jogaczara esej

7/30/2019 jogaczara esej

1/20

Library: Member EssaysYogacara Theory - Part One: Background History1. General Background

Yogacara is a special metaphysical teaching that gives us a unique view of the Mind and the Universe. The technical, scientific aspects of this view appear to have emerged around or a little after 200 AD, in the northwest corner of India. This represents a time when eastern Afghanistan and the regions that today form northern Pakistan, were very much a melting pot of several cultural, religious and philosophical trends. This region, which may broadly be referred to as Gandhava, was solidified into a political entity by Kanishka I, the great emperor of the Kushana dynasty (acc. 78 AD), about a century earlier.

Kanishka is one of the most celebrated monarchs of Asia. A significant cause ofhis historical fame was his close association with Buddhism, which he strongly promoted throughout his reign. Emperor Kanishka is credited with convening a great Buddhist Council and raising a huge Stupa near Peshawar, the remains of whichmay still be seen to this day. Nevertheless, Kanishka was very eclectic in his approach to religion.

Archeological study of the coins issued during Kanishka's reign, suggests that he respected and honored a variety of Indian, Greek and Iranian religious movements. It would seem that, apart from his personal faith in Buddhism, the Emperor promoted a liberal policy within his kingdom. The images on Kanishka's coins show

regard for the pantheon of the Greeks, still worshipped in his time, as well asthat of the Mazdean faith founded in Iran by the great prophet Zarathushtra. Some coins honor Siva, supreme deity of Hinduism. Other coins were printed with astanding image of the Sakya-Sage, accompanied by the Greek legend "Sakkamana Boddo' (i.e., Sakyamuni Buddha). In fact, it is probably that these representationsof the historical Buddha are the earliest artistic renditions ever made, sincepreviously the sage was only allowed to be represented symbolically by his emptyseat, his bowl, his footstool, a wheel, the sacred Bodhi-tree, or a Stupa.

The epigraphs of Kanishka and his immediate successors mention different schoolsof Buddhism. In the Brahmi and Kharoshthi records of the time, there is mentionof such Buddhist orders as the Mahasanghika and the Sarvastivada. The latter appears as the order most favoured by the Emperor, and one inscription records the

coming of a dialectician from Nagara to Mathura for the purpose of counteracting the propagation of Mahasanghika doctrine. Historical evidence traces the spread of the Sarvastivada Order westward from Sindh and the Punjab into Afghanistan,undoubtedly as a result of imperial patronage, particularly during Kanishka's reign.

One significant Buddhist monarch ruling the northwest corner of the sub-continent in this early age, was the Indo-Greek king Menander (c. 150-135). It is knownthat he held the Swat Valley (Uddiyana) and the Hazara district, as well as thePunjab. His coins have been found as far north as Kabul, in Afghanistan, and tothe south in Mathura. Contemporary kingdoms included the Shungas and Bactrians.The latter, Bactria (modern Balkh), was ruled by the line of Eucratides, who succeeded in pushing south and for a time annexing the kingdom of Taxila. One Shaka

king who ruled this region, Gondophernes, has achieved historical fame due to his association with St. Thomas and the spread of early Christianity.

Kushana governance gradually waned, diminished by the rising power of the Iranian Sassanids on their western flank, and nibbled away from the eastern side by smaller Indian factions. In 226 AD Ardashir overthrew the Parthians and his successor rapidly conquered Peshawar and Taxila.

The Northwest, therefore, was in constant fluctuation up until at least the third century AD, with Parthians, the Yueh-chih, the Shakas and finally the Sassanid


2/20

s, turn by turn, stirring a great maelstrom of different cultures and peoples together, in a manner ripe for the interchange of ideas and innovation.2. Emergence of the Yogacara School

Unquestionably a product of the times, Yogacara stands on the innovative frontier as one product of the cultural interchange that blossomed in the first and second century Gandhava region. During its long and worthy history as a major school of Buddhist thought, two great masters of its doctrines especially stand forth, namely Vasubandhu (circa 290-370 AD)1 and Manjusrimitra (circa 700 AD), whoseteachings we may discuss in brief.

Vasubandhu was trained in the orthodox Sarvastivada Order of Buddhism, which hadits seat at Kausambhi (near modern Allahabad, in the centre of India) during the 2nd, 3rd and 4th centuries AD. He was introduced to an early version of Yogacara theory by his elder brother Asanga, who in turn had been the disciple of a sage named Maitreyanatha. Next to nothing about the latter is known, other than that legend reports he came from the "Kingdom of Shambhala' (approximately, modernBegram, otherwise known as the ancient kingdom of Kapisha, north of Kabul) located in the Afghanistan region, north-west of Peshawar.

The system which Asanga and particularly Vasubandhu formulated, and were to present in a number of pithy treatises that we still study today, not only presentedthe Buddha's original path of meditation in clear, scientific terms, but also delved into an analysis of the psychology of the mind, in ways not previously or

so thoroughly revealed before. The new system that arose, thanks predominately to Vasubandhu's efforts, was a convergence of ancient Yoga and Buddhist streams of learning. Insofar as the intention of the Yogacara movement was not a philosophical speculation, but rather, intended as a return to a pure Buddhist mysticism, the new school was clearly founded on meditation. This practical contemplativemovement, therefore, came to be known as the "school of Buddhist Yoga," or in other words the "Yoga-practice" school, hence the name yogacara. Beginning in thethird century AD, this lineage has been passed down as an "Esoteric School" within the exoteric or outer branches of Buddhism.2

The name that Asanga and Vasubandhu gave to their school of mysticism has a special meaning. Yoga is spiritual science. It is neither a belief system nor a school of philosophical speculation. In the broadest possible sense, we may say that

there are Buddhist yogins, Hindu yogins, Moslem yogins, Taoist yogins, Jewish yogins and Christian yogins. In other words, the term "Yoga" means mysticism (especially, if one thinks about it, in the sense of unio mystica, union with the Divine), and a Yogi or Yogini is essentially a mystic-the common factor being thatin each and every spiritual tradition on earth, there are those who grasp Truthdirectly, not through intellectual speculation, thought or reasoning, nor argument and debate, but through immediate internal mystical or contemplative experience.

Yoga is centered on the practical application of the spiritual search for an experiential knowledge of Reality, regardless whether we name that reality Brahman,Allah, Ain-soph, God, the Absolute, Buddha, or simply Nirvana. We may see, fromone cultural perspective to the next, ultimate Reality represented either in pe

rsonal terms, or in an entirely impersonal way. Our intellectual grasp of what we mean by God, or Absolute, or whatever, may be very different, from person to person, according to the culture and outlook from whence such terms have arisen,but one significant point is fundamental, and that point is that the mystical experience-the common experience behind all these concepts, the direct experienceacquired through meditation and Samadhi-is really one and the same.3

Practitioners of Yoga nourish themselves on their respective religious traditions, and may use speculative philosophy or science as a rational approach to augment their understanding, but they know that it is through direct mystical insight


3/20

alone, the experience which comes from meditation, that one may acquire actualknowledge of the Truth. Cara means spiritual practice. Yogacara means the practice (cara) of "mystical Union" (yoga).

Asanga and Vasubandhu taught "Buddhist Mysticism", and this is the specific meaning of "Yogacara." It is the Yoga, or the practical mystical Way, as taught inthe Buddhist tradition. To approach the gates of this Yoga-practice system, a certain view of the nature of mind is necessary. This view was expounded by the early Yogacara masters.3. Historical Problems in Yogacara

Vasubandhu is treated as a single person in Tibetan history. This has raised some serious misunderstandings when it comes to the Tibetan study and presentationof Yogacara thought.

The Tibetan viewpoint presents Asanga and Vasubandhu as half brothers; they shared the same mother, but had different fathers. They both came from Peshawar, butwhile Asanga was ordained in the Mahisasaka Order, the younger brother Vasubandhu was ordained at Nalanda in central India and became a monk of the Sarvastavada Order. It was at Nalanda, so we are told, that he wrote a work on the "four oral traditions of Vinaya." He then transferred to Kashmir where, under Acarya Samghabhadra, he became a scholar of the Abhidharma, eventually composing an encyclopedic work known as the Abhidharmakosa. He then came into touch with some of his brother's works, which expounded a Mahayana doctrine said to have been promulg

ated in the Tusita Heaven by the future Buddha, Maitreya. At first Vasubandhu opposed his brother Asanga's position, even writing a number of anti-Mahayana texts, but later he changed sides and it was from then on that he composed the famous works that teach Yogacara under his name. Thus, after Asanga passed away, Vasubandhu assumed his brother's role as Abbot of Nalanda, where he taught his fourleading students: Sthiramati, a leading teacher of Metaphysics (Abhidharma); Dignaga, the exponent of Logic-theory (Pramana); Gunaprabha, excellent in monasticDiscipline (Vinaya); and Vimuktasena, a scholar of Transcendental Wisdom (Prajna-paramita). Vasubandhu, according to this account, was roughly a contemporary ofthe early Tibetan King Lha-tho Thori Nyentsen (circa mid-fifth century).

There are some serious problems with the above account. The Abhidharmakosa is very different in style and composition from the Yogacara works of Vasubandhu, let

alone the Abhidharmakosabhasya, which is a refutation of the former. It becomesevident that Tibetan historians cobbled together a variety of fragments relatedto several different authors all having the name Vasubandhu. When the originalfragments are sorted through, we find one Vasubandhu being the contemporary of one Indian king, and another being the contemporary of another king, centuries apart.

Two works on Abhidharma exist, both said to have been written by authors calledVasubandhu. One is the famous Abhidharmakosa, or "Treasury of Metaphysics", composed in Peshawar, the other, is the Abhidharmakosabhasya composed some centurieslater in Ayodhya. The Vasubandhu who authored the latter (i.e., the Abhidharmakosabhasya) is known to us as having been the disciple of a renowned Abhidharma-master named Buddhamitra, and was appointed, according to Paramartha, by King Vik

ramaditya of Ayodhya to be tutor to the crown-prince Baladitya. Vikramaditya andBaladitya belong to the fifth century. The author of the Abhidharmakosa, on theother hand, resided in Peshawar, belonged to the Kashmiri Vaibhasika school ofSarvastivada metaphysics.

Vasumitra, a disciple of Gunamitra, who in turn was a disciple of Vasubandhu, the author of the Abhidharmakosa-bhasya, wrote a commentary in support of the latter work. This Vasumitra, we know, belonged to the Sautrantika school.

Vasubandhu the author of Yogacara works and brother of Asanga, on the other hand


4/20

, resided at Kausambhi and was contemporary with King Chandragupta I, the fatherof Samudragupta, which places him in the fourth century.

Disregarding the author of works on monastic Discipline, at least three distinctmen named Vasubandhu begin to emerge from the various historical fragments available to scholarly research. We can clearly distinguish the author of the Abhidharmakosa from that of the Abhidharmakosabhasya by the fact that they belong to two entirely different schools. The former is an exponent of the Vaibhasika (i.e., abhidharma) teachings of the Sarvastivada school, while the latter was an exponent of the Sautrantika.

To clarify, and for those who don't know what we are referring to here, Indian Buddhism in its long history gradually developed four distinct philosophical schools, each representing a way of interpreting the original teachings of the Buddha. These four philosophical schools, in historical order, were:The Vaibhasika, or phenomenological school founded on the study of Abhidharma metaphysics, which in the north largely pertained to monks of the Sarvastivada Order, and in the south became a fundamental study of the Theravada Order.

The Sautrantika, which felt that the exponents of Abhidharma had deviated fromthe original teachings of the Buddha as expressed in the Sutras (hence their name, the "Sutra-school"). We can describe the Sautrantika as an anti-Abhidharma movement, based on a study of scripture.

The Madhyamaka school founded by Nagarjuna in the south of India in the first century AD.

And finally the Yogacara school, which arose in part as a reaction against thescholasticism that, after the time of Nagarjuna, tended to displace contemplative practice in the monasteries of India. This Yoga movement emerged, as we have said, in the third century AD.

Consequently when it is said that a certain person named Vasubandhu wrote a textsupporting the philosophical outlook of one of these schools, while another wrote supporting the outlook of another school, it must be apparent that very different authors are involved, even though they carry the same name. The improbability of one Vasubandhu switching schools and composing a text in opposition to his

earlier position is determined by the fact that the different authors in question were contemporary with or patronized by Indian Kings who lived in very different eras.

It therefore seems likely that at least three authors named Vasubandhu can be distinguished:

First: Vasubandhu, the author of the Abhidharmakosa. He was a monk of the Sarvastivada Order and lived in Peshawar. His leading disciple was Manoratha, and later another writer, Gunaprabha, author of the Vibhasha-sastra, was of the same line. Manoratha, as we know from his own works, was a confirmed follower of the author of the Abhidharmakosa. He apparently knew nothing of the counter Abhidharmakosahasya, which he certainly would have known had his teacher been the author of

it.

Second: Vasubandhu, the brother of Asanga and the author of various works on Yogacara, who lived in Kausambhi (near modern Allahabad) circa 290-370 AD. He was acontemporary of King Chandragupta I and Samudragupta. His leading disciple wasSthiramati, and a later descendant of this lineage was Gunabhadra, who traveledto China in c. 430 AD. We know from the Chinese pilgrim Hiuen Tsang (see Beal, Buddhist Records of the Western World, Motilal Banarsidass 1981) that when he visited India in the seventh century, there could still be seen, in the Ghositaramaof Kausambhi, the ruin of the old house where, in an upper chamber, Vasubandhu


5/20

composed his famous Yogacara treatise, known as the "Thirty Verses on Perception" (Trimsika-vijnapti-karika). Hiuen Tsang also places Acarya Dharmapala, a laterfollower of Vasubandhu's lineage, in Kausambhi.

Third: Vasubandhu, the author of the Abhidharmakosa-bhasya, who lived in Ayodhya(= Saketa). He was a Sautrantika and contemporary of King Vikramaditya (455-467AD). His disciples were Gunamati, Vasumitra and the renowned logician Dignaga.Gunamati taught a pupil called Sthiramati who was a contemporary of King Darasena I (c. 460 AD) of Valabhi, and thus not the same as the Yogacara author by thesame name. Both Gunamati and Vasumati, from their writings, appear as staunch supporters of the Bhasya, as opposed to the Abhidharmakosa itself or, for that matter, the Yogacara position. Dignaga was the teacher of two very famous scholars,Dharmakirti and Dharmottara.

The Vasubandhu mystic who interests us, is of course the middle one in this historical time table. It was he who formulated Yogacara thought and wrote extensivecommentaries on his brother Asanga's works.

We further find that the Yogacara outlook represented by this school later divided into two distinct systems, one which we might call the orthodox position andthe other a popular offshoot. The orthodox position is that held by Vasubandhu'sdirect disciple Sthiramati, who advocated what is called nirakara-vijnana-vada(the doctrine of non-substantive consciousness) based on asserting the emptiness(sunyata) of both external objects and consciousness. This view was eventually

transmitted by Paramartha (499-590 AD) to China, and is the same as that held byTilopa, the founder of the Kagyu school of Tibet, as expressed in his song of Mahamudra called the Ganga-ma. It is also the viewpoint expounded by Acarya Manjusrimitra in the penultimate Yogacara treatise, the Bodhicittabhavana.

The popular or exoteric position, which appears to deviate from Vasubandhu's original exposition of Yogacara theory, is that of Acarya Dharmapala (see above). Dharmapala systematized a line of Yogacara thought known as sakara-vijnana-vada(the doctrine of substantive consciousness) that claims, although external objects do not independently exist, the mind itself (cittamatra) does exist as such.This view, which we know as Mind-only, presents Mind as ultimate reality. Dharmapala's line of thought was transmitted to China by Hiuen Tsang, the famous Chinese pilgrim mentioned above, in the seventh century and has since had a significa

nt impact on the practice of Zen in Japan. Huge efforts on the part of generations of Tibetan scholars have been spent attempting to demonstrate in logical terms the impractical basis of this latter doctrine.

Regardless of scholastic efforts in whatever direction, it nevertheless appearsthat the original position held by the illuminated master Vasubandhu, is very much that of non-substantive consciousness, or in other words, the nirakara-vijnana view expressed by his direct disciple Sthiramati. This outlook asserts that observer and observed, or in other words, consciousness and external objects, arebound together in an indissoluble union impossible of splitting apart. Nevertheless, both lack credible claim to independent ontological existence. The term that describes this union is "simultaneous arising", which means that consciousnessand its object arise, and can only arise, in immediate proximity. Or, in other

words, one cannot come into being without the other. There are logical assumptions that follow from acknowledging this condition, that lead to what in modern terms would be called quantum theories of consciousness. Apparently practitionersof Yogacara grasped certain insights centuries ago, which only now are being realized by the most radical discoveries in new cosmological theory.4. Source Texts for the Study of Yogacara

Vasubandhu is our leading author of the source texts of Yogacara theory and practice. Other major authors were his elder brother Asanga, and Asanga's teacher Maitreyanatha. Vasubandhu's chief disciple Sthiramati also wrote several texts in


6/20

the form of commentaries on his master's works. These source texts are technicaldocuments, and like any scientific manual, hard to understand. They need explication by a wise teacher. Difficult as the original source texts of this tradition are, for those wishing to know which are the authentic texts, here are the proper references.

According to Tibetan authorities, the works of Maitreyanatha are four:Mahayanasutralamkara (Skt. text edited by S. Levi, Paris 1907),Madhyantavibhanga (Skt. text edited by Yamaguchi, Nagoya 1934), and (3) Dharmadharmatavibhanga (Obermiller gives a summary analysis of this work in his translation of the Uttaratantra, 1931),Uttaratantra (translated from the Tibetan into English by Obermiller, Acta Orientalia, Vol. IX, 1931). But it is doubtful that the Uttaratantra was written by the same hand as the other texts in this list, and may be pre-Maitreyanatha.Abhisamayalamkara (Skt. edition by Stcherbatsky & Obermiller, BB XXII, Leningrad, Vol. I, 1929. Haribhadra's Aloka, a commentary on the Abhisamayalamkara, has been published by Wogihara, Tokya, 1932-5, and by Tucci, GOS, 62, Baroda 1932).

Asanga's most significant work is:Yogacarabhumi-sastra, consisting of two texts, the Sravaka-bhumi and the Bodhisattva-bhumi. The Skt text, found in Tibet by Rahula Sankrityayana, has been edited by Bhattacharya.

Further works attributed to Asanga are:

Abhidharmasamuccaya (skt. text edited by Prahlad Pradhan, Visva Bharati Studies,12, 1950),Tattvaviniscaya (a commentary on the Uttaratantra, andMadhyantavibhanga (attributed above to Maitreya).

The Tibetan historian Bu-sTon attributed eight treatises to Vasubandhu:Vimsatika,Trimsika,Pancaskandha-prakarana,Vyakhyayukti,Karmasiddhi-prakaranaCommentaries on the Mahayanasutra-lamkaraCommentaries on the Madhyantavibhanga

Commentaries on the Pratityasamutpada-sutra.

For the Pancaskandha-prakarana see The Pancaskandha by Vasubandhu and its Commentary by Sthiramati, Annals of Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, XVIII, 1936-7, pp. 276-286, and Stefan Anacker, Seven Works of Vasubandhu, Ch. IV, M.B., Delhi 1984.

The Sanskrit texts of the Vimsatika and the Trimsika (with Sthiramati's commentary) were discovered by S. Levi and edited in Paris, 1925. These works, of course, have always existed in Tibet. The Vimsatika, along with the author's commentary, has been translated into French from the Tibetan by Poussin, Le Museon, 1921.English translations may be found in Stefan Anacker, Seven Works of Vasubandhu,M.B., Delhi 1984, and Thomas Wood, Mind Only, A Philosophical and Doctrinal Ana

lysis of the Vijnanavada, Univ. of Hawaii 1991. Stefan Anacker attributes sevenworks to Vasubandhu: Vadavidhi, Pancaskandha-prakarana, Karmasiddhi-prakarana, Vimsatika-karika, Trimsika-karika, Madhyantavibhanga-bhasya, Tri-svabhava-nirdesa. However the Karmasiddhiprakarana listed here and also by Bu-sTon is a Sautantrika treatise, and not composed by "our" Vasubandhu. The Trisvabhava-nirdesa is not mentioned by Bu-sTon, but is nevertheless in close harmony with the thought and style of the Yogacara master Vasubandhu. Note that Dignaga criticizes the Vadavidhi as a treatise NOT composed by his teacher, i.e., the Sautrantrika Vasubandhu, but accepts the Vadavidhanya. The Vadavidhi therefore may be accepted as atreatise composed by our Vasubandhu, i.e., the Yogacara master.


7/20

We disagree with Bu-ston, and do not attribute the Karmasiddhi-prakarana to Vasubandhu, based on internal evidence. According to us, the correct works that maybe attributed to the Yogacara Vasubandhu are:Vadavidhi,Pancaskandha-prakarana,Vimsatika-karika,Trimsika-karika,Madhyantavibhanga-bhasya,Tri-svabhava-nirdesa,VyakhyayuktiPlus the three general commentaries mentioned by Bu-sTon.

Yogacara Theory - Part Two: Evolving Intelligence

Footnotes

1 The problem of the date of Vasubandhu has been discussed by S.R. Goyal, A History of Indian Buddhism, Meerut 1987, under the heading of "The Two Vasubandhus and the Guptas." Taking his lead from Frauwallner (On the Date of the Buddhist Master of the Law Vasubandhu, Rome 1951), Goyal distinguishes between the author of the Abhidharmakosa (known to have been a disciple of Buddhamitra) who, as we know from Hiuen Tsang, lived in Peshawar (Gandhara), and the Sautantrika Vasubandhu, author of the Abhidharmakosa-bhasya (a systematic critique of the former) wh

o lived in Ayodhya during the reign of King Vikramaditya (c. 455-467 AD). As to"our Vasubandhu," the teacher of Yogacara, it is known that he was a contemporary of Emperor Candragupta I. Ramashankae Tripathi, History of Ancient India (Delhi 1942), gives the dates 320 to circa 335 AD for the reign of Candragupta I, andc. 335-375 for that of his militant successor Samudragupta. This situates the life of our Vasubandhu between 290 and 370 AD. Wogihara incorrectly places him between 420-500 AD and H. Ui between 320 to 400 AD. J. Takausu is closer to the mark when suggesting that H. Ui's dates must be too early by at least a century. See T. Kimura, J. Takausu, and G. Ono in Lanman Studies, p. 79 ff., 93 f. We alsoknow from Hiuen Tsang (see Beal, Buddhist Records of the Western World, M.B. 1981) that in the Ghositarama of Kausambhi there could be seen, in the seventh century, the ruins of the old house where, in an upper chamber, Vasubandhu composedhis famous treatise, the Trimsika-vijnapti-karika. We feel that this should set

tle the issue.

2 The somewhat flamboyant and charismatic 19th century Russian woman mystic, Elena Petrovna Blavatskaya, better known in America as "Madame Blavatsky," refers to the Yogacara school as it existed in Nepal in her era, when in Isis Unveiled,page 264, she wrote: "The Svabhavikas, or philosophers of the oldest school of Buddhism [in Nepal], speculate but upon the active condition (parvritti) of Essence, which they call Svabhavat, and deem it foolish to theorize upon the abstractand unknowable principle in its passive condition (nirvritti). Hence they are called atheists by both Christian theologians and modern scientists; for neitherof the two are able to understand the profound logic of their philosophy." She was to be criticized by scholars for this statement, who claimed that no such school was known to exist. The name, first applied by Brian Hodgson (who spent more

than twenty years in the Kathmandu Valley between 1821 and 1843), may be considered a misnomer; the esoteric school, however is a reality, and persists to thisday amongst the Newar community.

3 Mystic tradition is like an underground stream, portions of which, generationafter generation, bubble to the surface in different parts of the world, givingbirth to one or another esoteric school. This is true for the Bengali Sahajiyas,for the Ch'an and Taoist schools of China, the Zen of Japan, the Yogacaras andTantrikas of Nepal, and the Saivite siddhas of Kashmir, the Naths of Bombay, theNaqsbandhi Sufis of Central Asia, or the hidden Nazari dervish Masters of north


8/20

ern Pakistan, the Hasids of eastern Europe or the Hesycasts of Mt. Athos, as itis for the "Oral Traditions" of Tibet. Those who have by means of this wisdom-stream attained to higher planes of consciousness, in turn have made it their dutyto inspire and guide others. Thus the same universal "golden rosary" (suvarnamala) of mystics (i.e., yogis and yoginis), separated into diverse strands, has continuously spread forth. In past ages this golden chain inspired sources of mysticism the world over. It has equally inspired circles of true Christian mysticsin Europe and secret groups of Kabalists in the Levant. It is the stream that for long ages watered the deserts of Egypt, disseminating knowledge amongst Ismaili sects and Moroccan Sufis. Nothing is hidden to the unobscured consciousness ofthe true Adept (siddha), and the sagely brethren of Egypt's fraternitatis lucisare as much spiritually "in touch' with their Hindu counterparts in India, or their Buddhist counterparts in Tibet or Ladakh, as neighbours are in a single village.The classical Raj Yoga of India, epitomized in the wonderful Yogasutras ofPatanjali, owes its ancient origins to this same stream! See, for further confirmation, H. Oldenberg, Die Lehre der Upanishaden und die Anfage des Buddhismus, Gottingen 1915.)

Yogacara Theory - Part Two: Evolving Intelligence1. Visions of Modern Science

The way that science looks at the Universe has been steadily evolving and changi

ng over the centuries, according to man's capacity to study nature. However, atleast since the time of Tycho Brahe, Galileo and Kepler, it has become evident that we reside in an infinitely complex, highly mathematical celestial cosmos, where vast clusters of hundreds of thousands of stellar suns revolve in a shoreless ocean of space and time.1 The stars, much like the atoms of which they are constituted, dance to a rhythm imposed by the precise laws of physics. Planets, revolving round those stars, given the necessary conditions, allow for the birth oflife, and that life too, follows essential physical laws governing movement, growth and even thought. This is the Universe in which we find ourselves-a highlyorganized system, filled with mystery and so enormous as to always ultimately bebeyond the reach of our finite conceptual comprehension.

The whole complex Universe, so speculates Science, came into existence some four

teen billion years ago, in one huge momentous explosion of energy popularly termed the Big Bang.2 After applying a host of astronomical and scientific instruments to the study of the Cosmos, a measurement of the background noise of the BigBang has been heard. The Big Bang birthed the Universe and time began.

Ever since Edwin Hubble discovered that the Universe is unimaginably greater than the single galaxy in which our minute solar system swims, it has become apparent that all stars, once long ago, burst forth from a single beginning. In fact,this was the beginning of space itself, and space has been expanding ever since.We now know that our sun is but one star amidst over a hundred billion in our galaxy alone. And yet our galaxy is one in as many as a 100 billion galaxies thatare known to exist. Many of the observed galaxies of the cosmos are considerably greater than our own. And all are rushing away from one another, outward throu

gh time into the void of expanding space.

Vast as the present Universe is, apparently at the first moment of creation, everything exploded from a single miniscule infinitely dense point. So says modernscience. But although this is now what science has discovered, it is startling to find a close correspondence between this modern vision and the intuitive writings of sages who lived in the past. If we turn to Yogacara doctrine and the "creation-myths' expressed in the Utpattikrama process of secret Tantra, we see thatthe singularity from whence all matter, space and time is said to have arisen,is referred to as the bindu, and it is said that this unique bindu (or first "Po


9/20

int of Creation') coalesced out of "zero" (sunya) ground. Zero-ground, or Emptiness (sunyata), is not space (akasa), nor does it endure in time (kala). It is nothing ("no thing') whatsoever, yet everything arises from it.3

Bindu means "dot". The red dot that the beautiful women of India traditionally place on their forehead, is referred to as a bindu. Ek-bindu means the single dot, the one point from which all arises: the perfect singularity. And Tantra frequently describes the entire universe as no more than an ek-bindu. Both space andtime are born with the world, at the moment of the Big Bang; at the moment of the first Point of Creation. There is no space or time "beyond" the Universe as such. When we talk about the expanding Universe, we mean that the universe expandsspace in itself, and this interior expansion (to use a figure of speech) unfolds time. In Tantra, therefore, space and time is a continuum (santana), and thiscontinuum is no more nor less than a perfect singularity (ek-bindu).4

Taking the Yogacara and Tantric doctrine a step further, we can say as follows:the entire Universe came into being out of a deep mystery that can only be called emptiness (sunyata), about which all speculation must remain absent. A singularity (bindu), the beginning of time itself, exploded into existence. That explosion, the so called Big Bang, which continues to this day, is our Universe. At the very instant the singularity unfolded into and became this Universe, the fundamental ground (alaya) divided into subject (consciousness) and object (phenomena). In cosmic terms, by the word consciousness we must here understand the totalunified field of perception (alaya-vijnana) and by "phenomena' likewise the whol

e total unified field of phenomena (dharma-dhatu), within space-time.

Turning again to modern science, Big Bang theory states that at the beginning of time, there burst forth a rapidly expanding field of chaotic and relatively undifferentiated dense energy of immense proportions. This dense dark energy expanded outward at colossal rates of speed, and as it did so, and continues to do, it both quieted down and also began to attain order. The ancient Greek word, kosmos, means "order". This order was something not made from the beginning, but something formed in the evolving, differentiating universe as it aged.

As the Cosmos or Universe which we know of is fairly obviously ordered in all ofits parts, and the more immediate world that we live in is also quite ordered,it is reasonable to assume that the ordering of the energy of Creation, and the

formation of stars and planets and living beings, is according to an intended plan. What we mean, is that the natural laws governing the physics and mathematicsof the Universe had to have been in existence prior to creation itself. If thewhole coming into existence of the Universe were all just a blind accident, thennothing would make any sense at all. It would almost be a sort of crazy bad joke. But the observable world does make sense. It is simply impossible to believethat the order, the harmony and system, that is observed in the existing Cosmos,could occur randomly and without meaning. However, if it is not an accident, then what we see is designed purpose, and this therefore implies a purposeful intelligence.

Designed purpose implies a system based on intelligent principle and natural law, i.e., what in the East is called Dharma. When we observe the world, we see the

presence of intelligent principle and/or natural law everywhere.

The superimposition of Dharma on the universal design simply confirms what Buddhist mystics have been saying for centuries.

Initially little order was apparent at all. For the first 100 million years after time began, the universe consisted of only a handful of elements, mostly hydrogen and helium, along with faint traces of lithium and beryllium, in a sort of super-dense utterly dark soup. Then massive clouds of hydrogen started to form, collapse and ignite in what rapidly became the blast furnaces of the first stars.


10/20

When these massive clouds compacted, the simple atoms that made up the hydrogenwhere crushed together, burned and transmuted, into a growing concatenation ofever more complex particles. At that moment the universe began to light up.

The first stars were unlike any in the universe today. They were hundreds of times greater than our sun and millions of times brighter. They were the alchemicalfurnaces in which all matter as we know it was formed. These giant masses of compacted hydrogen burned for some three million years before their final conversion into dead cinders. From their death, sprang forth life. Indeed, the very elements of our bodies were churned out in those huge dying fireballs, burned out star dust, that now exists in our blood, bones and fat, in the living cells of ourflesh. The same goes for the soil, rock and air of our Earth, all made from theembers of giant stars that flared and faded millions of years in the cosmic past.

Our galaxy contains about 100 billion stars. Most of all the stars forming the galaxy are concentrated in a thin disk about 100,000 light-years across and about3,000 light years thick. These stars swim around the galactic centre in roughlycircular orbits. Our sun is just one of these billions of points of light. A further 10 billion stars form the galactic corona, a spherical magnetic envelope containing hot gas that encompassing the entire galactic field.

Both western and eastern philosophy has long speculated on the existence of lifeon other planets or in the cosmos itself. Buddhism has always taken for granted

that we are not alone in the universe, and that sentient beings are virtually infinite in number throughout space. A Cosmos that starts out from a single, highly chaotic Big Bang, then gradually forms into giant masses of collapsing fire-balls, progressing steadily through complex chemistry to give birth to organic life, cerebral intelligence and culture-with sentient beings who can look back andspeculate on the structure of it all-must have meaning. The fact that this progression and steady self-organization evolves out of chaos naturally, without external intervention from any known higher power, only adds to the wonder!

It is through the work of men like Stephen Hawking and similar scientists, as they deal with particle physics and with cosmology in the quantum theoretical sense, that we now may come to see just how ordered the present universal matter-energy field is.5

If self-organization is inherent in the nature of the Cosmos, is order then theintended state of things, or is it just an accident? The fact that the Universeis governed by Dharma (natural law) would have us believe that ultimate order is indeed the intended state. And if self-organization evolves out of initial chaos, as we apparently see that it has, then this can be no accident. On the contrary, a degree of intelligence must be present in the process itself. We must however be careful here, since in using the word intelligence or consciousness we must not limit such a concept to our own finite idea of a brain-based type of intelligence, such as we experience in our human make-up. Nor a personal intelligence, the kind of which some people attribute to their concept of a god active innature. But the word intelligence seems to be the nearest concept to what must be occurring when we consider the ways that the observable universe is evolving.6

What is even more to the point, is that the very presence of this apparent intelligence that is seemingly participant in the creation or self-organization of order out of chaos in the world, implies a type of coherent volition or intentional movement over time. Could this be so? And if so, then what we seem to be discovering in our observation of the Cosmos, is the presence of an inchoate emergingintelligence (buddhi), manifesting as volition (yatna) in the implicate process. For there would be no Universe, as we observe it, without this organizing principle, this movement through time towards growing Order, being present within it


11/20

.7

There is a phrase enunciated by Amritananda when expounding Tantric doctrine, asfollows: "The Lord (i.e., Adi-Buddha, primal Intelligence) produces Yatna ("intended design') from Prajna (wisdom), and the cause of pravritti and nirvitti (the arising and destruction of the Universe) is Yatna."

A Universe operating under the super-imposition of Dharma, but involved in evolving order out of chaos with meaningful purpose, must be a relatively intelligentuniverse. But the key concept here is in the term evolution. Everything that wecan observe about the universe, and thus every hint we can glean concerning thenature of the intelligence that would appear to be present in the known universe, implies that this intelligence or consciousness is evolving. Something withinthe make up of the entire world is accumulating or growing in its total information content all the time, and this accumulation of content is adding itself tothe whole consistently. In other words, inherent intelligence is an emerging state born of constant proliferation. We may recognize this in the fact that the entire Universe is itself one total expanding system.

Consequently we can speculate as follows. The process of Creation is a continuous one, in which Intelligence recreates itself out of itself, continuously, emerging within the universe in the steady accumulation and proliferation of growinginformation, stored in the total ground (alaya) of existence-as-such, and gathered from the total interplay (lila) of all infinitely continuous series of interd

ependent realities (pratitya-samutpada) that are occurring, each relative in their reality to one another, throughout the whole of one space-time continuum. Theultimate result of this self-organizing ordering process is the infinite evolution of Consciousness (vijnana) in the Universe.2. The Yogacara Model of Mind

Having speculated with science on the meaning of the Universe, let us turn to look at some theories expounded by certain Yogacara masters in the past.

The Yogacara model of mind is unique to itself and different from the teachingsof any other school of Buddhism.8 It is, however, solidly founded on certain references made by the historical Buddha that may be found in scripture. This is true even for early scriptural statements in the Theravada and Sarvastivada canons

. For example, in the Saddhatu-sutra, mention is made of an eternal consciousness at the back of all experience, and in the Digha-nikaya there are scattered identifications of the absolute with an "invisible infinite consciousness shining everywhere" (Pali: vinnanam anidassanam anatam sabbato prabham). Side by side with the often asserted denial of ego (i.e., the doctrine of anatmya) there are tobe found statements, as shown by Conze (Recent Progress in Buddhist Studies, TheMiddle Way 34, 1959-1960), affirming a fundamental consciousness (mula-vijnana)as the permanent centre of personality. In some scriptural references, translucent mind (prabhasvara citta) is shown to constitute an ultimate reality in whatotherwise is considered a conditional and transitory world.

There are a number of scholars, notably St-Schayer, Constantin Regamey and Marylla Falk, who have made an effort to subject scriptural study to comparative crit

icism, in an effort to penetrate to the early pre-canonical layer of Buddhism. They tackled the problem by assuming that, where the common canon contains tenetsthat conflict with the distinct scriptures of the Sarvastivada and Sthaviravadaschools-tenets which, nevertheless, appear to have been carried through into the Vaipulya-sutras of the Mahayana school-the said tenets belonged to an earlier,original layer of doctrinal exegesis. The result of their investigation was todisclose a consistent belief, in the pre-canonical period, of an underlying condition of subtle mind (citta) transcendent from, or prior to, the acknowledged five components (skandhas) of ordinary life. This parallels fairly well certain statements to be found in the Dharmapada, to the effect that mind is the master of


12/20

everything, and that everything ultimately derives from mind.

There is also the classic statement of the Buddha that may be found in the Anguttara Nikaya, which says:

"Luminous is mind, brightly shining forth, but obscured by the attachments reflected there in. Unlearned people do not understand this, therefore they do not cultivate this mind.

"Luminous is this mind, brightly shining forth, ever free of the attachments reflected there in. Noble followers of the way do understand this, therefore they cultivate this mind."

Poetic contrast is created by these two verses, the first describing the state of Samsara, or worldly created existence, and the second describing Nirvana, which is transcendental and uncreate. Thus, in this statement from the Anguttara Nikaya, "mind" is deliberately pointed out as the primal root (mula) or single common ground (prakriti) of the fundamental opposites, Samsara and Nirvana.

Now, when we come to examine the classic Yogacara treatise known as the Bodhicittabhavana, written by the seventh century master Manjusrimitra, we are told thatmind and mental-activity arises in the Universe in three ways.9 The three evolutes of mind (citta), as described by Manjusrimitra, are:All-ground Consciousness (Alaya-vijnana).

Obscured-mentation (Klista-manas).Manifest localized Consciousness (Pravritti-vijnana).

It is only the last, or third state of mind, which is ordinarily known to us. This third evolute of mind-in-general, is the individual body-based consciousnessof everyday experience. Even though there is a great deal of mental activity and memory that goes on beyond the veil of our conscious experience, who we are asan organic sentient entity, is localized to the body.

But Manjusrimitra's discussion about mind does not start with an analysis of ourlocalized finite consciousness. Instead, he begins, as it were, at the very beginning, in that he first lists what is called "all-ground consciousness". All-ground (Skt. alaya, in Tibetan Kun-gzhi, the whole or entire basis) literally mea

ns the basis of everything, the ground of the whole of existence.10 All-ground Consciousness therefore means a consciousness that is co-extensive with the ground of all. Furthermore, the Sanskrit word alaya carries the meaning of storehouse, or receptacle. The alaya-vijnana is thus considered both the common ground andthe repository of everything.11

All-ground Consciousness is the complete store-house not only of the imprints (vasanas, trace impressions) of every experience ever occurring, but also retainsthe accumulated content of all sentient being's lives. This unimaginably vast Universal Consciousness exists as an endless continuum from the very beginning ofbeginningless time, until the final end thereof. Buddhism is imbued with the idea that the world operates according to the law of cause and effect-the principleof Karma. Every action therefore leaves its own vestigial imprint (vasana).

Even the tiniest shift in energy from the time of the inception of existence may be included in what is here meant by karma or activity, and the Big Bang - thearising of the natural forces or impulses (samskara) of Creation itself-that started it all, is likewise part and parcel of causal proliferation. And every karma, even the most imperceptible activity, leaves its imprint. Therefore Manjusrimitra argues:

"The vestigal imprints (vasanas) of the creative impulses (samskara) as a whole,proliferate and accumulate. When the [compounded] power (prabhava) of this has


13/20

ripened [i.e., has obtained critical density] then Mind-in-itself (cittatva, essence of mind, pure Being) shines forth (abhasa) as subject-identity (atmabhava)and [external] objects..."

What Manjusrimitra is saying here, is that when critical density is reached, a symmetry-collapse manifests, shattering the wholeness of original Intelligence (vidya) and giving rise to the duality that we see in Creation. For Manjusrimitraintelligence is primary and the world as such secondary. The world is the stageon which the play of consciousness occurs; a consciousness born out of the collapse of pre-Creation's latent state. This duality manifests therefore as all things throughout the world-both as observing consciousness and so called external objects.

The split between the conscious intelligence emerging in the universal order andall that consciousness may be aware of, gives rise to a fundamental obscurationthat lies at the basis of samsaric existence. This obscuration emerges as obscured mentation (klista-manas). Manjusrimitra says:

"Identification (lamba) with the activity of the continuum (santana) of accumulative vestigal imprints gives rise to manas, experienced in terms of a 'self' (atman), which however it is not."

The further obscuring effect of the power of the creative impulses (samskara) inherent in the nature of existence only further leads to subtle diminutions of st

ates of awareness, giving rise to the six sensory consciousnesses localized to sentient life.

What Manjusrimitra seems to be saying here, is that from the first an intelligence is emerging from the fabric of Creation, but this intelligence, which is onewith the inherent ground of existence itself, resulted from a breakdown of pre-cosmic wholeness. An inherent flaw in this emerging Universal Mind, is itself thecause for an obscured mentation to arise, which is the basic root of division between subject and object, spirit and matter, consciousness and phenomena. Intelligence is inherent to Creation, but somewhere along the way it became caught upin the duality that creation itself necessitates.

Furthermore, when and where ever living organisms begin to form, or for example,

in the moment when conception occurs between ovum and spermatozoon, a further diminution occurs, in the form of a quantum collapse throughout the generalized field of obscured mentation (klista-manas). This transformation is an immediate alteration from the state of undifferentiated monad (vyakta) to that of individual particle (vyakti); in other words, from that of nonlocal unified field, to that of a localized consciousness (pravritti-vijnana). Thus multitudes of consciousbeings take birth as distinct waves, or individual consciousnesses, within theotherwise endless single field that forms the great swelling ocean of universalmind.

Manjusrimitra adds, "It is from that [i.e., from those three stages in the evolution of mind], which has the characteristic of successive contamination, that conceptual-constructs between 'self' (atma) and 'other' (dharma) continuously reit

erate."

This outlines the threefold nature of intelligence in the Universe, as seen through the teachings of Yogacara. Elaborating on the trend of the argument put forth by the Yogacara masters, it would seem that the lives of sentient beings are part of a complex energized feed-back loop between the All-ground Consciousness of the whole universe, on the one hand, and the entire bio-mass of infinitely diverse numbers of beings on the other, in which Klista-manas operates as the mediating principle. Should we take this concept a step further, perhaps it might beworth suggesting that the nature of individual sentient life is to act as experi


14/20

ential sensory-units for the implicate totality? In which case, we are all partof a vast unified field of energy that is mutually becoming ever more conscious,as it progressively adds to the accumulated body of its over-all information.

As Manjusrimitra says:

"Once that intelligence becomes the site of unbounded activity, imprints (vasana) proliferate endlessly and indeterminately. With the ripening (vipaka) of thesevestigal imprints, further conditions for their production multiply profusely.The ripening of imprints are the co-operating conditions from whence the concatenation [of effects resulting in the emergence] of organic beings (deha) occurs."3. Some Conclusions Drawn from Yogacara Theory

The above is indeed very profound. There are however, some further minor conclusions that can be drawn from the Yogacara theory of mind.

Just as the bulk of information in your computer is not on the screen, so too the bulk of information stored and manipulated in the Universe is not on the screen of your consciousness. This implies a barrier between the so called bulk of information not readily available to local consciousness, and local consciousnessitself. We may take it that this barrier is formed by the obscuring Manas.

If we view klista-manas as essentially what Western psychologists call the unconscious mind, then it is possible to imagine the Manas as a semi-permeable bound

ary between the individual consciousness and the universal ground of intelligence in which the individual consciousness lives. Our body-based consciousness is finite and local, whereas Universal Consciousness would certainly be non-local and cosmically boundless. The unconscious mind might therefore be viewed as a semi-bounded permeable veil mediating, as noted above, between the lower (microcosm)and the higher (macrocosm) aspects of intelligence in the universe. Were it notfor the existence of this obscured state, there would be no separation betweenindividual consciousness and the general unified field of consciousness existingthroughout the Universe.

Our finite individual consciousness (pravritti-vijnana) encompasses only what ismade available to it through the five senses (sight, hearing, taste, smell andtouch), and through what we call the mental-consciousness (mano-vijnana). Mental

-consciousness perceives only those thoughts, feelings and impulses that it is capable of registering. This mental-consciousness is, more over, only aware of those memories that it accesses from time to time. Consequently individual consciousness is a limited gateway of perception.

Individual consciousness is said to consist of six types of consciousnesses. These six are:Mental-consciousnessVisual-consciousnessAuditory-consciousnessSmelling-consciousnessTasting-consciousnessTactile-consciousness

The mental-consciousness is that aspect of mind that is capable of both inductive and deductive reasoning.

The unconsciousness or obscured-mind (klista-manas), on the other hand, is notreadily known to the mental-consciousness. We find buried within the unconsciousness the long memory-stream of all our experiences, in minute detail. Normally we cannot access these experiences or memories, except by unusual processes, suchas hypnosis, psychotherapy or meditation. But no experience has ever been lost.The entire stream of who we are is all there in the unconscious mind; every exp


15/20

erience we have ever lived through. In this sense the Manas appears similar to what the philosopher Leibnitz described as the monad; that indivisible and impenetrable quantum of psychic energy that exists as the active essence or continuumof individual life within the cosmic whole. It is the Manas that contains the memories going right back to our birth, and even prior to that, the experience ofbeing in the womb and being born. The Manas is the collective stream of who a person is, from life to life.

The obscured mind (klista-manas) or Monad is neither negative nor positive in and of itself. It is simply an impartial function of universal intelligence, conditioned by experience (karma) and natural law to react in a certain way. Its reasoning ability is limited to the deductive mode only; it cannot reason inductively. This may be proved by psychological testing under hypnosis.

The Manas does not speak to us in word-language. By this, we mean that it does not know French or English, German or Spanish, nor any other word-language on Earth. It can, however, speak through the language of symbols and icons. Insofar aswords may be used, such words and their related concepts will be used purely assymbolic values. Thus the individual consciousness cannot communicate with theManas, except mystically, even though it is all a part of the one being.

If we do wish to communicate with the unconscious mind, our Manas, we have to learn the language of symbolism, and know how to manipulate symbols so as to talkto the depth. (This is where some occult tools adopted by Jungian psychology, su

ch as Tarot cards, can actually take on practical value, not for the low practice of reading people's supposed fortunes, but rather as aspects of a symbolic language to communicate with the obscured mind buried within.) Tantra uses symboliclanguage and ritual conduct as one way of penetrating the unconscious barrier and accessing higher Consciousness.

The vast unconsciousness (klista-manas) is far more complex, far greater in principle, than the little day to day consciousness to which the individual is normally bound.4. Simultaneously Arising

There is yet another truth that Yogacara presents for our attention. This is thefact of what is called simultaneous arising.

Attempt to imagine, for a moment, being conscious, when there is absolutely nothing to be conscious of. Imagine seeing, when there is nothing to see; or hearing, when there is absolutely no sound. Try to imagine experiencing a certain feeling, or a thought, in a world where feeling and thought does not exist.

We are only conscious when there is something to be conscious of. If there is absolutely nothing that can be observed, then no observation can be taking place-without an observed, there can be no observer. And therefore vice versa, without an observer there can be no observed. What this means is that if there is no light, no sound, no scent, no taste, nothing to touch, and likewise no interior values such as thought, feeling or desire, then one cannot even imagine being conscious, because there is absolutely nothing to be conscious of.

Conversely, without consciousness there can not be any intelligible phenomena. This is hard for individuals to recognize. The individual sees the world as external, outside of consciousness. The world that the individual is conscious of, ismade of consciousness. What is called matter is nothing more than a certain form of energy, and all energy has consciousness inherent in itself. Thus what theindividual calls the world is entirely consciousness. This is what we call the simultaneous arising of subject and object. Or the simultaneous arising of consciousness and appearances.


16/20

What this means is that consciousness is the very space in which the world moves, the time in which it lasts. Consciousness is the love that gives the world life.

If there is no one to observe a tree falling in the woods, did the tree actuallyfall? (This is a question recently asked, with some degree of tongue in cheek,by modern quantum physicists.) The answer is, of course it did. But it did so, not because an individual localized consciousness (pravritti-vijnana) did or didnot observe it fall, but because it's falling was part of the total experience of what the Universe is as a whole. In other words, it falls, precisely because it's falling was part and parcel of the consistent and evolving unified field (alaya) of Existence.

Thus, Yogacara doctrine puts forth the axiom that neither subject (noumenal consciousness) nor object (phenomenal existence) can exist independently. Subject and object exist simultaneously. One outcome of this approach, is that if subjectand object are mutually entangled, then this proves the existence of UniversalMind (mahat) as postulated in Yoga philosophy.

In other words, if simultaneous arising is a fact, then a single unified field of consciousness must exist; where it not so, then the whole basis of simultaneous arising would break down, and the world would not be as it is.

So let's take a moment to ponder what this principle of simultaneous arising re

ally means in terms of alaya-vijnana.

According to the reasoning stated above, all-ground consciousness as subject, and all the phenomena of the Universe as object, must be born simultaneously in the first moment of creation. Therefore we can understand that both consciousnessand appearance are mutually evolving forms of a single experience contained in the whole. Both are mutually evolving, that is, from a highly chaotic inchoate energy state, toward an ever more organized ordered state of coherence, exactly assuggested in the first portion of this essay. But here you can see how this must be, since in terms of simultaneous arising, the total information packet of universal consciousness can never be greater than the total evolved state of the expanding Universe.

So, while consciousness on the cosmic plane is evolving and growing from a lesssentient toward an ever more sentient, self-organized state, on the individual plane the subject-object dichotomy of this consciousness acts as the support forour individual experience of the Universe being something out there, and ourselves being something here, as distinct and separate entities. When this dichotomy,rooted in the Manas itself, reverts back to a singularity through transformation of individual consciousness, then at that very moment self-reflexive awareness(samvedana, i.e., Enlightenment) emerges in individual consciousness. Althoughthe totality of the Universe in the sense of Universal Consciousness vs. All Phenomena will continue for many more billions of years in celestial time, the individual sentient being will have awoken to the underlying reality in which both are simultaneous. Essentially this is achieved in the same way as the quantum particle reverting to field symmetry, except here we are not talking of physics, bu

t rather of metaphysics.

When the subject-object dichotomy converts to its former state of symmetry, byreverting back upon itself, it is NOT a case, as some believe, that the projected material universe dissolves into Mind-that Ultimate Reality is seen to be Mind. This view is what is known as the teaching of the Cittamatra School,12 which arose as a popular offshoot of the Yogacara. This teaching of the Cittamatra School has an inherent flaw in it. This flaw is what is known in philosophical language as idealism. A lot of seekers get caught at this point in an error that incapacitates their insight and consequently blinds them to making a breakthrough.


17/20

Philosophic idealism (cittamatra) is not what Vasubandhu and Manjusrimitra, theoriginal masters of Yogacara, were teaching.

The teaching of Yogacara says that Consciousness and the phenomenal Universe comes into existence simultaneously. What comes into being simultaneously, must also pass away simultaneously.

The totality is born, the totality will pass away. The totality will be born again, and it will pass away again. In other words, the entire Universe (which withus, includes Consciousness) is an endless series of oscillations: of Universesbeing born and dying, endlessly. This immeasurable cycle is what is called Samsara. The Universe awakes, endures for a while, then returns to a latent (pralaya)state, only to be repeated on the ceaseless ground (alaya) of absolute Being.

If we can imagine it, the oscillating universe, the immeasurable cycle of Samsara, makes a beautifully coherent sine wave, occurring in the wisdom (prajna) ofEnlightened-mind (bodhicitta). To the extent that one grasps the concept that this sine wave of consciousness is nothing more than pure cosmic ideation (visva-vikalpa) arising in the total set of primordial Intelligence (vidya), then it ispossible to appreciate both the creation and the destruction of the observed universe as a mere play in Great Emptiness (sunyata). When both subject and objectcancel each other out, what we are left with is nondual Ultimate Reality (dharmata), from which everything has come forth in the first place.

< Yogacara Theory - Part One: Background HistoryYogacara Theory - Part Three: The Nature of Reality >

Footnotes

1 For an enjoyable discussion of these personalities, see John Robert Christianson, On Tycho's Island, Tycho Brahe, Science & Culture in Sixteenth Century, Cambridge University Press, 2000

2 Joseph Silk, The Big Bang, W.H.Feeman & Co., New York 2001

3 See N.C.Panda, The Vibrating Universe, Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi 1995, 2000

4 N.C. Panda, Maya in Physics, Motilal Banarsidass, Dehli 1991

5 Nick Herbert, Quantum Reality, Anchor Books, New York 1985, 1987. Leopold Infeld, The Evolution of Physics, Simon & Schuster, NY 1966

6 Lee Smolin, Three Roads to Quantum Gravity, Basic Books, NY 2001

7 See, Davies & Brown, The Ghost in the Atom, Cambridge University Press, 1986.

8 for a general introduction, see Ashok Kumar Chatterjee, The Yogacara Idealism,Motilal Banarsidass, Dehli 1962

9 Manjusrimitra is here repeating what already had been formulated by the earlyYogacara masters, Asanga and Vasubandhu. See Asanga, Abhidharma-samuccaya, The Compendium of the Higher Philosophy, originally translated into French by WalpolaRahula and English version by Sara Boin-Webb, Asian Humanities Press, Fremont,California 2001

10 For more detailed discussion of the Tibetan perspective, see: Tsong-kha-pa, Ocean of Eloquence, translated by Gareth Sparham, State University of NY Press, 1993. Maitreya, Asanga, Distinguishing the Middle from the Extremes, Ch. 5, translated by Michele Martin, Marpa Institute, Kathmandu 1991. Gadjin M. Nagao, Madhy


18/20

amika and Yogacara, State University of NY Press, 1991

11 Cf. Susumu Yamaguchi, Mahayana Way to Buddhahood, Buddhist Books International, Tokyo 1982

12 Cf., Demonstration of Consciousness Only by Hsuan Tsang, in F. H. Cook, ThreeTexts on Consciousness Only, Numata Center for Buddhist Translation and Research, Berkeley, California 1999

Yogacara Theory - Part Three: The Nature of Reality1. Explanation of the Threefold Nature

The Tri-svabhava-nirdesa is an extremely significant treatise written by the Yogacara master Vasubandhu, consisting of thirty-eight stanzas explaining the concept of the three natures (trisvabhava) or three distinguishing characteristics (trilaksana). It is primarily an exposition of the ontological basis of the subject/object dichotomy as understood in terms of the Yogacara view, and is very important because it answers fundamental questions raised concerning how we view theworld in which we live. Vasubandhu aim is to show that the subject/object dichotomy that exists between the emerging All-ground Consciousness (alaya-vijnana) and the ground of all phenomena (dharmadhatu) is born from a misapprehension of asingle reality (tathata). That which misapprehends this greater reality are allsentient beings born in the world, but the root of the misapprehension is creat

ed by the all-ground consciousness itself, which acts as a spell enchanting beings into believing in the facticity of the world in which they live.

The three intrinsic natures posited by Vasubandhu are:The conceptually-constructed (parikalpita) nature;the contingent (paratantra) nature, andthe actual (parinishpana) nature.

This theory was put forward to explain not only the illusion of the world that we see around us, but how that unreality is created. We find that the world is the product of not one, but three simultaneous realities.

The world that is perceived (and for it to be perceived, there must be a subjec

t/object dichotomy) is described as a perceptual construct (kalpana), or conceived world, in the sense of something that isn't there being perceived or thoughtto be there. Insofar as it is a perceptual construct, its nature is said to be conceptually-constructed (parikalpita). This projection as such occurs as a simultaneous arising (e.q., see Yogacara II) of subject (ghahika) and object (grahya).

Vasubandhu asserts that the conceptually-constructed (parikalpita) nature of reality, by virtue of precisely what it is, has to be unreal (asat) and nonexistent; it is an illusion (bramti, deceit). Nevertheless the conception that occurs-the experience of the subject/object dichotomy-is a play of various existent causes and conditions. This contrivance (vikalpa) of various causes and conditions, is described as the contingent (paratantra) nature of reality. Behind that play o

f causes and conditions, there must be an underlying actual (parinishpanna) nature. The actuality is the unreality of the contrived construct.

The ultimate reality (dharmata) on which these three natures are imposed, almostlike veils, is defined as Tathata (Tib: de-bshin-nyid, "that-is-ness"), pure noumenon.

But this explanation is not as simple as it may seem to be at first. To elaborate, Vasubandhu resorts to an analogy. He says, let us consider a situation in which a magician, using certain spells (mantras) or tricks, was to cause, before a


19/20

crowd of spectators, a log of wood to appear as an elephant. The fact that no elephant is there, but nevertheless is seen to be there by the audience, may be defined as the elephant's parikalpita-nature. In that sense the spectators imagine or project something that factually is not present.

The elephant is no more than a magician's illusion and yet the elephant is indeed seen. The hallucination (akrti), the illusion that is seen, of the elephant bythe crowd may be defined as the situation's paratantra-nature. This means thatthe appearance of the illusion itself must be contingent on something else.

Finally, if we consider what the elephant really is in its self (i.e., a suggested image that isn't really there) then it's actual non-existence is its ultimately true or actual (parinishpanna) nature.

Vasubandhu then explains his analogy as follows: the All-ground Consciousness (alaya-vijnana) is the magic spell, with which cosmic ideation (visva-vikalpa), the Magician, magically produces the illusion of a Universe, and in which duality(dvaya) of subject and object becomes the result. The elephant is the Universe that appears to us as real. The original log of wood which has been misapprehended as the illusory elephant is the Tathata, the Absolute, that ever remains unchanged and pure from the beginning.

"With the non-apprehension of duality, the appearance of duality collapses, andwith this collapse, the actual nature is realized as the non-existence of dualit

y." - Trisvabhavanirdesa, verse 33.

Thus the nature (svabhava) of reality is ultimately nondual, which means that neither an apprehender (grahika) nor objects to be apprehended (grahya) exist assuch.2. Profound Contemplation of Reality

Sankara's reference (vide Brahmasutra Sankarabhasya) of "rope and snake" is a simple version of Vasubandhu's elephant analogy given above. The noble 9th century mystic Shankara, in introducing his system of Adwaita Vedanta, suggested thatthe world is like falsely seeing a snake for what actually is a harmless segmentof rope. The rope is lying on the ground. Dusk has gathered and it is not easyto see clearly. An observer, walking along the path, mistakes a short segment of

rope lying on the ground for a poisonous cobra and takes fright. In this manner, says the great sage Shankaracarya, the world and its suffering is perceived, when in reality it is the pure Absolute (brahman) alone that exists.

In Shankaracarya's explanation, the world is purely illusion (maya). When the illusion is seen for what It truly is, just as the snake instantly becomes again the rope which it always has been, so too the world instantly transforms back toBrahman.

By this means Shankara likewise posited nonduality (adwaita). Hence his teachingis frequently known by the name Adwaita Vedanta.

Vasubandhu's explanation is, however, intrinsically more scientific than Shankar

acarya. Shankara's analogy of "rope and snake" overlooks the antithesis of an absolute reality opposed to an absolute illusion, or existence (sat) versus non-existence (asat). Although Sankara and Vasubandhu are pointing in the end to the same final fact, Shankara's analysis of the problem falls short of Vasubandhu's.If we apply Vasubandhu's three natures to the rope and snake analogy we can arrive at a deeper insight into the whole problem.

Like the elephant that was not there, the snake is an illusion super-imposed onthe rope. The rope is the Ultimate Reality not seen by us. What Shankara's explanation lacks, is in telling us how the illusion occurs. This, you might say, he


20/20

takes for granted. Vasubandhu, on the other hand, makes it clear that we have toaccept that the illusion itself is contingent (paratantra) on something deeper.This something is revealed when the actual nature (parinishpanna-svabhava) of the illusion is seen for what it is, i.e., as non-existent.

To say the world is an illusion is insufficient, insofar as in doing so we impart to the concept illusion a reality that is not there. It is not that the worldis an illusion, rather it is that the illusion itself is unreal, which is more important. The collapse of this projection is what breaks the spell imposed by the magician over the crowd.

Chatterjee and Datta, in An Introduction to Indian Philosophy, Calcutta 1968, present the argument as follows:

"The magician is a juggler only to those who are deceived by his trick and who fancy that they perceive the objects conjured up. But to the discerning few who see through the trick and have no illusion, the juggler fails to be a juggler. Similarly, those who believe in the world-show think of God through this show andcall Him its Creator, etc. But for those wise few who know that the world is a mere show, there is neither any real World nor any real Creator."

The key, therefore, to Vasubandhu's message rests on contemplating the nature ofParikalpita, the imposition of the illusion on the Real (tathata).3. Manjusrimitra's Final Comment

Manjusrimitra, author of the Bodhicittabhavana, adds a final comment to Vasubandhu's exposition. He says:

"Not recognizing [the hypnotic power] of finite contrivance (vikalpa), living beings are seduced by these very constructs, and since the continuum of conceptual-constructs flows [temporarily], there is no turning back from the deceit (bramti) later on.

"They who are deceived by Illusion's (maya) illusion, which is like the projected apparition of an elephant conjured up by a magician, are similar to sleepers who, drawn by the attraction of a lustful dream, are made subject to the power ofthat dream."

jogaczara esej

Documents

Transcript of jogaczara esej