Dharma Wheel

A Buddhist discussion forum on Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism
It is currently Mon Dec 22, 2014 6:50 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Forum rules


Please click here to view the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 185 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 10  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Jun 30, 2012 7:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2011 11:58 pm
Posts: 1428
Post


Last edited by Lhug-Pa on Sat Jun 30, 2012 8:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 30, 2012 7:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2011 2:05 am
Posts: 1302
Location: San Francisco, CA
Malcolm wrote:
deepbluehum wrote:
It is this erroneous thinking that has created so much confusion over the centuries.



No, it is a simple definition found in various sutras.


I question their validity.


Quote:
Quote:
Emptiness can never disappear. The Alaya-vijnana is emptiness.


Yes, according to the definition of Candrakirit given in the Madhyamaka-avatarabhasyaṃ but not according to the definition of the cittamatra school. So you have to be clear whose definition you are speaking from. Incidentally, in the tantras, they use the definition of the cittamatra school since ālayavijñāna is relative consciounsess that is a function of the body.


All these variations of explanatory models to serve specific needs is unnecessary.


Quote:
Quote:
I resolved these discrepancies. Take another look at my analysis. What you said might be the formulaic subscriptions given by certain teachers from certain lineages at certain times, but there is no reason to think these should remain so fixed.


I go by the definitions provided in the man ngag sde tantras where the definition of the ālaya is well defined. It is of little use to reconcile different terminologies apart from noting that they refer to different things.


See I don't agree with you here. I think everything needs to be reconciled. The fact that there isn't a monolithically reconciled framework, to me, shows this is not the work of enlightened beings who are supposed to share the same enlightenment. I don't agree there are degrees of enlightenment.

Quote:
In Mahāmudra and Lamdre, ālaya refers to the nature of the mind i.e. inseperable clarity and emptiness. In Dzogchen ālaya refers to ignorance. It is very simple. Not even worth a discussion, really.


It's only polemics and one-upsmanship. What it shows me, with respect to all these Mahayana sutras and tantras is that we are dealing with a work in progress. The jury of Buddhas is still out how all this is going to finally be resolved.

Making the cognitive obscuration a function of the 7th, and the afflictive a part of the 6th, basically frees the 8th to be nirvana. To apply this to tantra: The contact with the consort is body contact. The enjoyment is the 6th and the deity's form is the seventh, transformed to mahamudra is the 8th. To Dzogchen, the clarity is the 5th, the DI destroys the 6th & 7th like an arrow through two cloths, and Dzogchen is the 8th. To me, this is more simple than trying to speak with a trident tongue.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 30, 2012 7:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2011 2:05 am
Posts: 1302
Location: San Francisco, CA
Lhug-Pa wrote:
Good thread.

What is a simple and short way to describe the difference between the Alaya and the Alaya-Vijnana?

Or is there even a difference?

(I do have an intellectual idea of the difference between the Alaya and the gZhi/Sthana/Laya/Asraya(?)/Ashraya(?); that Malcolm is referring to here).


Alaya-vijnana=afflicted/obscured; Alaya=not


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 30, 2012 8:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2011 11:58 pm
Posts: 1428
Ah that's right, thanks Deepbluehum.

In fact, I'd noted the difference myself a while back:


Lhug-Pa wrote:
I think it is that the Kunzhi has ignorance, yet no afflictions; and that the Kunzhi-Namshe is the storehouse of habits and afflictions.

Whereas the gZhi has neither ignorance nor afflictions.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 30, 2012 8:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2011 2:05 am
Posts: 1302
Location: San Francisco, CA
I just added the stuff above as food for thought in the spirit of freedom from limitations.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 30, 2012 8:33 pm 
Online
Former staff member
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Posts: 10290
Location: Greece
deepbluehum wrote:
Alaya-vijnana=afflicted/obscured; Alaya=not
Apparently, since none of us have seen this difference. ;)

_________________
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 30, 2012 8:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am
Posts: 12736
deepbluehum wrote:

Quote:
In Mahāmudra and Lamdre, ālaya refers to the nature of the mind i.e. inseperable clarity and emptiness. In Dzogchen ālaya refers to ignorance. It is very simple. Not even worth a discussion, really.

It's only polemics and one-upsmanship.


No, it is just a different system with a different terminology.

M

_________________
http://www.atikosha.org
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://www.sakyapa.net
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

How can you not practice the highest Dharma
at this time of obtaining a perfect human body?

-- Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 30, 2012 8:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am
Posts: 12736
deepbluehum wrote:

See I don't agree with you here. I think everything needs to be reconciled.


Have at it then -- but AFAIC, it is a colossal waste of time.

_________________
http://www.atikosha.org
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://www.sakyapa.net
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

How can you not practice the highest Dharma
at this time of obtaining a perfect human body?

-- Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 30, 2012 8:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am
Posts: 12736
deepbluehum wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
deepbluehum wrote:
It is this erroneous thinking that has created so much confusion over the centuries.



No, it is a simple definition found in various sutras.


I question their validity.




Since the whole concept of the ālaya-vijñāna comes from sutra, it is a little strange to contest the definitions set out by the defining literature.

_________________
http://www.atikosha.org
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://www.sakyapa.net
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

How can you not practice the highest Dharma
at this time of obtaining a perfect human body?

-- Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 30, 2012 8:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am
Posts: 12736
deepbluehum wrote:
Dzogchen is the 8th.


So you have just reduced Dzogchen to the level of mind.

_________________
http://www.atikosha.org
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://www.sakyapa.net
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

How can you not practice the highest Dharma
at this time of obtaining a perfect human body?

-- Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 30, 2012 10:52 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 4:21 am
Posts: 1952
Maybe I missed a post with these definitions by Asanga; from Rahula's translation:

Quote:
(1) What is mind (citta)? It is the base-consciousness of all the seeds (sarvabījakam ālayavijñānam) impregnated by the traces (vāsanāparibhāvita) of the aggregates (skandha), of the elements (dhātu) and the sense-spheres (āyatana). The maturation-consciousness (vipākavijñāna) and the appropriating- consciousness (ādānavijñāna) are also the same thing as a result of accumulation of these traces (tad vāsanācitatā).


Quote:
(2)
What is the mentation/mental sense-faculty (manas)?
The ālayavijñāna, as object (ālayavijñānālambana), always accompanies that which is of the nature of conceiving (manyanātmaka) which is associated with the four defilements, viz. the view of a ‘self’ (ātmadṛṣṭi), self-love (ātmasneha), the conceit ‘I am’/feeling of identity (asmimāna) and ignorance (avidyā). [That which is of the nature of conceiving, i.e., the manas,] is present everywhere (sarvatraga), in wholesome (kuśala), unwholesome (akuśala) or neutral (avyākṛta) states, except in the case of facing the the Path (margasammukhībhāva), the absorption of cessation (nirodhasamāpatti), the stage of those beyond training (aśaikṣabhūmi)59 and also the consciousness that has just this instant ceased among the six kinds of consciousness.


Cannot say it clarifies anything for this blockhead.

_________________
Only consider helping others and forget yourself. Master Hsuan Hua


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 30, 2012 11:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2011 9:05 pm
Posts: 160
gregkavarnos wrote:
In Theravadran Abhidhamma they get around this glitch through the presence of the Bhavanga, or life continuim consciousness, which is like neutral or idling mode for the mind.
:namaste:

Thanks. I found this interesting article that traces the concept of alayavijnana from its precedents in Theravada. Professor William Waldron: "How innovative is the Alayavijnana?"
http://www.gampoabbey.org/documents/Waldron%20HIIA-revised-b.pdf
Best wishes
Lars


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 01, 2012 2:20 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 12:58 pm
Posts: 1106
deepbluehum wrote:
I think everything needs to be reconciled.

These different systems can be reconciled, but not by conflating and confusing how terms are used differently in each system.

A good example of how Yogācāra can be used in conjunction with Vajrayāna and Mahāmudrā is illustrated in the treatises of Karmapa Rangjung Dorje.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 01, 2012 2:22 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 12:58 pm
Posts: 1106
Malcolm wrote:
The ālayavijñāna is afflicted since it stores the bijas of affliction.

Yes -- because the ālayavijñāna has all the seeds (sarvabījaka) it is the root of affliction (saṃkleśamūla) and the cause of the continuance of the afflictions (kleśa-pravṛtti-hetu).

Malcolm wrote:
Once all the traces have been eradicated, the ālayavijñāna disappears.

Yes, and this is also well attested in the Yogācāra texts. The Yogācārabhūmiśāstra Viniścayasaṃgrahaṇī:

    [O]ne should understand that ālaya-vijñāna, which is the root of the defilements, ceases through the cultivation of skillful dharmas (kuśala-dharma-bhāvanā)....

    [T]hose who have the [six forms of] arising cognitive awareness but do not have ālaya-vijñāna are Arhats, Pratyekabuddhas, irreversible (avinivartanīya) Bodhisattvas, or a Tathāgata in conscious states (sacittakāvasthā).

Malcolm wrote:
There is a difference between the ālaya discussed in Mahāmudra teachings and the ālayavijñāna. However in Dzogchen teachings, the ālaya is also considered afflicted. In Dzogchen ālaya = avidyā.

I go by the definitions provided in the man ngag sde tantras where the definition of the ālaya is well defined. It is of little use to reconcile different terminologies apart from noting that they refer to different things.

In Mahāmudra and Lamdre, ālaya refers to the nature of the mind i.e. inseperable clarity and emptiness. In Dzogchen ālaya refers to ignorance. It is very simple. Not even worth a discussion, really.

Indeed.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 01, 2012 9:39 pm 
Offline
Former staff member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Posts: 4203
Location: Budapest
I'm not sure which one is the case, but it seems the question is either said incorrectly by me, or I don't see the answers' relevance to it, or its meaning has eluded those who have kindly replied. So now I try from a slightly different perspective.

Let's say that the alayavijnana is simply a theoretical supposition, a convenient explanation about how memory, mind and karma works. The seeds are simply our unquestioned views we follow all the time. Once seen through, it's all gone. Unfortunately, this makes the whole argument for alayavijnana quite weak.

_________________
"There is no such thing as the real mind. Ridding yourself of delusion: that's the real mind."
(Sheng-yen: Getting the Buddha Mind, p 73)

"Neither cultivation nor seated meditation — this is the pure Chan of Tathagata."
(Mazu Daoyi, X1321p3b23; tr. Jinhua Jia)

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

(Nanyue Mingzan: Enjoying the Way, tr. Jeff Shore; T2076p461b24-26)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 01, 2012 10:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:30 pm
Posts: 1444
Astus wrote:
I'm not sure which one is the case, but it seems the question is either said incorrectly by me, or I don't see the answers' relevance to it, or its meaning has eluded those who have kindly replied. So now I try from a slightly different perspective.

Let's say that the alayavijnana is simply a theoretical supposition, a convenient explanation about how memory, mind and karma works. The seeds are simply our unquestioned views we follow all the time. Once seen through, it's all gone. Unfortunately, this makes the whole argument for alayavijnana quite weak.


But those unquestioned views generally remain unquestioned for the majority of people. Some are so deeply engrained that the truth remains elusive even when questioned and analyzed repeatedly. Seeing through that veil isn't so easy, and that veil of presuppositions actually manifests as perceptions which appear to be inherent aspects of experience to the untrained eye. Granted once a perception is seen for what it is it does lose it's luster, but some perceptions are so reified through habitual tendencies that their effect can remain indefinitely. It's a veil or a cloud and it serves to block and inhibit true knowledge, doesn't mean it's a physical or mental thing, but it's an abstraction composed of a variety of interlinking causes no doubt.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 01, 2012 11:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2011 9:05 pm
Posts: 160
Astus wrote:
Let's say that the alayavijnana is simply a theoretical supposition, a convenient explanation about how memory, mind and karma works. The seeds are simply our unquestioned views we follow all the time. Once seen through, it's all gone. Unfortunately, this makes the whole argument for alayavijnana quite weak.

I think that you are right. It seems like the main argument for the alayavijnana is: how else would you explain continuity, etc, in a way that doesn't contradict some other tenets? I understand William Waldron's paper to the effect that previous explanations of memory, continuity etc had been called into question, and the yogacara resolved the questions by proposing this 'unconscious' and unobservable category of consciousness, which however is conveniently also impossible to 'test' in a modern Karl Popper-sense.

Of course if one wanted to defend the alayavijnana that would probably be the question to ask you: what's the alternative?

Best wishes
Lars
p.s. If I am completely missing the point then please forgive me. :oops: :)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2012 3:10 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:48 pm
Posts: 963
Astus wrote:
deepbluehum wrote:
What you are dealing with here is the problem of avidya. How can anger arise without your being conscious of it? Once it's full blown, you are conscious of it. But it comes on to you unawares. As soon as the circumstances align, it jumps out. This is the meaning of seed. Eye organ contacts object, pleasant or painful, generates eye-consciousness, aroused by memory and then anger can arise. This is the seed. In a sense Alaya-vijnana is memory stored deep in the "unconscious."

So the "seeds" are dependent originations. Buddhas don't see them because of that. So turning your attention to the process, seeing nothing, they disappear, slowly never to reappear. That's how it goes.


You just say that there is alayavijnana, but you don't answer how can there be mental phenomena without being aware of them. It is a problem because if there is no need of consciousness for a mental phenomena, then there are thoughts without being thought, and even a stone could have mental phenomena.



HEY ASTUS

I dont know mabey we cant see it and are not aware of it cause the mental phenomena isnt ours to begin with.with our tainted self we are conscious of the preceived "I" or ME in our thoughts,and the Alayavijnana isnt "mine" or has anything to do with the tainted self."I" am not a Buddha nor could "I" ever be a Buddha,mabey when "I" cease Alayavijnana begins,who is really aware or conscious of the mental phenomena???

hmmmm just a guess.

Peace and Love


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2012 3:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2011 2:05 am
Posts: 1302
Location: San Francisco, CA
Jnana wrote:
deepbluehum wrote:
I think everything needs to be reconciled.

These different systems can be reconciled, but not by conflating and confusing how terms are used differently in each system.

A good example of how Yogācāra can be used in conjunction with Vajrayāna and Mahāmudrā is illustrated in the treatises of Karmapa Rangjung Dorje.


Actually what I've presented came from a Kagyu transmission. I didn't make it up, I just wrote it down. After I took a closer look at it, I was amazed. It does resolve conflicts in these formulations.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2012 3:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2011 2:05 am
Posts: 1302
Location: San Francisco, CA
Malcolm wrote:
deepbluehum wrote:
Dzogchen is the 8th.


So you have just reduced Dzogchen to the level of mind.


Not really. 8th is emptiness, etc.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 185 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 10  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group