Namdrol, with all respect you are not the only one who want to back into the source, a "archaeologist" for Madhyamaka/Yogacara. Karl Brunnhölzl in "The Center" discovered for example:Namdrol wrote:Only gzhan stong pas maintain there is a difference between Yogacara and cittamatra.Mariusz wrote:
Of course here I not consider it as the shentong also. Following Nitartha Institute I consider it as yogacara not as cittamatra's the narrow interpretation.
... as a very rough outline, one may distinguish three main streams (of yogacara):
1) the distinct system of Maitreya, Asaoga, and Vasubandhu (the lineage of vast
2) a later, in parts more “idealistic” Yogacara (cittamatrins), as exemplified by Dharmapla (530-561)
3) an epistemologically oriented tradition, headed by Dignaga and Dharmakırti.
...Bhavaviveka’s critique of Yogacara starts in The Lamp of Knowledge, his com-
mentary on The Fundamental Verses. In the first chapter of this text, he criticizes
Gu ̊amati’s commentary on The Fundamental Verses. In the twenty-fifth chap-
ter, he attacks the view of the three natures, especially that the other-dependent
nature is really existent (a position held by Gunamati and Dharmapala).Here,
he quotes seven verses from Maitreya’s Distinction between the Middle and
Extremes and once from Asaoga’s commentary on The Fundamental Verses.