[Buddha-l] Fsat Mnifdlunses?

[Dan Lusthaus]

Mike,

> Hmm. It would seem that an angry mind conditions the wrinkles of a frown
> or the movement of a fist,  even if the appearance of these phenomena to
> that mind is not reality.

Exactly right. The mind can have physical consequences, and those can be 
karmic. In the Vimsatika Vasubandhu illustrates this with the example of the 
wet dream -- a karmic no-no for celibate monks. The sleeping man imagines an 
erotic situation that exists no where else than in his dreaming mind, but 
awakens to discover that his dreams have had very real consequences back in 
the "real" world. This is not a "bad" idealist argument, but an argument by 
a non-idealist about the dire reality of karmic consequences, even for those 
too deeply immersed in their dreams (vijnapti-matra) to be aware of that 
(yet). It is also a rebuke to the attitude -- "hey, man, it doesn't 
matter... it's all an illusion!" Vasubandhu is saying it does matter. Mental 
attitudes produce real, karmic results in the physical world. Yogacara never 
denies physicality -- it disputes the metaphysical theories we reduce the 
physical to, such as atomism or metaphysical primary substances.

> This would be the blame identified by the pointing index finger when the
> three other three fingers point back at oneself. We get it also with the
> Mahayana/Hinayana debate. And I point at all these people for doing it.

But can you scratch your own back while waving to your friends?

> "Doesn't seem to cross their mind that maybe rather than Yogacara
> offering vapid arguments for idealism, the case might rather be that
> Yogacara offers NO arguments for idealism, and that the effort by
> scholars to put such claims in their mouths is what is vapid."
>
> Why, I might nearly have gone this way myself had you not pointed out my
> error.

We've inhaled the vapid vapors when we weren't looking. Hard to exhale.

Dan