2

https://scholarlypublications.universiteitleiden.nl/handle/1887/80747

"POM1: Presume that other minds can be perceived. Then, they shall be like external forms and have no real existence.

POM2: Presume that other minds can be perceived and still have real existence. This epistemic realism contradicts the idealist position held by the Yogācārins, insofar as there is one type of really-existed objects that can be directly given to one’s mind and this givenness is independent of one’s own mind.

POM3: Presume that other minds cannot be perceived. Then, the doctrine of consciousness- only also becomes untenable, because there is one type of objects that falls outside of the scope of one’s experience."

"Other minds are then perceived through the second-person perspective."

That is, when the Yogacarin communicates with other people, does he directly communicate with other minds? Or does he pretend to communicate with other minds, but in fact he knows that only his mind exists, and all other minds are just imaginations created by his mind Thank you.

4

2 Answers 2

0

Didn't you already ask this?

"Or does he pretend to communicate with other minds, but in fact he knows that only his mind exists, and all other minds are just imaginations created by his mind"

Who's conceptual framework would that be done with?

What do you think minds are, things with an unchanging essence?

As I see it, key to understanding the 'mind-only' perspective is recognising all experiences have to be filtered through subjectivities, there is no truly objective, because no one experiences that, only consilience of experiences: like between different senses, & by comparing with others.

We each carry our own reality, but it's one where we constantly interact with the reality of others. A modern framing is 'peer to peer reality'.

8
  • Thank you. That is, this school is not metaphysical idealism? Is it about the perception of the same object here? For example: Two minds talk to each other about Paris, but one mind says that he likes this city, and the other mind tells him that he does not like this city because there are a lot of tourists, for example?
    – Arny
    Commented Apr 10, 2021 at 12:44
  • @Arny: "One day Soshi was walking on the bank of a river with a friend. 'How delightfully the fishes are enjoying themselves in the water!' exclaimed Soshi. His friend spake to him thus: 'You are not a fish; how do you know that the fishes are enjoying themselves?' 'You are not myself', returned Soshi; 'how do you know that I do not know that the fishes are enjoying themselves?" -from The Book Of Tea
    – CriglCragl
    Commented Apr 10, 2021 at 13:29
  • Thanks. That is, the Chinese and Indian schools of Yogacara are schools of impressions only? That is, two friends do not create Paris with their minds, but create the impression of Paris with their minds?
    – Arny
    Commented Apr 10, 2021 at 13:44
  • 'Impressions only'.. As opposed to, substances? Essences? Identities? Transcendental unity? I feel like you have a set of square blocks you are determined to jam into round holes. It's like this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indra%27s_net Less self + world, than the surface, the interface between. That is the shift. Bundles of phenomena, grouped into salience landscapes, but all empty of inherent existence, all changing, relative, interdependent, mutually arising.
    – CriglCragl
    Commented Apr 10, 2021 at 14:02
  • Thanks for the answer. But I cannot understand: Here's the situation: One Yogacarin talks to another Yogacharin about the river they are looking at. From the idealistic point of view of the Yogacara: A yogacarin must think that his mind has created another yogacarin with his own mind and a river? Or it should look like this: one mindstream talking to another mindtream about the stream of water and two mindstreams creates an impression of this stream of water in their mind? Thank you.
    – Arny
    Commented Apr 10, 2021 at 14:39
0

"That is, when the Yogacarin communicates with other people, does he directly communicate with other minds?"

The Yogachara/Cittamatra is one of the higher tenet systems of Mahayana buddhism with the other being Madhyamaka. Both of these tenet systems attempt to explain the Buddha's teachings through the lens of the Two Truths: the conventional truth, and the ultimate truth. Your questions are confusing these two truths in a way that a Yogacarin would not agree to. That is, a Yogacarin would object to your questions as they rely upon western words and ideas that simply do not fit into the framework of the two truths and the tenet system of Cittamatra.

If a Yogacarin answered your question from the context of the conventional they would say they communicate with other people just like you do: talking and hearing, writing and reading, sign language and so on. From the context of the ultimate, a Yogacarin would ask why do you presume a 'self' and an 'other' where none so exist in the ultimate?

"Or does he pretend to communicate with other minds, but in fact he knows that only his mind exists, and all other minds are just imaginations created by his mind Thank you."

Again, in the context of the conventional the Yogacarin would say there is no "pretending" and this question is just presuming things they do not agree to. In the context of the ultimate, the Yogacarin would ask why do you presume a 'self' and 'other' and a 'his mind'?

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .