5 upvotes, 1 direct replies (showing 1)
View submission: Tibetian Buddhism
Buddhist schools often integrate elements of both rather than strictly adhering to one. Here's how some of the major active traditions relate to these two philosophies:
Gelug: Strongly aligned with Madhyamaka. They emphasize emptiness (śūnyatā) as the ultimate truth, rejecting Yogācāra's idealism.
Nyingma, Kagyu, Sakya: Accept Madhyamaka but integrate Yogācāra elements, especially in tantric ideas.
Chan (Zen, Seon, Thiền): Historically influenced by both, but tends to lean more toward Madhyamaka in its emphasis on non-conceptual wisdom and emptiness.
Tiantai: Integrates Madhyamaka but also values Yogācāra-style consciousness analysis.
Huayan: Heavily influenced by Madhyamaka but also incorporates Yogācāra insights into the nature of consciousness and interpenetration.
Pure Land: They have connections to both, with Yogācāra influencing views on the "storehouse consciousness" (ālaya-vijñāna).
Theravāda - Traditionally does not follow either school but engages with some Yogācāra ideas, particularly in later Abhidharma developments. Some modern Theravādins study and incorporate Madhyamaka logic.
Most Buddhist schools do not rigidly align with just one but often blend aspects of both. Madhyamaka is generally dominant in philosophical discourse, while Yogācāra influences practical teachings on mind and perception, particularly in tantric and Eastern Buddhist traditions.
Comment by Competitive_Bug3664 at 04/02/2025 at 05:24 UTC
2 upvotes, 0 direct replies
I see . Thanks for the answer. It appears like I should deep study all Tibetan schools to choose one.