[Buddha-l] Fsat Mnifdlunses?

[Mike Austin]

Dan Lusthaus <vasubandhu at earthlink.net> writes

I wrote:
"If I were to suggest that there is nothing to 'get at' apart from one's 
own projections, then that would be Yogacara. OK?"

"And you were almost there! No. That we see the gestalts, not pixels, 
etc. (not that pixels are any more "legitimate" than the scrambled 
words) means we have a propensity to see what we project on reality."

I think you have misunderstood me here.  I did not say there was nothing 
'at all'.  I said there was nothing to 'get at', meaning nothing that we 
could ever get at. Am I still wrong, from a Yogacara perspective?

The perspective that I favour  is that the projections onto a phenomenal 
world, which are conditioned mainly by ignorance, are not independent of 
that phenomenal world. They affect it and are affected by it. In my very 
limited understanding, Yogacara seems to suggest that the realisation of 
things as they are would be unity of perceiver and perceived through the 
elimination of the projections. Phenomena can then be nothing other than 
'of the nature of mind'. I would feel uncomfortable suggesting this, but 
I also feel there is value in considering it.

"Clearer?"

... in that I am understanding my lack of clarity.

-- 
Metta
Mike Austin