No. Why should this make more sense than the conventional "view of the world"?Dexing wrote:They are not contradicting. They are both saying there is nothing to point to and label as "existing" or "not existing". There is simply nothing there at all. But attaching to this non-existence saying something "does not exist" is still asserting "something" that does not exist.TMingyur wrote:The first and the second sentence are contradicting.Dexing wrote:Yogacara teachings first of all teach that everything ordinary beings perceive is merely the object of a subjective consciousness and not objective existence. Once realizing this, then obviously "exist" or "does not exist" both do not apply.
Also how does Yogacara explain two individuals sharing the same "object of subjective experience". e.g. two individuals seeing fire and burning their fingers after they put their fingers in the fire and are holding them there?
How does Yogacara explain sucessful human activity based on thought and perception of objects shared by different individuals (e.g. science, mathematics)?
It sounds contradictory, but the first instance is showing the unreality of illusory objects, and the second is cautioning you not to attach to the non-existence of the object, because that would assert "something" that does not exist. Like illusory flowers floating in the sky when the sight becomes fatigued. Actually nothing is there, but if you stubbornly cling to these flowers as "existing" or "not existing" then you make them real either way. But first you must realize what appears before you is an illusion.
If you burn your fingers with fire it does not matter wether you conceive the fire as an "illusion" or you conceive it being an objective fire external of yourself.
If you are hungry you buy food. You buy your "illusory food" to get rid of your "illusory hunger" and another buys food that exists out there in the shop external of himself. But both of you are acting according to the conventional "view of the world" so what is the difference? You are attached to a speculative view that is contradicted by your own behaviour and the other simply acts and thinks about his acting in conventional ways. Who's view is consistent with his behaviour?
If the only purpose of your speculative view is to persuade yourself in order to alleviate your grasping at experiences and you temporarily succeed that does not validate that your view is correct. What about simply not grasping at experiences and thinking in conventionally valid terms?
"collective karma" cannot be seen, heard, smelled, tasted or touched but external objects can.Dexing wrote: ... it is explained as "collective karma".