Thank you both very much for your answers, Taigu and Mongen!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hans
Not affirming the existence of some "essence", or "svabhava" etc. does not equal nihilism btw.
But that is precisely what N?g?rjuna does, indeed - he affirms the tath?gatagarbha, which of course is our buddha-nature. In sanskrit, this is translated to "buddha essence", which can be se as a svabh?va. If you believe in something essential, it is not all in the mind. If dropping all views shows the tath?gatagarbha, then this essence, or state of mind, or state of being, is centered upon. This garbha exists, when there is no more clinging, when there are no more views to drop.
This is the point on which I always get stuck.
So it seems that the notion of the tath?gatagarbha negates the position of a M?dhyamika, and vice versa. The citta-m?tra view, on the other hand, already has this notion of an essence (which can be called self or mind or consciousness) and which can include the tath?gatagarbha.
Now, both only-mind and no-mind are just ideas of course, and they must be dropped as well, if we want to experience prajñ?. Still, it is nice to know the ideas and notions and views in order to throw them away. Otherwise, we are just throwing and dropping for the sake of throwing and dropping. When we understand, we practise. When we practise, we understand.
Now, I will go and sit. Too much reasoning for one day :).
Thank you.