Questioning Alayavijnana

[dharmagoat]

We are not limited to the traditional Buddhist dogmas, and it is not "buddha-dharma" to adhere dogmatically to buddhist cannons and treatises. It is our duty to reevaluate constantly. If it is a living tradition we will do that. Anything living must change. We should try to expose flaws in our predecessors' reasoning. This is not about being arrogant and wanting to start a new school. It's only about being a responsible person, keeping both feet on the ground and genuinely working with the subject matter.

Amen. I couldn't have said it better if I tried.

[Malcolm]

But if you take the alayavijnana to be emptiness...

But it isn't, except in Candrakirti's scheme of things.

So what you are saying is you don't agree with Candrakirti. You haven't shown "it isn't."

Candrakirti has no interest in representing the yogacara theory from the point of view of Yogacarins. He is only interested in negating it.

[Malcolm]

Obviously. If you really are going to hold this as a view, then there is no reason even to use something like an 8 Consciousness model. The model is there to represent what happens when you don't know all consciousnesses are empty.

No, the model is actually there to explain, among other things, why it is that when someone experiences nirodha samapatti, their mind can resume functioning.

M

[Malcolm]

The discrepancies between Mahayana, Vajrayana, Mahamudra and Dzogchen. Mahayana you have Yogacara and 8 consciousness. Vajrayana goes along with that somewhat but Kagyu Mahamudra makes this distinction with Alaya as pure. Then, Dzogchen says Alaya is ignorance and posits the Gzhi.

Different terminology elaborated at different times, for different purposes, for different reasons. There is no need to try and sew it all up in a nice neat package.

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day. ó 'Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.' ó Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood."

--- Ralph Waldo Emerson

[Huifeng]

Obviously. If you really are going to hold this as a view, then there is no reason even to use something like an 8 Consciousness model. The model is there to represent what happens when you don't know all consciousnesses are empty.

No, the model is actually there to explain, among other things, why it is that when someone experiences nirodha samapatti, their mind can resume functioning.

M

And, the flip side, how a formless god can resume a physical form after taking rebirth in a form realm.
From form and no mind to form and mind; and from no form and mind to form and mind.

All connected through the basic notion of dharmas arising from a continuous series of same type.

~~ Huifeng

[Jnana]

BTW, why do you want to redefine the ālayavijñāna to be equivalent to nirvāṇa? What do you hope for this hermeneutic maneuver to solve or reconcile?

The discrepancies between Mahayana, Vajrayana, Mahamudra and Dzogchen.

Well, I'd suggest that at some point practice becomes radically simple and these apparent discrepancies lose momentum and fall away.

[Virgo]

To be great is to be misunderstood."
--- Ralph Waldo Emerson

"To have a strong Pluto placement is to be misunderstood." -- Kevin

[gregkavarnos]

[deepbluehum]

Obviously. If you really are going to hold this as a view, then there is no reason even to use something like an 8 Consciousness model. The model is there to represent what happens when you don't know all consciousnesses are empty.

No, the model is actually there to explain, among other things, why it is that when someone experiences nirodha samapatti, their mind can resume functioning.

M

Okay. Among other things.

[deepbluehum]

The discrepancies between Mahayana, Vajrayana, Mahamudra and Dzogchen. Mahayana you have Yogacara and 8 consciousness. Vajrayana goes along with that somewhat but Kagyu Mahamudra makes this distinction with Alaya as pure. Then, Dzogchen says Alaya is ignorance and posits the Gzhi.

Different terminology elaborated at different times, for different purposes, for different reasons. There is no need to try and sew it all up in a nice neat package.

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day. ó 'Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.' ó Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood."

--- Ralph Waldo Emerson

Very cute and poetic. Can't do much with it. The Buddha boiled it down to 12-links. We are essentially dealing with a problem/solution dynamic. Pragmatism is the best course. To take a pragmatic approach one needs heuristics otherwise no one can solve the problem. For example, to catch a baseball "keep your eye on the ball."

[deepbluehum]

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.

[Malcolm]

Very cute and poetic. Can't do much with it. The Buddha boiled it down to 12-links.

The twelve links can be further reduced to three, as Nagarjuna puts it --> affliction --> action --> suffering --> affliction -->.

[Malcolm]

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 basic point is that different explanations were elaborated at different times, for different purposes.

[deepbluehum]

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 basic point is that different explanations were elaborated at different times, for different purposes.

This time we have new needs.

[Malcolm]

This time we have new needs.

Makng Milanese stew however is not the solution.

[deepbluehum]

Very cute and poetic. Can't do much with it. The Buddha boiled it down to 12-links.

The twelve links can be further reduced to three, as Nagarjuna puts it --> affliction --> action --> suffering --> affliction -->.

The question is whether these three are sufficient to carry out the task of "nibbana-ing" afflictions or whether the 12-links are necessary. To be precise, the 12-links are the heuristic that short circuits the problem. 8-consciousness and for Buddha the skandhas and 5-sense consciousness are a models of experience that one recognizes in the process. It seems these two models reinforce one another.

As to the OP's issue, in Lankavatara Sutra, the Alaya-vijnana (aka Alaya) is equated with the dharmakaya.

[deepbluehum]

This time we have new needs.

Makng Milanese stew however is not the solution.

That's what happens when you take really divergent systems and try to combine them, like Christianity, Hinduism and Buddhism.

What I'm making is more of a reduction.

[Malcolm]

This time we have new needs.

Makng Milanese stew however is not the solution.

That's what happens when you take really divergent systems and try to combine them, like Christianity, Hinduism and Buddhism.

What I'm making is more of a reduction.

It won't work. The terms of these different tenet systems are incommensurate. Of course you can have critical reevaluations of them, such as Candrakirti's revaluation of the term ālayavijñāna as "consciousness apprehending the basis i.e. emptiness, but it does not mean there is a unified field theory that ties all these tenet systems together. Realism includes all tenet systems up the the level of Madhyamaka. Even Madhyamaka subscribes to a qualified realism through its teaching of the two truths. Mahamudra does not really go beyond Madhyamaka in this respect.

The use of the eight consciousnesses in Vajrayāna systems is related to the eight channel spokes of the heart cakra, etc.

M

[Will]

There may not be a tenet unified field theory, but there is a way to harmonize all tenets of any Dharma path.

Every mind has its tendencies from many lives, and these minds are unique. Some are more similar to each other, but still unique. So Buddha used skillful means to present paths that fit the many differing minds. Within the buddhadharma all paths lead in the same direction of Buddhahood. All may not reach it, but some minds do not care to reach Buddhahood.

[deepbluehum]

Realism includes all tenet systems up the the level of Madhyamaka. Even Madhyamaka subscribes to a qualified realism through its teaching of the two truths. Mahamudra does not really go beyond Madhyamaka in this respect.

I don't understand how realism enters into this discussion.

The use of the eight consciousnesses in Vajrayāna systems is related to the eight channel spokes of the heart cakra, etc.

I have often felt intuitively that tantra's obsession with numerical correspondences was rather arbitrary.