Генеральная проблема прасангики

The explanations given in Secret Mantra
are Buddha's final intention. Of all Buddhist systems
the Madhyamika-Prasangika system is supreme, and the
supreme interpretation of Madhyamika-Prasangika is that
of Highest Yoga Tantra.
...
Before Je Tsongkhapa appeared in Tibet, many Tantric
practitioners experienced great confusion about generation
stage meditation. Some even believed that it had no correct
object and was therefore a wrong awareness, and they concluded
that meditation on generation stage was pointless.
...
It is not only in Tantra that a mentally generated object
transforms into a real object. Even in Sutra it is said that if
we meditate on a mentally generated object for long
enough with strong concentration, eventually it will appear
clearly to a direct perceiver. Dharmakirti said that even if
we concentrate on an incorrect object, eventually through
the force of familiarity it will appear clearly to our mind.
If we are strongly attached to someone we see their body
as very attractive.
...
Chandrakirti said that the mind
generates everything. If our mind generates Buddhahood,
we shall attain Buddhahood, and if it generates a hell we
shall be in hell.
...
Generally, Highest Yoga Tantra is
based on the Madhyamika-Prasangika view but, unlike
Sutra Prasangika scholars, many Tantric Prasangikas also
accept the Chittamatra view that forms are the nature of
mind.
...
Our real basis of imputation is our very subtle body and
mind, which are the only stable basis, and the only basis
we can really call our own. Our gross body and mind are
temporary bases. Since there are two types of basis for
imputing self- a temporary basis and an ultimate basisthere
are two types of self - a gross self and a subtle self.
The self that is imputed upon the very subtle mind and
wind is the subtle self. Only those who have received Tantric
teachings know about this self. The distinction between
gross and subtle bodies, minds, and selves is not made in
Sutra teachings, so even Sutra Bodhisattvas do not know
about the subtle self.
...
There is an account of a Yamantaka practitioner who
through his clear appearance of being Yamantaka saw himself
as the real Deity in every detail, including the horns
on his head. He felt as if he could even touch the horns,
and whenever he wanted to go through a door he would
bend down to allow room for his horns to pass through!
Although he was not actually Yamantaka, his clear appearance
of himself as the Deity Yamantaka was not a mistaken
appearance. If something is a mistaken appearance it
necessarily arises from ignorance, but if a Tantric practitioner
sees himself or herself as a real Yamantaka or
Vajrayogini, this clear appearance arises from his or her
pure concentration and not from ignorance. Such experiences
are evident only to the practitioner himself; other
people will continue to see him as an ordinary person.

Although he was not actually Yamantaka, his clear appearance
of himself as the Deity Yamantaka was not a mistaken
appearance. If something is a mistaken appearance it
necessarily arises from ignorance, but if a Tantric practitioner
sees himself or herself as a real Yamantaka or
Vajrayogini, this clear appearance arises from his or her
pure concentration and not from ignorance. Such experiences
are evident only to the practitioner himself; other
people will continue to see him as an ordinary person.

В таком случае, какой смысл в таком воззрении? Какую пользу оно дает по сравнению с теми, которые оно отвергает? У вас ведь ничего не меняется по сути, кроме добавления фразы "без свабхавы". Просто лишние слова добавлены, без изменения чего-либо еще.

Основа для клеш - то, как предмет познан. Познан концептами - основа для клеш познанность концептами. Воззрение "всё существует только как концепты" никак не уменьшает клеши.

Ничего не меняется в клешах от того, считаете ли вы вещь "лишь концептом" или же "реальной самой по себе". У вас меняется только название для реальности.

a Tantric practitioner
sees himself or herself as a real Yamantaka or
Vajrayogini, this clear appearance arises from his or her
pure concentration and not from ignorance. Such experiences
are evident only to the practitioner himself; other
people will continue to see him as an ordinary person.

Больше похоже не на "Стандартные будд. концепты в новой ситуации", а на конфирмацию шизофрении. Не о подобном ли самовыращенном душевном расстройстве рассказывается в суттах, где упоминаются "аскеты-собаки" , "аскеты-быки" и т.п.?

Путаете следование положительному примеру с псих. расстройствами.

ТМ

получается целая технология копирования самости иного существа, чтобы актуализировать свою самость.