majority of the other ten professors, he at least rightly concludes that “The gap between the two schools [Madhyamika and Yogacara] is unbridgeable.â€
Because this review is already too long, I will put my copious notes (of criticisms of the book’s remaining chapters) aside, and end my discourse by explaining how Yogacara can best be understood so that one can properly compare and contrast it with Madhyamika.
True, or esoteric, Yogacara is a poor man’s Hindu Kashmir Shaivism mixed with Patanjali’s Yoga Sutras. According to Kashmir Shaivism, Siva (or Consciousnesss Itself) has manifested as everything via a hierearchical, stepped-down emanation (described via a 36-tattva schema). True, or esoteric, Yogacara shares this vision of Consciousness (or Mind) becoming the all. True Yogacara also shares a similar geography of the mind with Patanjali’s classical (Raja) yoga. Kashmir Shaivism and Patanjali have no need or use for Nagarjuna’s emptiness Dharma, and anyone of real intelligence who studies these traditions along with Yogacara and Madhyamika, will not only grok Yogacara, but also understand why it is not an ally of Madhyamika.
A final word. This book illustrates the sad degradation of Buddhist scholarship since the days of W. Y. Evans-Wentz, Ananda Coomeraswamy, Christmas Humphreys, Alan Watts, et al. Unlike contemporary pinhead Buddhist parochialists (such as the authors of this text), who are incapable of considering Buddhism within a grand Perennial Philosophy framework, these men understood Buddhism as a Yoga that accorded with other great spiritual traditions. In short, I have more respect for the toilet paper in my bathroom than the sheepskins of the authors of this book.
