Originally posted by Sgforumposter:Yes, I have no idea on vijnanavadin but a quick read on the subject revealed the following :
a. Vijnanavada has its basis in the Mandukya Upanishad.
b. Buddhist epistemology is NOT Buddhist logic as you have claimed. In vijnanavada Dinnaga argued that the source of knowlege are (i) sense perception and (ii) Inference. He had essentially given a different interpretation to the perceptual and mental formation skandha. Buddhist logic was superimposed on to the skandha model to explain mental formation.
c. In Vijnanavada there is no objective reality. Example given :
"An itinerant ascetic, an amorous person and a dog, all catch sight of a woman, but they have three different notions. The ascetic looks upon her as a mere carcass, the voluptuary takes her to be an object of amorous delight while the dog takes her to be something eatable.(2) Thus with reference to one and the same body of a woman, diverse judgments arise according to the pre-conception and the mental inclination of the different observers."
Or on another note let's say for the sake of argument that someone had told you that I am a dirty rotten scoundrel. You become hateful and mean everytime you see me and this was due to the belief that motivates all your thoughts, speech and actions.
d. Buddhist logic is not an epistemological tool but a way to explain how each of us deal with our sense perception. How could any artificial and contrived system of thoughts be complete (Godel's incompleteness theorem) to explain or understand the arising thoughts, speech and actions of a sentient being ?
e. Buddhist logic over time became more important than the sutra and realisation.
A lot of mahayana literature were influenced by the hindu tradition and the vehemence denial by her adherent only goes to reinforce the similarity rather than the confirm its uniqueness.
Vijnanavada has its basis in the Mandukya Upanishad.
No idea how and where you get the idea that the Mandukya Upanishad is the basis of the Vijnanavadin. Try reading up on the development and evolution of Buddhism itself, and how the logic of the Yogacara-Vijnanavadin evolve and influence and being influence by other Indian systems such as the Materialist, Sankhya, Vedanta and the Mimamsa before its disappearance from India itself.
Buddhist epistemology is NOT Buddhist logic as you have claimed. In vijnanavada Dinnaga argued that the source of knowlege are (i) sense perception and (ii) Inference. He had essentially given a different interpretation to the perceptual and mental formation skandha. Buddhist logic was superimposed on to the skandha model to explain mental formation.
"All successful human action is necessarily preceded by right knowledge, therefore we are going to investigate it" This statement form the scope and aim of Buddhist logic of Dharmakirti. You can read up on the subject of Buddhist epistemology in the book “Buddhist Logic” by FT Stcherbatsky.
In Vijnanavada there is no objective reality. Example given :
"An itinerant ascetic, an amorous person and a dog, all catch sight of a woman, but they have three different notions. The ascetic looks upon her as a mere carcass, the voluptuary takes her to be an object of amorous delight while the dog takes her to be something eatable.(2) Thus with reference to one and the same body of a woman, diverse judgments arise according to the pre-conception and the mental inclination of the different observers."
Or on another note let's say for the sake of argument that someone had told you that I am a dirty rotten scoundrel. You become hateful and mean everytime you see me and this was due to the belief that motivates all your thoughts, speech and actions.
If you are into the subject of non-duality and emptiness, you would have know to the Mahayanist 'Ultimate Truth' means there is no objective reality in the external world and it does not just apply to the Mind Only doctrine of the Vijnanavadin.
Buddhist logic is not an epistemological tool but a way to explain how each of us deal with our sense perception. How could any artificial and contrived system of thoughts be complete (Godel's incompleteness theorem) to explain or understand the arising thoughts, speech and actions of a sentient being ?
If you are unable to get the source of your knowledge correct in the first place, the whole of your religious doctrine is already flawed. That is why Cognition forms the very basis on the subject. Another term used here is also called Buddhist phenomenology.
Buddhist logic over time became more important than the sutra and realisation.
Where did you get such idea from by the way? Buddhist logic is based on, in Mahayanist term as 'Relative Truth'. The aim of a Mahayanist Buddhist is to seek out the ‘Ultimate Truth’ which is of course through the ‘Realization’ of non-duality and Emptiness which are found in the teaching of the Sutras.
A lot of mahayana literature were influenced by the hindu tradition and the vehemence denial by her adherent only goes to reinforce the similarity rather than the confirm its uniqueness.
Influences go both ways. Again, certainly no idea how you arrive at such conclusion.