Been busy folks!
Looking back to see where I left off, I read again:
Shonin wrote:It isn't just the non-existence of 'individual things' which is a mistaken view, but the non-existence of 'everything' ie. that there is any such non-existence at all. It is another form of self-view: reality has an essential/inherent/objective nature and that nature is nothingness.
Wow, you have really gone off the deep end with this. This is actually nothing like what I've been saying. If the nature of reality is "nothing" then there would be no reality to speak of.
Shonin wrote:Where does this 3-step method come from? Did you invent it or is it part of your lineage?
I didn't mean it was three steps taught separately in different traditions. It's just a sequence of practice and realization.
Buddha too rejected this view that nothing exists (sabbaa natthii ti) along with other extreme theories.
I disagree with it too. What I've said to be illusory is what "ordinary beings take as reality". Buddhas and Bodhisattvas are a different story.
To believe that 'objects of consciousness are unreal' is metaphysical/ontological dogma. If direct experience unmediated by perception is the criterion for something being real then to experience the non-existence of objects of consciousness (rather than simply believe it an an intellectual position) one would have to be directly experienced. However this is impossible, we cannot transcend our subjectivity to meet the world 'as-it-is-in-itself' and find the non-existence of external objects. This would actually make the very mistake that this kind of argument is criticising - namely making a claim about an objective, absolute world outside of what is actually experienced.
This will likely be my last attempt to explain it a bit more clearly for you, briefly.
These "objects of consciousness" are merely colors, sounds, fragrances, flavors, tactile sensations and concepts based upon them. Therefore, the so-called "external objects" we refer to are interpretations of our sensations, not actual objects. It's very plain to see.
Based on a feeling of hardness, smoothness, a color of brown, etc. we say there is a table here. But all we are experiencing are sensations.
There is no way to speak of an "actual" external object. The only "external objects" we speak of are compounds of various sensations. So those so-called external objects actually do not exist as such.
I don't know how to make it any more clear than that.
Note the interesting comment about Yogacara:
Early Buddhism was not subjective idealistic. Some have misinterpreted the Yogācāra school of Mahayana Buddhism that developed the consciousness-only approach as a form of metaphysical idealism, but this is incorrect. Yogācāra thinkers did not focus on consciousness to assert it as ultimately real (Yogācāra claims consciousness is only conventionally real since it arises from moment to moment due to fluctuating causes and conditions), but rather because it is the cause of the karmic problem they are seeking to eliminate.
I find it interesting you share this quote, when it's actually saying what I've been saying.
I never said consciousness is ultimately real, but is a cause of the karmic problem of creating falseness, conceptualizing the unreal, which keeps us from seeing reality, etc..
Using the Buddha's teachings we can break through the illusion, at which point consciousness is transformed into wisdom and true reality is perceived and correct function happens spontaneously.