This is an excellent and penetrating question. You are moving beyond the philosophical tenets themselves and into the subtle, inter-school dynamics of the Tibetan tradition, asking how these schools perceive each other's relationship between philosophy and practice.
The direct answer is yes. Masters and scholars from other Tibetan schools, particularly those from the Nyingma, Kagyu, and especially the Jonang traditions, have historically raised critiques that align very closely with the spirit of your question. They have, in essence, questioned whether the Sakya school's intense scholasticism and its radically negative dialectic can, for some, become an obstacle to the very experiential realization it is intended to produce.
Let's break down the nature of this critique.
1. The Critique of Being "Too Scholastic"
This is a common dynamic in any spiritual tradition that contains both highly scholastic and highly practice-oriented lineages. The Sakya tradition, along with the Gelug, places an immense and non-negotiable value on rigorous intellectual training (shedra). The belief is that without a crystal-clear, logically established philosophical view, meditative experience can be misleading, unstable, or misinterpreted.
Masters from the Nyingma and Kagyu traditions, while possessing their own profound scholarly lineages, often place a greater public emphasis on direct meditative realization through their pinnacle systems of Dzogchenand Mahāmudrā.
The Nyingma/Kagyu Perspective: From this standpoint, the critique is not that the Sakya view is wrong, but that the method can be a potential pitfall. They might argue that the Sakya's intense focus on subtle logical distinctions and refuting every possible philosophical error can, for some practitioners, become a new and very subtle form of conceptual entanglement. The danger is that one might develop "pride in the view" and mistake a flawless intellectual understanding of emptiness for the direct, non-conceptual realization of it. The critique could be framed as: "Why spend decades building a perfect conceptual ladder when the master's 'pointing-out instruction' can show you the nature of mind directly?"
2. The Core Critique: Intellectual Emptiness vs. Experiential Reality
This is the deeper, more philosophical critique that directly addresses your question about Yogācāra. This critique comes most forcefully from the proponents of the Shentong ("Empty of Other") view, which is historically associated with the Jonang school but also deeply influential within the Kagyu and Nyingma traditions.
The Shentong Argument: Shentong masters would argue that the Sakya (and Gelug) "Rangtong" ("Empty of Self") approach, by focusing exclusively on what reality is not (i.e., not inherently existent), leads to an understanding of emptiness that can be merely a conceptual negation or an intellectual "blankness."
Where Yogācāra Comes In: They would assert that this is precisely why the Yogācāra teachings are so crucial. The Yogācāra school, in their view, was not making a flawed metaphysical proposition to be refuted. It was making an experiential description of the luminous, self-aware, and blissful nature of primordial consciousness (jñāna).
The Critique: The Shentong critique of the Sakya approach would be this: "By so rigorously negating everything, you are failing to describe the positive, luminous, and cognizant experience of the ultimate reality. The Yogācārins were describing the radiant nature of the mind that realizes emptiness, and in your zeal to refute them philosophically, you risk throwing out the baby with the bathwater. You are left with a perfect description of what is absent, but an incomplete description of what is present in the moment of gnosis."
This is a direct and profound critique that claims the Sakya approach, by being so intellectually focused on negation, can miss the positive, experiential heart of the matter that the Yogācārins were pointing towards.
The Sakya Rebuttal (For Balance)
Of course, the Sakya masters would completely disagree with this characterization. From their perspective:
Logic as a Sharp Sword: They do not see their rigorous analysis as a conceptual trap, but as the sharpest and most effective tool for cutting through all conceptual traps, including the very subtle trap of reifying "luminous consciousness" as a truly existing "thing."
Lamdré as Proof of Experience: They would point to their pinnacle teaching, Lamdré ("The Path with Its Result"), as the ultimate proof that their system is profoundly experiential. Lamdré is a complete system of yogic and tantric practices designed to produce the direct, non-conceptual realization of the "inseparability of samsara and nirvana."
View as the Foundation: They would argue that without the unshakeable foundation of their precise Madhyamika view, any meditative experience—no matter how blissful or luminous—is at risk of being just another subtle samsaric state. The view is what ensures the experience is genuinely liberating.
Conclusion:
So yes, a definite line of criticism exists. Other masters, particularly from the Shentong, Nyingma, and Kagyu schools, have argued that the Sakya school's intense scholasticism and its purely negating approach to emptiness can potentially sideline the positive, luminous, and experiential reality that the Yogācāra school sought to describe.
This is not a simple debate about right and wrong, but a profound conversation about the most effective balance between philosophical view (lta ba) and meditative experience (sgom pa). The Sakyas champion the view as the necessary key to unlock valid experience, while their critics often champion direct experience as primary, with the view serving to clarify that profound, yogic encounter.
A CRUCIAL REFINEMENT
“Thank you for the above answer. Do some masters of other schools besides Sakya posit that, taking the step of identifying Samsara and Nirvana as inseparable might somehow leave an important and crucial line of development (that of the line of Nirvana) out of a practitioner’s reckoning? Thus limiting the student who might believe that he/she has reached a “final understanding”?”
This is an exceptionally perceptive and critical question. You have moved from understanding the view itself to questioning its potential dangers in practice. The concern you've raised is not only valid but is considered one of the most important and frequently addressed risks in the transmission of Mahayana and especially Vajrayana Buddhism.
To answer you directly: Yes, absolutely. Masters from other schools—most notably the Gelug schoolfounded by the great reformer Je Tsongkhapa—have offered profound and systematic critiques based on precisely the danger you've identified.
The core of their argument is that presenting the ultimate "resultant" view—that Samsara and Nirvana are inseparable—to a practitioner who is not properly prepared can lead them to prematurely abandon the "line of Nirvana" (the path of purification and development), causing them to become stuck in a state of complacency, believing they have reached a final understanding when they have not.
Here is a detailed breakdown of this critique.
The Nature of the Critique: Conflating the Two Truths
The philosophical tool used to make this critique is the doctrine of the Two Truths:
Ultimate Truth (paramārtha-satya): The way things truly are, free from all conceptual distortion. From this perspective of a fully enlightened Buddha, the empty nature of Samsara and the empty nature of Nirvana are indeed one and the same. This is the "inseparability."
Conventional Truth (saṃvṛti-satya): The way things appear and function for unenlightened beings. On this level, Samsara and Nirvana are absolutely distinct and separate. Samsara is the undeniable experience of suffering, driven by ignorance and karma. Nirvana is the goal of complete freedom from that suffering.
The critique from masters like Tsongkhapa is that a practitioner who hears the ultimate view of inseparability might mistakenly apply it to their own conventional experience. This leads to several disastrous pitfalls:
Potential Dangers of Misinterpreting the View
Antinomianism (Abandoning Ethics): This is the gravest danger. A student might think, "If my suffering mind is ultimately the mind of a Buddha, and samsaric actions are ultimately empty, then conventional ethics don't matter." This can lead to a justification for harmful behavior, completely destroying the foundation of the path. Tsongkhapa strongly emphasized that for anyone still on the path, the conventional laws of karma are inexorable and must be respected with utmost care.
Complacent Quietism (Mistaking an Experience for the Goal): This is the pitfall you alluded to directly. A student might achieve a temporary state of mental peace or a minor insight into emptiness during meditation and mistake it for the final realization of Nirvana. They might think, "This is it! Samsara is Nirvana. There is nothing more to do." They then abandon the hard work of the path, becoming stuck in a subtle state of spiritual pride and complacency.
Devaluing the Line of Nirvana: This is the precise danger you mentioned. By over-emphasizing that "Samsara is Nirvana," the practitioner can devalue the entire "line of development" that leads to the actualization of Nirvana. They forget that this inseparability is the result of traversing the path, not a starting premise that makes the path unnecessary. They neglect the crucial need to:
Generate Renunciation: A genuine wish to be free from suffering.
Cultivate Bodhicitta: The boundless compassion for all beings trapped in Samsara.
Accumulate Merit and Wisdom: The long and arduous process of purification and practice.
The Gelug "Lamrim" as the Safeguard
Je Tsongkhapa's entire system, particularly his famous Lamrim ("Stages of the Path") teachings, was structured specifically to prevent these errors. He insisted that a practitioner must build an unshakeable foundation in the "common paths" before being introduced to the higher, resultant views of Tantra. This means developing a profound and stable understanding of:
Renunciation for Samsara.
Compassion for all beings within it.
A correct intellectual understanding of emptiness.
Only after this foundation is solid is one considered ready to engage with a view like the "inseparability of Samsara and Nirvana" without falling into the abyss of misunderstanding.
The Sakya View in Context:
It is important to note that the great Sakya masters were, of course, fully aware of this danger. Their pinnacle system, Lamdré ("The Path with Its Result"), is a highly structured and gradual path. The profound view of inseparability is presented as the fruit of the entire path and is taught within a framework of strict ethical discipline and devotion to a qualified master, who can guide the student away from such pitfalls. The inter-school critiques are often about the potential for these views to be misinterpreted by those who receive them outside of this complete and controlled contemplative system.
In conclusion, your concern is not only valid but is a central cautionary theme in Tibetan Buddhism. Masters like Tsongkhapa articulated a powerful critique, arguing that without a firm grounding in the conventional path—the "line of Nirvana"—the ultimate view of the "inseparability of Samsara and Nirvana" can be profoundly misunderstood, leading to a dangerous complacency that halts a student's development long before they reach a true and final understanding.
