Home | Temple | Calendar | Buddhism | Photo Gallery | Newsletter | Bookstore | Resources and Links

Buddhist Philosophy

1. Prelude
2. Causality
3. Diversification
4. Nirvana
5. Hinayana/Mahayana
6. Madhyamaka and Nagarjuna
7. Yogacara and Vasubandhu
8. Avatamsaka - Hua-yen
9. Buddhist Logic
10. Buddhism in China
11. Sukhavati: Pure Land Buddhism
12. Kyoto School of Philosophy

Yogacara and Vasubandhu

Yogacara: Teaching in Discipline Vijñanavada: Path of Consciousness Also the name Vijñapti-matrata is sometimes used: "System of Consciousness-Only". This name was mainly used in China (Wei-shih) and in Japan (Yuishiki).

This current follows both chronologically and logically on Madhyamaka.

Nagarjuna postulated the double negation: negation even of negation. Religiously seen this is an attitude which is difficult to manage, since it forces the adept to go to the most extreme possibilities of his (everyday) thought. Opposite this conceptually negativistic attitude of Nagarjuna, one will however keep on striving (empirically) towards something affirmative. It was thus to be expected that there would follow a psychological reaction against the philosophical negation.

This however is not a step back; only a shifting towards an empirically more understandable realm: from the 4th lemma back towards the 3rd lemma, in the form of "being and non-being".

The Yogacara will then not systematically refute Nagarjuna, but on the contrary, will apply some of his thought to come to a stage where a positive formulation becomes possible and useable.

Yogacara, just as Madhyamaka, accepts the impossibility of an adequate formulation of an 'absolute' truth. On the other hand however we have to our disposal the use of cognitive elements (whether they are objectively-realistic or subjectively-idealistic...). This presupposes that we have cognitive experiences, even if these are limited by the limits of our consciousness. And it is within this consciousness that logical and critical inquiry belong to the possibilities.

A clear sign of this idea we find for example in Dhammapada (I, 1-2):

"Everything (all dharmas) has mind in the lead, has mind as a forerunner, is made by mind (...)"
 

The Lankavatara Sutra (of which the date of origin is not clear, but which was already translated in Chinese by Gunabhadra in the 5th Century) is one of the texts on which Yogacara-philosophy will be based. The first figure that in a certain way can be related to the Mind-Only School is Asvaghosa in his work 'The Arising of Faith in the Mahayana' (Mahayana-sraddha-utpada).

The definitive formation of the school however rests with Asanga, in his 'Clarification of the Teachings of the Mahayana' (Mahayana-sutra-lamkara) and his 'Exposition on the Stages of the Practice of Discipline' (Yogacara-bhumi-sastra').

It is his brother, Vasubandhu, who firstly from a Hinayana point of view (Sautrantika, and not Sarvastivada as is sometimes claimed) wrote the impressive Abhidharma-kosa-bhasya ('The Treasury of the Abhidharma'), but later went on to the Mahayana-thought of his brother and than wrote the Vimsatika-vijñapti-matrata-siddhi ('The Exposition on Consciousness-Only in 20 volumes') and the Trimsika-vijñapti-matrata-siddhi ('The Exposition on Consciousness-Only in 30 volumes').

The two brothers, Asanga and Vasubandhu, are dated somewhere between 280 and 500 (?) CE.

Starting point: It is a fact that we cannot 'know' in an absolute way, but even our relative thought presupposes an 'instrument of thought'. This 'thought-instrument' is called vijñana, mostly - but unjustly - translated as 'consciousness'. This 'consciousness' is therefore the only reality that is undisputable.

To situate the concept of 'vijñana' more clearly, we have to take into account the etymology of the word. The prefix "vi-" points to separation (according to MMW vi = *dvi = two), to discrimination or distinction, and sometimes it even has a meaning opposite to the thought expressed in the word that follows it. The Lankavatara-Sutra describes it as "The cutting of the whole in its parts and than applying a selection to it". It becomes clear that we have to approach the term 'consciousness' with great reserve. This will certainly be the case in the compounds of vijñana in the sense that they are used by the Yogacara.

Every progress in mind-concentration (i.e. a 'single-mindedness') is an approaching of absolute reality.

Things are nothing but convergences of perception. Consciousness is the ability to take in sense-impressions and by sifting through them come to the formation of concepts. The activity of consciousness has its origin in a beginningless drive. All skandhas and sense-functions (ayatanas) are reducible to vijñana.

Being-in-itself is denied, but not so the possibility of introspection.

The accepting of the reality of vijñana is by the way an empirical necessity, for without consciousness the universe would fall into a state of complete 'blindness' (not 'blinding'!), and every form of knowledge - even of wrong or relative knowledge - would be impossible.

Only vijñana exists and functions and is knowable; its 'objects' ('consciousness-content') however are delusional through the working of ego-activity. The point concerning the objective 'being' of the world outside of the experiencing consciousness however was never stated very clearly, neither by Asanga nor by Vasubandhu. The Hindu Nava-Vedanta will extend this point in deciding that the world outside of consciousness is a total illusion (maya).

The Structure of 'Consciousness'

First we have to remind that vijñana only partly corresponds to what we call 'consciousness'. The compound vijñana does after all point to a 'split knowing'. As a technical term, vijñana applies to all stages or phases that modern psychology categorizes as 'sub-consciousness', 'waking-consciousness', 'dream-consciousness', 'ego-consciousness', 'supra-consciousness', etc.

Thereby comes that according to the context, vijñana can both relate to 'consciousness as a function or organ'; or/and as the 'actual consciousness-content'.

Buddhism then sees different stages in what is called 'consciousness':

1. In function of the 'object', we can make a distinction according to the five skandhas (see previous):
    

2. it is however more common to integrate the first 4 skandhas in the 5th skandha (vijñana), i.e. to interpret consciousness in function of the 'sources' (organs, 'gates' to the external world). In this sense, vijñana comprises the whole of the consciousness-content:

• caksur-vijñana: eye-consciousness or visual consciousness, the consciousness that stores and recalls visual images.
   
• srota-vijñana: ear-consciousness or auditory consciousness, the consciousness that stores and recalls sound images.
   
• ghrana-vijñana: nose-consciousness or olfactory consciousness, the consciousness that stores and recalls images of smell.
   
• jihva-vijñana: tongue-consciousness or gustatory consciousness, the consciousness that stores and recalls images of taste.
   
• kaya-vijñana: body-consciousness or sensual consciousness, the consciousness that stores and recalls images of touch.

Besides these there is also a sixth ('mental') sense:
 

• mano-vijñana: thought-consciousness or intellect, the consciousness of psychic formations which also includes the psychic activities of vedana (perception); samjña (cognition); and samskara (volition).

Mano-vijñana than functions as the centralizing factor for thought and experience, but not without the interaction (feed-back) with the other consciousness aspects. This stage of consciousness is the working of discursive, conceptual, discriminative thought, which not only processes data from the 'outside' according to a 'manas' program, but which also continuously adds its 'own interpretation' to this experiential data.

We can thus ask ourselves in how far our consciousness-content accords to 'objective reality'.

The Vijñanavada answer to this is negative. Mano-vijñana encloses the mind within itself. Only that which is in the mind is knowable, but the mind is enclosed within its own limits and therefore can only come to a knowledge of what is within its consciousness-content.

The term vijñapti-matrata literally means: "being non more or less than information".

In this context we can search for an analogy with the empirical idealism of e.g. Locke, Berkeley and Hume. Yet, we should not to easily come to the conclusion of an identity of vision. Once more, we should point out the fact that the Empiricists' conclusion ends up on the level of metaphysics there where the Buddhist Yogacara's conclusion is situated on the level of epistemology and soteriology.

Asanga and Vasubandhu will in their writings consequently extend the classical Buddhist structure of 'consciousness'. In this way the intellect (mano-vijñana) will lead towards self-reflection (vijñana-vijñana), i.e. the knowing subject will look upon itself as the knowledge-object.

The personality experience that culminates through this in our consciousness is nothing other than the consciousness of 'being ourself'. This is where the fundamental 'error' known as avidya (wrong-knowing, ignorance) is situated: the consciousness of consciousness is interpreted as 'being-ourselves'.

Out of this distortion originates manas, the 7th form of consciousness, that function of the mind by which we experience the nama-rupa (viz. 5 skandhas) as an atman, a permanent entity that constitutes our "self-ness".

Manas is therefore the source of ego-thought (aham-kara), of the "I am" illusion (asmi-maya). In relation to modern psychology the manas-activity will be mainly situated in the sub-conscious, which makes it so difficult to point to or to fathom.

Manas is different from mano-vijñana because it is 'stained' by discrimination. It is then a 'sense' which is more discriminating and thought-constructive than intellectually perceptive; because of this manas is the source of ego-centeredness and individualisation, and from there also the source of all illusion arising necessarily from the thought-error that appearance is reality (or in Buddhist terms "to take the unreal to be real").

I. Skandha-vijñana - Forms of consciousness in function of object

II. Forms of consciousness in function of "gate"

III. Summary Tabel

In reality manas is only the individualization-process that originates in the storehouse consciousness (alaya-vijñana) through the working of karmic activity. This is the impersonal, unconscious consciousness (cfr. Jung's Collective Unconscious) which is part of the experiential consciousness that stands outside of the individualization-process, and should be looked upon as beyond our knowing. It stretches across and beyond all manas-boundaries, it is common to all beings and that which constitutes their only true nature. Therefore we could also call it the "Cosmic or Universal Consciousness".

A great part of Vasubandhu's writings strives towards an approaching description of alaya-vijñana as a stage of consciousness in which there is no distinct ego-thought present.

The most clearly is comparing it to a boundless ocean:

Alaya-vijñana is the endlessly vast and deep water in which the karmic formations float as 'seeds' (bija), which form the potential for karmic results (vipaka); the surface of the ocean is moved by the 'wind' of the Karmic Law, which forms waves; each of these formed waves is 'manas'; but just as a wave (which has only local, i.e. relative movement) this manas has no self-ness...it is a momentous (ksanika) form of appearance of a dynamic. Manas is therefore an ego-differentiated and differentiating aspect of alaya-vijñana, just as a wave appears to be distinct from the great ocean. The bijas are 'perfumed', i.e. they receive impressions through knowing and acting, through which they are manifested within the karmic process, i.e. they take on form in manas; this leaning towards formation of karmic results lays the 'seeds' in a 'seedbed', from which they 'spring' at the 'appropriate moment', i.e. when a causal condition (hetu pratyaya) creates the possibility for it to arise.

There are those bijas that are present from time immemorial (the so-called 'primal or original' bijas), and there are those that are newly acquired, which are re-perfumed, i.e. re-activated. Both kinds together create all manifestations of the existential delusion and are therefore cause of the 'defilements'.

But, there is also an 'unstained seed', that through sprouting and growing absorbs and suppresses the delusional and bewitching nature of alaya-vijñana and so leads towards ultimate enlightenment. This unstained seed is none other than Buddha-nature. When this seed has transformed the totality of alaya-vijñana into Buddha-nature (= Enlightenment !), there arises - at least according to the later Vijñanavadins - a 9th form of consciousness: the 'Stainless Consciousness' (amala-vijñana), which is identical to Suchness (tathata). Once alaya-vijñana is freed of its defilements related to its content, it becomes the source of Buddhahood: the "Womb of the Tathagatas" (Tathagatagarbha).

A lot of commentators and authors have attempted to describe the nature of this 'storehouse-consciousness'. As the basis from which all bijas of consciousness spring. As the container-intellect; as the basic consciousness seen as totality of both the absolute and the relative, impersonal and personal; as the fundamental mind-consciousness of sentient beings who as it where confiscate all experiences of individual existence; as the seedbed of all events; as the root of all experience, i.e. of the skandhas on which all beings are dependent for their conscious existence; as the source of the cycle of birth-and-death, etc. Each of these descriptions are at the same time right and wrong.

Concerning the complexity of 'consciousness' and 'total-consciousness' we could refer to the holographic model of consciousness in the holistic theory developed by e.g. John R. Battista.

The Three Truths

Following Nagarjuna the Yogacara also knows a threefold structure of truth, viz. untruth, relative truth and absolute truth. Nagarjuna, however, did not show a lot of interest in the relative truth, since this is merely situated on the level of conceptual thought. Yogacara on the other hand thinks that it is exactly through this relative truth that the possibility exists to arrive at the absolute truth.

This absolute truth is called parinispanna by Asanga: the complete fulfillment, not subjected to impermanence.

The relative truth (samvriti), also called laukika-satya or 'worldly truth' by Dharmapala (439-507), is however subdivided in :

• parikalpita (established in the mind, imagined): purely subjective, without self-existence, yet empirically experienced as truth, however by the yogin recognized as untrue since it is not-adequate, i.e. leading towards enlightenment.
   
• paratantra (dependent on other things): resulting from causality (hetu-pratyaya), what arises and is recognized as the subject/object dichotomy; "the manifestation is in fact untrue, but that which causes the manifestation is true". From there also the connotation of 'consensual truth', i.e. a truth which is valid within a certain 'consensus', a certain 'system of coordinates'.

Absolute truth stands beyond every subject/object dichotomy and is therefore subjectless and objectless (= emptiness). Paratantra is the overlapping of parinispanna by an infecting parikalpita. By removing this infection from paratantra, parinispanna is realized.

We can mention here that this teaching of Three Truths (Trayasatya) has given rise to the formation of a full-grown Buddhist Logic.

Trikaya: The Threefold Buddhabody

The three levels of truth reflect in the three 'body' forms of Buddhahood.

At first Buddhism knew of two so-called 'Buddha-bodies':

• buddhakaya: the corporeal manifestation form of the historical Buddha.
   
• dharmakaya: the spiritual message as it was proclaimed by the Buddha.

Slowly these concepts developed however, e.g. through the abstraction procedure in the Sarvastiva, and through the import of the concept "Eternal Buddha" (e.g. in the Lotus Sutra).

Asanga states in his Mahayanasutra-lankara and in his Mahayana-samgraha that a threefold body can be attributed to Buddhahood:

1. Nirmanakaya (also nairmanika-kaya): an appearance-body, manifestation-body or transformation-body, the body that can assume an infinite number of worldly forms and which mainly exists for the benefit of all beings. This body can be historical, e.g. Buddha Gautama. It is then the manifestation in time and space of Infinite Buddhahood. This form appears within the samsara/nirvana duality and therefore is sometimes called the 'nirvana-body' (nirvanakaya). In later centuries (in China, and probably under the influence of Taoism) the nirmanakaya comprises the whole manifested world.
    
2. Sambhogakaya (also sambhogika-kaya): the 'glorification-body', the 'bliss-body', 'reward-body': the ideal image of Buddhahood conceivable to beings. It is in this way that bodhisattvas 'see' Buddhahood. The glorification-body is a) the radiance of Absolute Buddhahood in a conceivable form, and b) the projection of the human ideal ('the ideal human') in the glorified forms of bodhisattvas and Buddhas. It is certainly in this sense that the sambhogakaya can be seen as a 'transitional' object', an 'expedient means'.
    
3. Dharmakaya: (also svabhavika-kaya = body of own-nature): The Body of the Teaching, Absolute Body of Wisdom/Compassion, Principle Body: the ultimate reality as Suchness (tathata), Enlightenment, True Reality (dharmata). According to the later Vijñanavadins the Absolute Self. The Dharmakaya is totally situated beyond the conceptual (after all, dharmata equals sunyata or emptiness) and is consequentially "formless, colorless, inconceivable, unthinkable, inexpressible".

The Trikaya-doctrine does not attempt to be an ontological explanation of Buddhahood; it should be looked upon as a paradigm in which the human mind can fit in the different levels and consciousness-data of its soteriological thought.

This paradigm can be used in various ways, e.g.:

We also should take into account that although these "Three Bodies" conceptually appear as different concepts, they are essentially a unity. Metaphorically we can see them as the three sides of a prism, of which the volume remains undefined since it has to remain a-conceptual.

This clearly comes to expression in the later evolution of the Trikaya-doctrine. So, e.g. we see that in the so-called 'developed' (Ch. shan-chia, J. sange) current of the T'ien-t'ai-school (out of which also Jodo-Shinshu originated) it is taught that the three kayas are in fact identical, as three ways in which the 'absolute' reveals itself to the world. In the last stage of the evolution of the Trikaya the three bodies are not as much seen as doctrinal formulations, but as upaya-adjustments to understand an indivisible unity. This makes that the Tri-partition of the Trikaya is not defined by the number 3, but that it is possible to import other divisions; e.g. T'an-luan who opts for Four Kayas by dividing Dharmakaya in two aspects: a static aspect (the 'essence' = dharmata) and a dynamic aspect ('compassion' as 'expedient means' = upaya).

A three-dimensional scheme is presented by K.T.Tsuji (An Outline of Buddhism), as a three-sided pyramid, in which each side represents a different aspect of Buddhahood, while Buddhahood itself is represented by the volume of the pyramid

ñ