Psychoanalysis

Casual conversation between friends. Anything goes (almost).
Malcolm
Posts: 29105
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Psychoanalysis

Post by Malcolm » Mon Oct 29, 2018 2:39 pm

Wayfarer wrote:
Mon Oct 29, 2018 2:11 am
Malcolm wrote:My point was simply that there were, in the view of Buddhadharma, no such thing as unconscious memories, i.e. data that is storied somewhere in some medium to be called forth later.
It seems to me that this is hard to reconcile with:
Malcolm wrote:
Sun Oct 28, 2018 10:27 pm
Wayfarer wrote:
Sun Oct 28, 2018 9:34 pm
As a matter of interest, what is the translation/etymology of the term ‘alaya’ in the compound ‘alaya-Vijñāna’?
Ā means all. Laya means, in this context, a place of repose, residence, etc. It is glossed by the Tibetans as gzhi, i.e. a basis.
Bill Waldron's book, The Buddhist Unconscious, shows in detail the doctrinal requirements that resulted in the development of the Alaya-Vijñāna or 'storehouse consciousness'. I don't think you need to reify it as any kind of entity or over-arching 'one mind', if that is the concern. But I don't think it's feasible to deny that there is such a concept, either.
You are not really understanding the intent of the doctrine. The idea is that appearances of the universe are a result of karmavipaka. How does that karmavipaka ripen? The Yogacāra school theorized a process called cittasaṃtanaparinama, the transformation of the mind stream. This comes about because it is held that when we engage in an action, this creates an impression, called a vāsanā, literally, "perfume," in Tibetan, bag chags. This is also called a bija or seed. These seeds are held to be stored in a consciousness called the ālayavijñāna, which upon the elimination of all the seeds then vanishes. An impression or seed, when it meets its special condition for transformation of ripening, then gives rise to an appearance that corresponds to the action which produced it.

Asanga argues that this ālayavijñāna is the same thing as the Theravada bhavanga, or linking consciousness. On the other hand, the ālaya does not have objects it does not operate through the senses. It is the object, however, of the kliṣṭamanas, the afflicted mind. The other senses consciousnesses are products of the ripening of these seeds which create the appearances of outer objects such as the universe and so on.

So, it really does not, in the Yogacāra theory, function like an unconscious mind.

And I think as a practical matter, any Buddhist has to acknowledge that there are 'latent tendencies' which are not always fully conscious but which manifest (or 'come to fruition') in response to circumstances or stimuli (I know I certainly do). I find it a bit hard to understand why those wouldn't be understood in terms of being un- or sub-conscious tendencies.
But here we are talking about memory. Memories are active concepts of the seven consciousnesses. This is basic to all Buddhist thinking on the issue. The question concerned whether Buddhism acknowledged what we term unconscious mental processes. It doesn't. The distinction made in Buddhism is a distinction between nonconceptual and conceptual cognitive processes: for example direct perceptions on the one hand, and the identification of direct perceptions as objects on the other. We are not necessarily aware, in a conscious sense, of all that we directly perceive because direct perceptions are by nature nonconceptual, and to be conscious of a given thing requires us to have a concept about it. In other words, the first moment of cognition is nonconceptual; in the second moment, mental factors such as perception jump in and allow us to discriminate the blue object we are having a direct perception of as a blue cup. When we have direct perceptions of unfamiliar entities, we struggle to discriminate them, and often, we do not bother to discriminate them at all. But we cannot become conscious of a given thing of which we have not had a direct perception-- this does not bar us from having an imagination, but in reality our abstract imagination is predicated on bits and pieces of newly arranged direct perceptions. The Buddhist theory of cognition, as has been noted, is in general a) nominalist and b) resembles, somewhat, Hume's pov in the Inquiry into Human Understanding. The outlier is Yogacāra, which bears some similarities to Berkely's thought.

In general, what Buddhism considers latent are afflictions (kleṣa), termed in their latent form, anuśaya. There are 6 basic anuśaya: attachment, anger, pride, ignorance, false views, and doubt. These anuśayas are not subconscious tendencies. These six then gets further divided into a total of 98. If you want to know more about them, their number and so on, consult chapter 5 of the Koshabhasyam.

Karma can never be latent, why? Because karma is caused by afflictions. According to Madhyamaka, a karma continues without ceasing until it meets its condition for ripening; according to Yogacāra, a karma makes an impression, then ceases; and when that impression meets it special condition for ripening, it does.

If you want to understand in more detail how this all works in Yogacāra, one should consult the Mahāyāna Samgraha.

User avatar
Losal Samten
Posts: 1487
Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2014 4:05 pm

Re: Psychoanalysis

Post by Losal Samten » Mon Oct 29, 2018 3:34 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Mon Oct 29, 2018 2:39 pm
In general, what Buddhism considers latent are afflictions (kleṣa), termed in their latent form, anuśaya. There are 6 basic anuśaya: attachment, anger, pride, ignorance, false views, and doubt.
Do you know why we generally see jealousy replace false views and doubt? Do false views and doubt correspond to the generation of the human and asura manifestations?
Lacking mindfulness, we commit every wrong. - Nyoshul Khen Rinpoche
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔
ཨོཾ་ཧ་ནུ་པྷ་ཤ་བྷ་ར་ཧེ་ཡེ་སྭཱ་ཧཱ།།
ཨཱོཾ་མ་ཏྲི་མུ་ཡེ་སལེ་འདུ།།

Malcolm
Posts: 29105
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Psychoanalysis

Post by Malcolm » Mon Oct 29, 2018 3:55 pm

Losal Samten wrote:
Mon Oct 29, 2018 3:34 pm
Malcolm wrote:
Mon Oct 29, 2018 2:39 pm
In general, what Buddhism considers latent are afflictions (kleṣa), termed in their latent form, anuśaya. There are 6 basic anuśaya: attachment, anger, pride, ignorance, false views, and doubt.
Do you know why we generally see jealousy replace false views and doubt? Do false views and doubt correspond to the generation of the human and asura manifestations?
Not in the this schemata. You are really talking about a Vajrayāna scheme.

Pero
Posts: 2239
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2010 8:54 pm

Re: Psychoanalysis

Post by Pero » Mon Oct 29, 2018 6:58 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Sun Oct 28, 2018 10:29 pm
Pero wrote:
Sun Oct 28, 2018 9:36 pm
Malcolm wrote:
Sun Oct 28, 2018 9:22 pm
When you dream, you are conscious, but what you are experiencing is the activation of traces.
But if I don't know I am dreaming, how can you say that I am conscious?
You mean if you do not remember your dreams, or do you mean being unaware that in a dream you are dreaming?
The latter.
Although many individuals in this age appear to be merely indulging their worldly desires, one does not have the capacity to judge them, so it is best to train in pure vision.
- Shabkar

Malcolm
Posts: 29105
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Psychoanalysis

Post by Malcolm » Mon Oct 29, 2018 6:59 pm

Pero wrote:
Mon Oct 29, 2018 6:58 pm
Malcolm wrote:
Sun Oct 28, 2018 10:29 pm
Pero wrote:
Sun Oct 28, 2018 9:36 pm

But if I don't know I am dreaming, how can you say that I am conscious?
You mean if you do not remember your dreams, or do you mean being unaware that in a dream you are dreaming?
The latter.
You are still conscious.

User avatar
Virgo
Former staff member
Posts: 3540
Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 3:47 am
Location: Uni-verse

Re: Psychoanalysis

Post by Virgo » Mon Oct 29, 2018 9:20 pm

Perceptions are only six. They are the perceptions of visible objects, sounds, smells, tastes, bodily feelings, and ideas or concepts.

If you perceive something that happened before it is just perception, and because perception 'marks', it is a way of knowing. The thing that happened in the past is not stored somewhere nor is a perception of it which is then somehow recalled or uploaded. Likewise, when someone sees into the future is it because the future events are stored somewhere in their mind? No. When someone perceives something in the present, is it due to the fact that what is occurring in the present is somehow stored within their mind and is being uploaded? No. Time itself is only a concept, not a paramattha dharma.

Kevin...

Pero
Posts: 2239
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2010 8:54 pm

Re: Psychoanalysis

Post by Pero » Mon Oct 29, 2018 10:03 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Mon Oct 29, 2018 6:59 pm
Pero wrote:
Mon Oct 29, 2018 6:58 pm
Malcolm wrote:
Sun Oct 28, 2018 10:29 pm


You mean if you do not remember your dreams, or do you mean being unaware that in a dream you are dreaming?
The latter.
You are still conscious.
I'm sorry but I don't understand.
Although many individuals in this age appear to be merely indulging their worldly desires, one does not have the capacity to judge them, so it is best to train in pure vision.
- Shabkar

Malcolm
Posts: 29105
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Psychoanalysis

Post by Malcolm » Mon Oct 29, 2018 10:29 pm

Pero wrote:
Mon Oct 29, 2018 10:03 pm
Malcolm wrote:
Mon Oct 29, 2018 6:59 pm
Pero wrote:
Mon Oct 29, 2018 6:58 pm


The latter.
You are still conscious.
I'm sorry but I don't understand.

If you can remember your dream, it shows you were conscious. You cannot remember anything from when you were unconscious.

Post Reply

Return to “Lounge”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: FromTheEarth, fullyunenlightened, Google [Bot], smcj and 74 guests