Questioning Alayavijnana

A forum for those wishing to discuss Buddhist history and teachings in the Western academic manner, referencing appropriate sources.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Questioning Alayavijnana

Post by Malcolm »

deepbluehum wrote:
I have often felt intuitively that tantra's obsession with numerical correspondences was rather arbitrary.
In this case it is physiological.
deepbluehum
Posts: 1302
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2011 2:05 am
Location: San Francisco, CA

Re: Questioning Alayavijnana

Post by deepbluehum »

Malcolm wrote:
deepbluehum wrote:
I have often felt intuitively that tantra's obsession with numerical correspondences was rather arbitrary.
In this case it is physiological.
So the eight spokes actually correspond to the 8 consciousness?
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Questioning Alayavijnana

Post by Malcolm »

deepbluehum wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
deepbluehum wrote:
I have often felt intuitively that tantra's obsession with numerical correspondences was rather arbitrary.
In this case it is physiological.
So the eight spokes actually correspond to the 8 consciousness?
Yes.
deepbluehum
Posts: 1302
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2011 2:05 am
Location: San Francisco, CA

Re: Questioning Alayavijnana

Post by deepbluehum »

Malcolm wrote:
deepbluehum wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
In this case it is physiological.
So the eight spokes actually correspond to the 8 consciousness?
Yes.
That's silly.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Questioning Alayavijnana

Post by Malcolm »

deepbluehum wrote:
That's silly.
Only if you have a sutrayāna view of things.
User avatar
Virgo
Posts: 4844
Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 3:47 am
Location: Uni-verse

Re: Questioning Alayavijnana

Post by Virgo »

Malcolm wrote:
deepbluehum wrote:
That's silly.
Only if you have a sutrayāna view of things.
Malcolm these different channels have to do with different winds which relate to the different consciousnesses?

Kevin
Jnana
Posts: 1106
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 12:58 pm

Re: Questioning Alayavijnana

Post by Jnana »

deepbluehum wrote:
Jnana wrote:Well, I'd suggest that at some point practice becomes radically simple and these apparent discrepancies lose momentum and fall away.
Yes. That is the practice side. I thought we were talking about the explanatory side.
The two aren't unrelated. But one of the differences in this regard is that the Yogācāra treatises don't contain pith instructions.
deepbluehum wrote:I thought we were talking about the explanatory side.
If you really want a homogenous interpretation then there's Dolpopa Sherab Gyaltsen's Mountain Doctrine. He attempts to unite every significant Indian Mahāyāna thinker and text within his view. Of course, one of the criticisms of his interpretation, is that, in doing so, he misrepresents both the Yogācāra and the Madhyamaka traditions.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Questioning Alayavijnana

Post by Malcolm »

Virgo wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
deepbluehum wrote:
That's silly.
Only if you have a sutrayāna view of things.
Malcolm these different channels have to do with different winds which relate to the different consciousnesses?

Kevin

Yes.
deepbluehum
Posts: 1302
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2011 2:05 am
Location: San Francisco, CA

Re: Questioning Alayavijnana

Post by deepbluehum »

Malcolm wrote:
Virgo wrote:
Malcolm wrote: Only if you have a sutrayāna view of things.
Malcolm these different channels have to do with different winds which relate to the different consciousnesses?

Kevin

Yes.
It's not that I have a sutra view. If one doesn't think the commentarial traditions have represented yogacara correctly, and the the "tantra" subscribes to the erroneous commentarial rendition of things, then one could very well believe the "tantra" is apocryphal and wrong. Generally, where ever we see endless correspondences of numbers and concepts, one can be pretty sure one is looking at made up stuff. It's poetic in a way, but in a real sense nothing in nature works like that.
User avatar
Matt J
Posts: 1440
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 2:29 am
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Questioning Alayavijnana

Post by Matt J »

I think I'm clear on what alaya vijnana is, experientially, and I find I have come across the exact question.

From the point of view of direct experience, I come to the same problem. An unconscious mind can only exist as an inference. If so, then why would we presume many instead of one? Maybe everything is sprouting from a single unconscious source shared by all?

The other question is, maybe this is just the brain?

I wonder if Astus or anyone else has come up with more insight?
Astus wrote:Anjali,

We suppose an unconscious mind, but since we are never aware of it, it is only a supposition, an explanation without experiential basis. We could as well think that latencies abide on the other side of the universe, or whatever we like. And I'm not bringing in any Madhyamaka arguments, like from the Madhyamakavatara.
"The world is made of stories, not atoms."
--- Muriel Rukeyser
User avatar
viniketa
Posts: 820
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:39 am
Location: USA

Re: Questioning Alayavijnana

Post by viniketa »

Matt J wrote:I think I'm clear on what alaya vijnana is, experientially, and I find I have come across the exact question.

From the point of view of direct experience, I come to the same problem. An unconscious mind can only exist as an inference. If so, then why would we presume many instead of one? Maybe everything is sprouting from a single unconscious source shared by all?

The other question is, maybe this is just the brain?

I wonder if Astus or anyone else has come up with more insight?
Astus wrote:Anjali,

We suppose an unconscious mind, but since we are never aware of it, it is only a supposition, an explanation without experiential basis. We could as well think that latencies abide on the other side of the universe, or whatever we like. And I'm not bringing in any Madhyamaka arguments, like from the Madhyamakavatara.
It's difficult to document the 'experiential' for the Academic forum... but it is there...

I cannot locate the reference at the moment but, even though HHDL uses the term 'unconscious' for Western audiences, there is a talk in which he says that, in Buddhist philosophy, there is no 'unconscious' as all levels of consciousness are accessible in deep levels of meditation. As for "why would we presume many instead of one", technically, there is only "one" consciousness with many 'aspects' that some 'rank order' as 'levels'. See the "51 mental factors" of the Abhidharma.

BTW, among the 51 you will not find one labeled 'unconscious'.

:namaste:

P.S: Here is a link where it is said that even 'sleep' is conscious: http://integral-options.blogspot.com/20 ... nical.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
If they can sever like and dislike, along with greed, anger, and delusion, regardless of their difference in nature, they will all accomplish the Buddha Path.. ~ Sutra of Complete Enlightenment
User avatar
catmoon
Former staff member
Posts: 3423
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 3:20 am
Location: British Columbia

Re: Questioning Alayavijnana

Post by catmoon »

Is alayavijnana the same thing the Dalai Lama refers to as "very subtle mind?" If so, his writings are a gold mine on the subject.
Sergeant Schultz knew everything there was to know.
User avatar
viniketa
Posts: 820
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:39 am
Location: USA

Re: Questioning Alayavijnana

Post by viniketa »

catmoon wrote:Is alayavijnana the same thing the Dalai Lama refers to as "very subtle mind?" If so, his writings are a gold mine on the subject.
My understanding is that HHDL uses "very subtle mind" to refer to "clear light mind', i.e., Buddha-nature. Whether or not Buddha-nature = ālaya among Gelugpa, I cannot say. However, ālayavijñāna is not = Buddha-nature in any school, to my knowledge.

:namaste:
If they can sever like and dislike, along with greed, anger, and delusion, regardless of their difference in nature, they will all accomplish the Buddha Path.. ~ Sutra of Complete Enlightenment
User avatar
Astus
Former staff member
Posts: 8881
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Budapest

Re: Questioning Alayavijnana

Post by Astus »

Matt,

Here was my final conclusion on the matter.

viniketa,

The alayavijnana is unconscious because we are not conscious of it. Seeds are latent tendencies, and there are myriads of them.
1 Myriad dharmas are only mind.
Mind is unobtainable.
What is there to seek?

2 If the Buddha-Nature is seen,
there will be no seeing of a nature in any thing.

3 Neither cultivation nor seated meditation —
this is the pure Chan of Tathagata.

4 With sudden enlightenment to Tathagata Chan,
the six paramitas and myriad means
are complete within that essence.


1 Huangbo, T2012Ap381c1 2 Nirvana Sutra, T374p521b3; tr. Yamamoto 3 Mazu, X1321p3b23; tr. J. Jia 4 Yongjia, T2014p395c14; tr. from "The Sword of Wisdom"
User avatar
viniketa
Posts: 820
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:39 am
Location: USA

Re: Questioning Alayavijnana

Post by viniketa »

Astus wrote:The alayavijnana is unconscious because we are not conscious of it. Seeds are latent tendencies, and there are myriads of them.
However, there may be another way to look at ālayavijñāna. Latent merely means underneath or hidden. Wm. Waldron refers to the ālayavijñāna as "subliminal consciousness"; meaning just below the surface (see here).

You said:
Astus wrote:The seeds are simply our unquestioned views we follow all the time. Once seen through, it's all gone.
How can one "see through" the seeds if one cannot even "see" the container of the seeds?

The point is merely that "levels of consciousness" has to do with the focus of attention; meditation (at least some forms of it) is about focusing attention.

:namaste:
If they can sever like and dislike, along with greed, anger, and delusion, regardless of their difference in nature, they will all accomplish the Buddha Path.. ~ Sutra of Complete Enlightenment
User avatar
Grigoris
Former staff member
Posts: 21906
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Questioning Alayavijnana

Post by Grigoris »

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

"Levels" of consciousness is maybe not the best way to describe what is happening, modes of consciousness would be much more to the point.

Citta- consciousness
Vijnana - sense mind
Mano vijnana - discriminating mind
Manas - intuitive mind
Alaya vijnana - store house of mind
Alaya - enlightened nature
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde
User avatar
viniketa
Posts: 820
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:39 am
Location: USA

Re: Questioning Alayavijnana

Post by viniketa »

gregkavarnos wrote:Of course you can "see" the seeds, they are what manifests via manas into mano vijnana, vijnana and citta. You cannot "see" your tendencies? Okay, it may take a little introspection sometimes, but some are so obvious...
If I am not mistaken, this "internal" function of manas is specifically indentified in the Pali Abhidhamma as well at the Abhidharma.

Sorry, no references, but I will look for them...
:namaste:
If they can sever like and dislike, along with greed, anger, and delusion, regardless of their difference in nature, they will all accomplish the Buddha Path.. ~ Sutra of Complete Enlightenment
User avatar
Matt J
Posts: 1440
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 2:29 am
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Questioning Alayavijnana

Post by Matt J »

The point is, once the "seeds" manifest, they are no longer latent. They are actualizing.

"Levels" of consciousness is a strange idea to me. Consciousness is formless, so how can it have levels?
gregkavarnos wrote:Of course you can "see" the seeds, they are what manifests via manas into mano vijnana, vijnana and citta. You cannot "see" your tendencies? Okay, it may take a little introspection sometimes, but some are so obvious...

"Levels" of consciousness is maybe not the best way to describe what is happening, modes of consciousness would be much more to the point.
"The world is made of stories, not atoms."
--- Muriel Rukeyser
User avatar
Astus
Former staff member
Posts: 8881
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Budapest

Re: Questioning Alayavijnana

Post by Astus »

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

2 If the Buddha-Nature is seen,
there will be no seeing of a nature in any thing.

3 Neither cultivation nor seated meditation —
this is the pure Chan of Tathagata.

4 With sudden enlightenment to Tathagata Chan,
the six paramitas and myriad means
are complete within that essence.


1 Huangbo, T2012Ap381c1 2 Nirvana Sutra, T374p521b3; tr. Yamamoto 3 Mazu, X1321p3b23; tr. J. Jia 4 Yongjia, T2014p395c14; tr. from "The Sword of Wisdom"
User avatar
anjali
Former staff member
Posts: 1662
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 10:33 pm

Re: Questioning Alayavijnana

Post by anjali »

Matt J wrote:"Levels" of consciousness is a strange idea to me. Consciousness is formless, so how can it have levels?
I've read that some people have thought of these "levels" more as facets of consciousness. From a practitioner's point of view, I'm not sure it matters which analogy one uses.
Image
Post Reply

Return to “Academic Discussion”