buddhism wrote:In fact, the theory of six vijnanas is exactly non-Buddhist nihilism, because our conscious minds cannot proceed to future lives; every life we do start with a new mind.
In fact, early Buddhists generally believed that it was just vijñāna
(consciousness) in general that transmigrated from lifetime to lifetime. (Several relevant references to passages in the Pali canon can be found in the endnotes to Waldren's excellent article. http://www.gampoabbey.org/documents/Inn ... ijnana.pdf
Later, the Sarvāstivādin Abhidharma theorists explained that, among the six types of vijñāna
, it was the manovijñāna
(mental consciousness, as opposed to the five sensory consciousnesses) that transmigrated. This is explicitly stated by Vasubandhu in his famous and influential work, the Abhidharmakośa (III 42b-c): cyutyupapattayaḥ manovijñāna eveṣṭāḥ...
"Death and birth are properly regarded to be [moments of] mental consciousness."
Thus, it is clear that that the theory of six vijñānas
was (and continues to be) a very mainstream and widely-held Buddhist doctrine. One therefore has to wonder what purpose could possibly be served by your maintaining that such a theory is non-Buddhist.
Could it have anything to do with the fact that most Tibetan schools also subscribe to the six vijñānas
theory, and that, for reasons which you will not openly state, but which are nevertheless quite obvious, you will shamelessly say anything, no matter how far-fetched and ridiculous, in order to exclude Tibetans from the Buddhist church?
adikarmika wrote:There is no mention whatsoever of ālayavijñāna anywhere in Nāgārjuna's writings.
The title of the book already speaks for itself; the middle way refers to ālayavijñāna, ...
So you claim. But to support your claim, can you cite me just one Indian commentator
of the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā who actually agrees with you and states that madhya
in the title means ālayavijñāna
I mean, seeing as you are supposed to uphold the "true teachings" of Buddhism and all, I'd just like to be reassured that there is an Indian antecendent for your interpretation, and that you're not really just a fringe sect trying to impose a Taoist interpretation on one of the fundamental texts of Mahayana Buddhism.
Not that there's anything wrong with that per se. There are, for example, certain scholars who think that Nāgārjuna and Wittgenstein were saying the same thing, but AFAIK, none goes so far as to assert that all other interpretations are non-Buddhist.
It's only you and your disgraceful organisation that makes such absurd claims.
buddhism wrote:as I have explained on the other thread. Besides, there are many terms to describe ālayavijñāna, including the Buddha nature, Tathagatagarbha, true mind, eternity, ultimate origin, ...
Well, since heterodox interpretations of Buddhism appeal to you so much... how about "Brahman" or "Ātman"? How about "Dao"?
buddhism wrote:... ālayavijñāna - which is the core essence of Buddhism,
You mean the core essence of your particular brand of heterodox Chinese Buddhism.