Questioning Alayavijnana

A forum for scholastic discussion/debate.

Re: Questioning Alayavijnana

Postby Sherab Dorje » Thu Oct 11, 2012 4:06 pm

Matt J wrote:The point is, once the "seeds" manifest, they are no longer latent. They are actualizing.
One way to think about it: Is your anger at x always manifest or does it just manifest on certain occasions? What happens to your anger at x when it is not manifest.

Another way to consider the same issue: A seed of course may only sprout once, but then, after maturing into a plant, etc... can give rise to more (similar) seeds.
:namaste:
"When one is not in accord with the true view
Meditation and conduct become delusion,
One will not attain the real result
One will be like a blind man who has no eyes."
Naropa - Summary of the View from The Eight Doha Treasures
User avatar
Sherab Dorje
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 9273
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Questioning Alayavijnana

Postby anjali » Thu Oct 11, 2012 5:23 pm

Astus wrote:Regarding the hidden nature of the alayavijnana, my point was that as we are not aware of it right now, we are not conscious of it at this moment, then based on what reason can it be called a consciousness? What you don't think of is not your thought, and if you don't know you think of something it is not thought of at all. Same with a feeling that you don't feel, or a sight that you don't see. This is the same problem I have raised on the first page, and some added explanation here and even more here if it's not yet clear.


I don't get the impression that you are not opposed to the notion of alayavijana, just that calling it a consciousness is problematic. Do you prefer another term than consciousness?

Are you familiar with the notion of superposition of waves? Here is a graph of two waves superimposed:http://www.cyberphysics.co.uk/graphics/graphs/superposition.gif. I find it useful as an analogy for thinking about the mind and it's contents, hidden or otherwise. The way I tend to think about the contents of our minds as a superposition of many--perhaps infinitely many--waves. Every thought, memory, feeling, klesha, whatever, is an imprint--or wave--in the mind with it's own frequency. The superimposition of all these waves/imprints is the makeup of our minds. Now, this superimposition is not static in time--it's dynamic. As this superposition of waves moves through time, each wave/imprint affects the sum's instantaneous shape. That instantaneous shape is what we call experience. If you look too closely the analogy breaks down, but it can be useful.
  • The object of the game is to go on playing it. --John Von Neumann
  • All activities are like the games children play. If started, they can never be finished. They are only completed once you let them be, like castles made of sand. --Khenpo Nyoshul Rinpoche
anjali
 
Posts: 323
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 10:33 pm

Re: Questioning Alayavijnana

Postby Astus » Thu Oct 11, 2012 6:26 pm

gregkavarnos wrote:One way to think about it: Is your anger at x always manifest or does it just manifest on certain occasions? What happens to your anger at x when it is not manifest.


This is practically saying that anger has an permanent nature and a physical existence that has to be kept hidden until it occurs again.
"There is no such thing as the real mind. Ridding yourself of delusion: that's the real mind."
(Sheng-yen: Getting the Buddha Mind, p 73)

“Don’t rashly seek the true Buddha;
True Buddha can’t be found.
Does marvelous nature and spirit
Need tempering or refinement?
Mind is this mind carefree;
This face, the face at birth."

(Nanyue Mingzan: Enjoying the Way, tr. Jeff Shore; T51n2076, p461b24-26)
User avatar
Astus
Former staff member
 
Posts: 4213
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Budapest

Re: Questioning Alayavijnana

Postby Sherab Dorje » Thu Oct 11, 2012 6:31 pm

Astus wrote:
gregkavarnos wrote:One way to think about it: Is your anger at x always manifest or does it just manifest on certain occasions? What happens to your anger at x when it is not manifest.


This is practically saying that anger has an permanent nature and a physical existence that has to be kept hidden until it occurs again.
No it's not. First of all I cannot understand how you can conclude from my statement that I am talking about a physical entity?

Secondly, anger (towards a certain phenomenon, hence the "x") can manifest on a certain occasion but remain as a "seed" in the Alayavijnana (and manifest again given the required causes and conditions). If the seed is destroyed, then it will not (cannot) "sprout" again.

Take another example? Where are your memories stored? Are they stored as permanent physical phenomena? Are they (just because you are unaware of them) hidden?
:namaste:
"When one is not in accord with the true view
Meditation and conduct become delusion,
One will not attain the real result
One will be like a blind man who has no eyes."
Naropa - Summary of the View from The Eight Doha Treasures
User avatar
Sherab Dorje
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 9273
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Questioning Alayavijnana

Postby Astus » Thu Oct 11, 2012 6:33 pm

Anjali,

The problem making alayavijnana something other than consciousness clearly violates the core idea of Vijnaptimatra, that is, that all phenomena are mental phenomena.
"There is no such thing as the real mind. Ridding yourself of delusion: that's the real mind."
(Sheng-yen: Getting the Buddha Mind, p 73)

“Don’t rashly seek the true Buddha;
True Buddha can’t be found.
Does marvelous nature and spirit
Need tempering or refinement?
Mind is this mind carefree;
This face, the face at birth."

(Nanyue Mingzan: Enjoying the Way, tr. Jeff Shore; T51n2076, p461b24-26)
User avatar
Astus
Former staff member
 
Posts: 4213
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Budapest

Re: Questioning Alayavijnana

Postby anjali » Fri Oct 12, 2012 12:17 am

Astus wrote:Anjali,

The problem making alayavijnana something other than consciousness clearly violates the core idea of Vijnaptimatra, that is, that all phenomena are mental phenomena.

Ah. Got it. I'm not that familiar with the centuries old debate on the the nature of alayavijnana per se. However, one can reasonably ask, if "seeds' exist, how do we know it? If they exist, we can't know them through any of the physical senses or mental sense, since they don't have any attributes of normal objects. In the Mahamudra tradition there is the distinction between inferential valid cognition and direct valid cognition. We can ask, must everything in the mind be knowable by direct valid cognition? Seeds don't seem to be evident things, and therefore can't be known by direct valid cognition. Which leaves us with inferential valid cognition. Is this a fundamental problem? I don't know. :shrug:
  • The object of the game is to go on playing it. --John Von Neumann
  • All activities are like the games children play. If started, they can never be finished. They are only completed once you let them be, like castles made of sand. --Khenpo Nyoshul Rinpoche
anjali
 
Posts: 323
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 10:33 pm

Re: Questioning Alayavijnana

Postby Astus » Fri Oct 12, 2012 8:30 am

I think that if the whole alayavijnana idea is based only on logic it remains a convenient explanation of karma on a superficial level, but it falls apart quite fast under analysis.
"There is no such thing as the real mind. Ridding yourself of delusion: that's the real mind."
(Sheng-yen: Getting the Buddha Mind, p 73)

“Don’t rashly seek the true Buddha;
True Buddha can’t be found.
Does marvelous nature and spirit
Need tempering or refinement?
Mind is this mind carefree;
This face, the face at birth."

(Nanyue Mingzan: Enjoying the Way, tr. Jeff Shore; T51n2076, p461b24-26)
User avatar
Astus
Former staff member
 
Posts: 4213
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Budapest

Re: Questioning Alayavijnana

Postby Matt J » Fri Oct 12, 2012 9:45 pm

One thing strikes me: the alaya vijnana is not so different from the casual body in Vedanta (karana sarira).

According to Samkhya philosophy, the entire world is made up of prakriti, up to and including the various functions of consciousness (manas, buddhi, etc.). The mind was made out of subtle matter.

In modern western culture, we no longer think of mental objects as being composed of subtle matter. I wonder how this factored into the development of alaya vijnana.
The Great Way is not difficult
If only there is no picking or choosing
--- Xin Xin Ming

http://nondualism.org/
User avatar
Matt J
 
Posts: 197
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 2:29 am

Re: Questioning Alayavijnana

Postby anjali » Fri Oct 12, 2012 10:17 pm

Astus wrote:I think that if the whole alayavijnana idea is based only on logic it remains a convenient explanation of karma on a superficial level, but it falls apart quite fast under analysis.


After 8 pages on this topic do you believe anyone directly addressed the issues of your original post?

I was able to find a pdf of an academic article entitled, A Yogacara Analysis of the Mind, Based on the Vijnana Section of Vasubandhu's Pancaskandhaprakarana with Gunaprabha's Commentary, by Brian Galloway (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= ... ApjY-YI_MA) that expresses similar observations as yours. Here is the gist of what Galloway says.

First, he makes a case that vijnana should be more accurately translated as perception, and that manas is better translated as consciousness. Which for our discussion here, doesn't matter that much. But I will be quoting him, so we need to know where he is coming from.

Gunaprabha, in his commentary, now tells us that the phenomena are of six kinds. Why only six? Gunaprabha and Vasubandhu are Yogacarins
who intend to elaborate a doctrine of eight kinds, but they wish first to establish the traditional-Buddhist six as a foundation on which to build. Gunaprabha therefore lists the six; let us list them here together with the corresponding sense-organs (called "supports" or asraya in Buddhism) and the perceptions. (pp. 10-11)

6Perceptions.PNG
6Perceptions.PNG (14.31 KiB) Viewed 1045 times


Further down in the article...

"Since the storehouse is a perception, what is its phenomenon and what is its mode?" Its phenomenon, of course, is the object that it perceives; since the ear perceives sounds, the nose smells, etc., what does the storehouse perceive, since it is said to be a perception? Further, what is its mode (rnam pa, akara)? This term apparently replaces support (asraya, rten), since a support must be something material, and the storehouse has no material support. Vasubandhu answers both questions by essentially not answering them: "Its phenomenon and mode are undiscerned (aparichinna, yongs su ma chad pa'o)" Nor does Gunaprabha comment. The matter is covered, though none too clearly, in Sthiramati's commentary to Vasubandhu's Trimsika; but it is a matter for another paper. (p. 16)
...
So our chart of perceptions above requires these two additions:
7&8Perceptions.PNG
7&8Perceptions.PNG (11.48 KiB) Viewed 1044 times
(p. 18)


Vasubandhu and Gunaprabha appeal to authority and reason to justify the existence of the storehouse perception...

Vasubandhu now tells us that the storehouse is "of one class and continually produced" (rigs cigpa dangrgyun chagspar 'jugpa'o). "Of one class" means, according to Gunaprabha, that it is morally indifferent (neither good nor bad in its essence); while being continually produced means that it is momentary (it is produced again every moment). "That it has one nature {rang bzhin, svabhdva) is known by authority (dgama) and reason (?nydya). The authority is the Blessed One's verse in the (now lost?) Abhidharmasutra:

    The realm of time without beginning is
    The place where all the elements reside.
    Since this exists, the realms of sentient beings
    And also Blessed Rest, have been obtained.
Gunaprabha takes "the place where all the elements reside" to be the storehouse perception. He has adduced this quotation in order to show an authority for the morally neutral character of the storehouse perception. But the same quotation serves equally to show that the storehouse exists in the first place, as against those who do not believe in one's existence. Vasubandhu and Gunaprabha now try to demonstrate its existence by means of reason.

First, they point to the meditational states called cessation attainment (nirodhasamapatti), non-recognition attainment (asamjnisamapatti), and (plain) non-recognition (asamjna). When one is in these states, the six beginning perceptions "also known as object-manifestation (visyavijnapti) are stopped; when one leaves these states, the six arise again. They must have been stored somewhere; that somewhere is the storehouse perception. Gunaprabha asks: "If we do not accept a storehouse perception, from what basis (hetu) will the six beginning perceptions arise? Therefore we must accept a storehouse perception."

Further, it is maintained that without a storehouse perception it would be impossible to enter, or more importantly to leave, the round (samsara). This is also supported by the scriptural verse quoted above. Finally, it is maintained that the storehouse is the basis even of the material body. Gunaprabha states: "Since these various (gang yin pa) seeds of all passionate elements (samklistadharma) dwell in it, it is called the storehouse perception. Again, it dwells in them as the actuality of the basis (yang na de dag la rgyu'i dngos pot gnas pa'o, ?hetuvastu)." (p. 16-17)
  • The object of the game is to go on playing it. --John Von Neumann
  • All activities are like the games children play. If started, they can never be finished. They are only completed once you let them be, like castles made of sand. --Khenpo Nyoshul Rinpoche
anjali
 
Posts: 323
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 10:33 pm

Re: Questioning Alayavijnana

Postby viniketa » Fri Oct 12, 2012 11:51 pm

"Since the storehouse is a perception, what is its phenomenon and what is its mode?" Its phenomenon, of course, is the object that it perceives; since the ear perceives sounds, the nose smells, etc., what does the storehouse perceive, since it is said to be a perception? Further, what is its mode (rnam pa, akara)? This term apparently replaces support (asraya, rten), since a support must be something material, and the storehouse has no material support. Vasubandhu answers both questions by essentially not answering them: "Its phenomenon and mode are undiscerned (aparichinna, yongs su ma chad pa'o)" Nor does Gunaprabha comment. The matter is covered, though none too clearly, in Sthiramati's commentary to Vasubandhu's Trimsika; but it is a matter for another paper. (p. 16)


This is a strange analysis all the way around, is it not? First, the translation of āśraya as "support", which is the typical (and usually specific) translation of ālambana. Then, the translation of ākāra as "mode"? The typical translation would be as "appearance" or even "phenomenon".

Second, there is the assumption that "a support must be something material". Why? There are immaterial objects of support (ālambana) for meditation; this is the whole idea behind visualization.

Most misleading, perhaps, is the failure to recognize āśraya as the basis, or "ground of being". I cannot access my original source on this, at the moment, so did a search and was very surprised to find one in Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_of_Being_(Dzogchen)) which references: Dudjom Rinpoche and Jikdrel Yeshe Dorje (1991). The Nyingma School of Tibetan Buddhism: its Fundamentals and History. Two Volumes. Translated and edited by Gyurme Dorje with Matthew Kapstein. Wisdom Publications, Boston. ISBN 0-86171-087-8, p.535 Index of Technical Terms.

*Further, there is the translation of aparicchinna as "undiscerned", whereas it is likely "uninterrupted" (i.e., infinite). This would mean Vasubandhu's statement is "The support is the basis [that is] infinite". (But I cannot find a statement in Triṃśikā that corresponds to either.)

I have not read Gunaprabha, so I do not know if the source of the confusion is Gunaprabha or Galloway.

One of my own ongoing questions is whether the āśraya can be said to be equivalent to Tathatā, but that leads off-topic...

:namaste:
If they can sever like and dislike, along with greed, anger, and delusion, regardless of their difference in nature, they will all accomplish the Buddha Path.. ~ Sutra of Complete Enlightenment
User avatar
viniketa
 
Posts: 819
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:39 am
Location: USA

Re: Questioning Alayavijnana

Postby viniketa » Sat Oct 13, 2012 1:05 am

The Vasubandhu quote is from the Triṃśikābhāṣya. Here is Lamotte's translation from the Mahāyānasaṃgraha (English translation by Gelongma Karma Migme Chodron) on the same passage:

How does he know this (kathaṃ gamyate)? Because the nirodhasamāpatti does not counteract this consciousness: the production of nirodhasamāpatti does not counteract this consciousness, because the object (ālambana) and the aspect (ākāra) of the store-consciousness are not different (aparicchinna). Since a vague (apatu) and indistinct consciousness (vijñāpti) does not hinder the nirodhasamāpatti in its subsiding, the latter does not counteract the store-consciousness because it does not destroy that which it does not hinder.
v. 2, p. 98


Here, note Lamotte has translated aparicchinna as "undifferentiated".

:namaste:
If they can sever like and dislike, along with greed, anger, and delusion, regardless of their difference in nature, they will all accomplish the Buddha Path.. ~ Sutra of Complete Enlightenment
User avatar
viniketa
 
Posts: 819
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:39 am
Location: USA

Re: Questioning Alayavijnana

Postby anjali » Sat Oct 13, 2012 3:51 am

viniketa wrote:
"Since the storehouse is a perception, what is its phenomenon and what is its mode?" Its phenomenon, of course, is the object that it perceives; since the ear perceives sounds, the nose smells, etc., what does the storehouse perceive, since it is said to be a perception? Further, what is its mode (rnam pa, akara)? This term apparently replaces support (asraya, rten), since a support must be something material, and the storehouse has no material support. Vasubandhu answers both questions by essentially not answering them: "Its phenomenon and mode are undiscerned (aparichinna, yongs su ma chad pa'o)" Nor does Gunaprabha comment. The matter is covered, though none too clearly, in Sthiramati's commentary to Vasubandhu's Trimsika; but it is a matter for another paper. (p. 16)


This is a strange analysis all the way around, is it not? First, the translation of āśraya as "support", which is the typical (and usually specific) translation of ālambana. Then, the translation of ākāra as "mode"? The typical translation would be as "appearance" or even "phenomenon".

Second, there is the assumption that "a support must be something material". Why? There are immaterial objects of support (ālambana) for meditation; this is the whole idea behind visualization.

Most misleading, perhaps, is the failure to recognize āśraya as the basis, or "ground of being". I cannot access my original source on this, at the moment, so did a search and was very surprised to find one in Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_of_Being_(Dzogchen)) which references: Dudjom Rinpoche and Jikdrel Yeshe Dorje (1991). The Nyingma School of Tibetan Buddhism: its Fundamentals and History. Two Volumes. Translated and edited by Gyurme Dorje with Matthew Kapstein. Wisdom Publications, Boston. ISBN 0-86171-087-8, p.535 Index of Technical Terms.

*Further, there is the translation of aparicchinna as "undiscerned", whereas it is likely "uninterrupted" (i.e., infinite). This would mean Vasubandhu's statement is "The support is the basis [that is] infinite". (But I cannot find a statement in Triṃśikā that corresponds to either.)

I have not read Gunaprabha, so I do not know if the source of the confusion is Gunaprabha or Galloway.

One of my own ongoing questions is whether the āśraya can be said to be equivalent to Tathatā, but that leads off-topic...

:namaste:


I'm way over my head on this stuff, but I'll give it a go on trying to answer. The word translations don't seem to be that out of whack.

  • The translation of asraya seems ok on doing a search. For example, I came across the translation of jñeyāśraya as "support for the knowable," and āśraya-samatā as "sameness of the supporting basis."
  • I found that alambana can be defined as "object." For example alambana-pratyaya can be translated as either support or object of knowledge, which could reasonably mean that alambana in this case represents sensory phenomena.
  • In the book Linguistic Approach To Buddhist Thought By Genjun Sasaki, is this quote, "The term akara means "appearance", "sign", "mode", "form", etc." p.102
  • In your your other post you mention Lamotte translated aparicchinna as undifferentiated. This isn't far from indiscernible which synonymously means indistinguishable.
Out of sheer luck, I was able to find Lamotte's translation of the relevant text that Galloway cites. It is from Being as Consciousness: Yogācāra Philosophy of Buddhism By Fernando Tola, Carmen Dragonetti, p. 236. My apologies for the the screenshot, but I couldn't cut and paste:
VasubandhuQuestion.PNG
VasubandhuQuestion.PNG (20.36 KiB) Viewed 997 times

It's interesting that Lamotte uses imperceptible (asamvidita).The thing that we don't want to loose sight of is, if storehouse-consciousness/perception is a consciousness, then it should have some equivalent to an object and a support. If the object and support are imperceptible, we are right back to where Astus started. How do we know what in the storehouse-consciousness, and if it is a consciousness, how does it perceive anything?
  • The object of the game is to go on playing it. --John Von Neumann
  • All activities are like the games children play. If started, they can never be finished. They are only completed once you let them be, like castles made of sand. --Khenpo Nyoshul Rinpoche
anjali
 
Posts: 323
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 10:33 pm

Re: Questioning Alayavijnana

Postby viniketa » Sat Oct 13, 2012 4:42 am

anjali wrote: I was able to find Lamotte's translation of the relevant text that Galloway cites.


This is a translation by Lamotte of Gunaprabha??

O.K. No, I see... The more relevant portion, for Astus' question, is just above that on pp. 234-235 (This is from the Triṃśikābhāṣya by Sthiramati):

It's object and form are undeterminate [aparacchinna]. Why? Because the recepticle-conciousness evolves [pravartate] in two manners: inward as knowledge of what is seized- and-held [upādāna] and outwards as knowledge of the world of objects [bhājana] under an undertminante form. There, inwards, 'what is seized-and-held' [upādāna] are the impregnations [vāsanās] of the attachment of the imaginary nature, the rūpa constituted by the sense organs [indriya, the physic component of man] together with their abode [adhiṣṭhāna, the body], and the nāman [name, the psychic component of man]. Because of the extreme subtleness of its object [Vasubandhu says:} 'that [=ālayavijñāna] is something in which there is an "unconscious" [i.e. subliminal} knowledge of the locus [sthāna]'.

:namaste:
Last edited by viniketa on Sat Oct 13, 2012 5:29 am, edited 1 time in total.
If they can sever like and dislike, along with greed, anger, and delusion, regardless of their difference in nature, they will all accomplish the Buddha Path.. ~ Sutra of Complete Enlightenment
User avatar
viniketa
 
Posts: 819
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:39 am
Location: USA

Re: Questioning Alayavijnana

Postby anjali » Sat Oct 13, 2012 5:20 am

viniketa wrote:
anjali wrote: I was able to find Lamotte's translation of the relevant text that Galloway cites.


This is a translation by Lamotte of Gunaprabha??

:namaste:

It is a translation of Vasubandhu by Lamotte from Vasubandhu's work, Karmasiddhi Prakarana.
  • The object of the game is to go on playing it. --John Von Neumann
  • All activities are like the games children play. If started, they can never be finished. They are only completed once you let them be, like castles made of sand. --Khenpo Nyoshul Rinpoche
anjali
 
Posts: 323
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 10:33 pm

Re: Questioning Alayavijnana

Postby viniketa » Sat Oct 13, 2012 5:27 am

Sorry - I was editing while you were writing... :tongue:

:namaste:
If they can sever like and dislike, along with greed, anger, and delusion, regardless of their difference in nature, they will all accomplish the Buddha Path.. ~ Sutra of Complete Enlightenment
User avatar
viniketa
 
Posts: 819
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:39 am
Location: USA

Re: Questioning Alayavijnana

Postby viniketa » Sat Oct 13, 2012 5:32 am

In the end, basically, you have one 'part' of 'consciousness' seizing-and-holding another. I think that is why the difference is said to be subtle or "imperceptible" or "indistinguishable"...

:namaste:
If they can sever like and dislike, along with greed, anger, and delusion, regardless of their difference in nature, they will all accomplish the Buddha Path.. ~ Sutra of Complete Enlightenment
User avatar
viniketa
 
Posts: 819
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:39 am
Location: USA

Re: Questioning Alayavijnana

Postby viniketa » Sat Oct 13, 2012 1:16 pm

This Germano & Waldren article addresses a number of questions about the further explication of ālayavijñāna in the Tibetan traditions:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/99264798/A-Co ... d-Dzogchen

:namaste:
If they can sever like and dislike, along with greed, anger, and delusion, regardless of their difference in nature, they will all accomplish the Buddha Path.. ~ Sutra of Complete Enlightenment
User avatar
viniketa
 
Posts: 819
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:39 am
Location: USA

Re: Questioning Alayavijnana

Postby anjali » Sat Oct 13, 2012 8:20 pm

viniketa wrote:This Germano & Waldren article addresses a number of questions about the further explication of ālayavijñāna in the Tibetan traditions:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/99264798/A-Co ... d-Dzogchen

:namaste:

Thanks for the pointer to the article. As a side note, it was pretty funny we were posting at the same time last night!

After sleeping on this issue, I think there is an interesting way out of Astus' conundrum. Let me quote a bit more from Vasubandhu's work Karmasiddhi Prakarana, as translated by Lamotte

4. Alambana and Akara.
36. What is the object (alambana and the aspect (akara) of this consciousness?
It's object and it's aspect are imperceptible (asamvidita).
How can a consciousness be thus?
You admit that, in the state of the absorption of extinction, etc. there is a special consciousness the object and the aspect of which are difficult to know. The same holds here [for the receptacle-consciousness]. p. 67


The storehouse-consciousness is just the knowing quality of the mind with no functioning instruments for knowing or anything that can be known through an instrument. Here is what Khenchen Thrangu has to say on the matter

What does the all-basis, the alaya, mean? We have the eight consciousnesses: the five sensory consciousnesses of sight, hearing, smelling, tasting, and body sensation; the sixth mental consciousness, the seventh afflicted consciousness, and the eighth alaya consciousness. We do not "rest in the consciousnesses" because the consciousnesses are externally oriented. We don't rest in the sixth mental consciousness which is thinking mind, engaged in thoughts of the past, present, and future. These six consciousnesses are sometimes present and sometimes not. For example, our eye consciousness will not be present or functioning when our eyes are closed or it is completely dark. Does this mean that when the consciousnesses are not present, we die or turn into a stone? No, because there is an ongoing sense of the present and a lucid knowing quality of mind. This knowing, or awareness, is the eighth alaya or all-ground consciousness. The alaya consciousness has the quality of being always present and the quality of knowing. The quality of knowing or luminosity (Tib. selwa) is always there whether we are awake or asleep or dreaming; it is a conscious quality that is never interrupted.

That's the storehouse-consciousness. But this still leaves the issue of the knowability of the seeds which are in the storehouse aspect of the storehouse-consciousness. Per Vasabandhu, they aren't perceivable, and there isn't an identifiable instrument of perception to perceive them. This leaves us with the question, even though they can't be perceived, perhaps they are still knowable?

At this level there is no subject/object dualism (that's at the next level), so there can't be a distinguishable knower and a known. If that's is the case, we would have to conclude that the knowing quality of the mind and what could be known are indistinguishably mingled. The knower and the known are merged at this level. Two sides of a single coin. The seeds and the knower of the seeds are undifferentiated. That's why no one has ever seen them.
  • The object of the game is to go on playing it. --John Von Neumann
  • All activities are like the games children play. If started, they can never be finished. They are only completed once you let them be, like castles made of sand. --Khenpo Nyoshul Rinpoche
anjali
 
Posts: 323
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 10:33 pm

Re: Questioning Alayavijnana

Postby viniketa » Sun Oct 14, 2012 1:23 am

anjali wrote:This leaves us with the question, even though they can't be perceived, perhaps they are still knowable?


This is the crux of the question. Your argument is compelling. I also found this paper, which I think makes more clear some of the things presented before on this thread:

Is it logically possible that there occur a conscious
mental event with no phenomenal attributes and no content? Many philosophers of mind would
answer in the negative. What about Vasubandhu? First of all, did he truly view consciousness as
something that could exist without content? This passage from the Discussion of the Five
Aggregates would suggest that he did not:
And what is consciousness [識蘊]? It is awareness [了別] of an object-ofconsciousness
[所緣], visibles [境], etc. “Citta” [心] and “manas” [意] are the
same as consciousness. They are so designated because of their variety, and
because of their providing a mental basis, respectively.34

So what is really going on, according to the Yogācārins, when one has attained cessation? The
six basic kinds of consciousness and the manas consciousness actually do cease completely
when cessation is reached; it is only the eighth “consciousness,” the ālaya-vijñāna, that persists
(continues “flowing,” if you will). Because the ālaya-vijñāna is an unconscious kind of
“consciousness,” it is understandable that it could continue even when no object of
consciousness is discerned and no intentional mentality is present.35 Therefore, the potential
confusion about how consciousness could persist when no object of consciousness is
apprehended is caused by nothing more than the etymology of the term ālaya-vijñāna, which
causes many people to interpret it as a kind of “consciousness” even though it represents
something we would now generally call by some other name, such as “the unconscious,” “the
subconscious,” or “the subliminal mind.” In fact, some scholars prefer to translate vijñāna as
“cognition,” alleviating this problem.
http://davidcdrake.com/portfolio/writing/vasubandhu.pdf


Either explanation -- yours or the above -- would be consistent with the last two verses of the Triṃśikākārikā:

acitta 'nupalambho sau jñānam lokottaraṃ ca tat|
āśrayasya parāvṛttir dvidhādauṣṭhulyahānitaḥ ||
sa evānāśravo dhātur acintyaḥ kuśalo dhruvaḥ |
sukho vimuktikāyo sau dharmmākhyo yaṃ mahāmuneḥ ||

Without grasping or conceptualizing,
This is the wisdom of the supramundane realm
Which abandons the two types of coarseness
And naturally reverts to the basis.
This is itself the untainted realm,
Inconceivable, good, and infinite,
Peaceful and blissful, the body of liberation
-- what the great Muni called the Dharma[kya].
If they can sever like and dislike, along with greed, anger, and delusion, regardless of their difference in nature, they will all accomplish the Buddha Path.. ~ Sutra of Complete Enlightenment
User avatar
viniketa
 
Posts: 819
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:39 am
Location: USA

Re: Questioning Alayavijnana

Postby viniketa » Sun Oct 14, 2012 1:33 am

viniketa wrote:
gregkavarnos wrote:Of course you can "see" the seeds, they are what manifests via manas into mano vijnana, vijnana and citta. You cannot "see" your tendencies? Okay, it may take a little introspection sometimes, but some are so obvious...


If I am not mistaken, this "internal" function of manas is specifically indentified in the Pali Abhidhamma as well at the Abhidharma.

Sorry, no references, but I will look for them...
:namaste:



Back for the references:

mano - 'mind', is in the Abhidhamma used as synonym of viññāna (consciousness) and citta (state of consciousness, mind).
According to the Com. to Vis.M., it sometimes means sub-consciousness (s. bhavanga-sota).
http://www.palikanon.com/english/wtb/g_m/mano.htm


bhavanga-sota and bhavanga-citta

The first term may tentatively be rendered as the 'undercurrent forming the condition of being, or existence', and the second as 'subconsciousness', though, as will be evident from the following, it differs in several respects from the usage of that term in Western psychology.

Bhavanga (bhava-anga), which, in the canonical works, is mentioned twice or thrice in the Patthāna, is explained in the Abhidhamma commentaries as the foundation or condition (kārana) of existence (bhava), as the sine qua non of life, having the nature of a process, lit. a flux or stream (sota). Herein, since time immemorial, all impressions and experiences are, as it were, stored up, or better said, are functioning, but concealed as such to - full consciousness, from where however they occasionally emerge as subconscious phenomena and approach the threshold of full consciousness, or crossing it become fully conscious. This so-called 'subconscious life-stream' or undercurrent of life is that by which might be explained the faculty of memory, paranormal psychic phenomena, mental and physical growth, karma and rebirth. etc. An alternative rendering is 'life-continuum'.

It should be noted that bhavanga-citta is a karma-resultant state of consciousness (vipāka, q.v.), and that, in birth as a human or in higher forms of existence, it is always the result of good, or wholesome karma (kusala-kamma-vipāka), though in varying degrees of strength (s. patisandhi, end of the article). The same holds true for rebirth consciousness (patisandhi) and death consciousness (cuti), which are only particular manifestations of subconsciousness. In Vis.M. XIV it is said:
"As soon as rebirth-consciousness (in the embryo at the time of conception) has ceased, there arises a similar subconsciousness with exactly the same object, following immediately upon rebirth-consciousness and being the result of this or that karma (volitional action done in a former birth and remembered there at the moment before death). And again a further similar state of subconsciousness arises. Now, as long as no other consciousness arises to interrupt the continuity of the life-stream, so long the life-stream, like the flow of a river, rises in the same way again and again, even during dreamless sleep and at other times. In this way one has to understand the continuous arising of those states of consciousness in the life-stream." Cf. viññāna-kicca. For more details, s. Fund. 11. (App.).

http://www.palikanon.com/english/wtb/b_ ... a_sota.htm


Note that the bhavanga-sota is approximate to the ālaya, while bhavanga-citta is approximate to the ālayavijñāna.

:namaste:
If they can sever like and dislike, along with greed, anger, and delusion, regardless of their difference in nature, they will all accomplish the Buddha Path.. ~ Sutra of Complete Enlightenment
User avatar
viniketa
 
Posts: 819
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:39 am
Location: USA

PreviousNext

Return to Academic Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

>