Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
It depends on what kind of reality you have in mind. Inside us is a mental reflection, outside-the material world. Well, yes, it's a matter of faith and choosing between the first and the second. The history of philosophy knows many different concepts on this subject.
It is impossible to prove or refute the Cittamatra philosophy logically, just as it is impossible to prove or refute the existence of God.
In general, to understand Chittamatra, a certain kind of yogic experience is necessary, on which, in fact, the founders of Chittamatra were based.
One can point out the similarity of the foundations of the Chittamatra teaching to the teachings of Kashmiri Shaivism and Advaita Vedanta.
We can also recall the gospel of John:
“1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2�It was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him, and without him nothing was made that was made.”
If we understand Christ-God-the-Word as the Consciousness of Chittamatra, then ” All things were made through Him “coincides with the foundation of the Chittamatra teaching.
Isn't it the other way around? Vijnana is reality, and vijnana distortions, projections, and mental turbidity are illusion, samsara.
Logic can be useful here in order to consistently clarify the illusory nature of phenomena. But it is not useful for transcendental wisdom, when consciousness perceives reality directly (or is reality as in yogacara) beyond the cause-and-effect process, that is, beyond the framework of samsaric logic.
This is practically an eternal question. It is part of a millennia-long dispute between the world-describing concepts that are called “objective idealism” and “materialism”in Europe. Different scientists and thinkers hold different points of view. Even more – different, quite mainstream, scientific disciplines respond to it in different ways. So, a mathematician, nowadays, will answer rather that no, and a philologist, rather that yes. Modern technical civilization, based, in fact, on the power of physics and mathematics, tends to idealism in its philosophy. Roughly speaking, to the question of whether the sum of the angles of a triangle is equal to one hundred and eighty degrees, if no one is measuring them at the moment, and if the triangle is located on the planet Eta in the system of the star Cassiopeia B, where there are no, and never were, people or other forms of intelligent life, and if there is no triangle at all, That is, for most educated contemporaries, a triangle, say, on a dollar bill is only a mental projection of an ideal triangle, the sum of which is and will be (but it was not – it seems to be slightly behind in time from us) equal to one hundred and eighty degrees. However, the materialist will answer in his own way. He will take the bill away from you and say “no triangle – no corners”.