Beings and consciousnesses, one or many?

[Malcolm]

My point is that the ālayavijñāna seems to speak to 'dual existence' (in samsāra), while the vimuktikāyo is said to be dvidhādauṣṭhulyahānitaḥ, sa evānāśravo dhātur acintyaḥ kuśalo dhruvaḥ.

My understanding is that the ālayavijñāna contains bīja, vāsanā (karmic 'impressions') which provide 'initial conditions' for a continuum. But I do not find in the literature that those vāsanā, if bīja are 'nullified', have any effect on the process of āśrayasyaparāvṛtti, 'return to the basis'.

This is what I am finding confusing.

The transformation of the basis is the conversion of vijñāna to jñāna based on the eradication of the bijas.

The Mahāyāna saṃgraha contains a complete account.

[Greg]

In fairness, it is not entirely clear how grahika and grahya could be nondual and yet cittasantanas are still multiple in some sense. One can also see how East Asian stuff like rocks and mountains having Buddha nature arose - if grahika and grahya are nondual how could they not?

[viniketa]

The transformation of the basis is the conversion of vijñāna to jñāna based on the eradication of the bijas. The Mahāyāna saṃgraha contains a complete account.

Thank you for the reply, Malcolm. Unfortunately, it is not all that clear in the Mahāyānasaṃgraha, as the original Sanskrit has been lost. Perhaps it seems more clear in the Tibetan. There is a tendency to translate these passages into Romance languages (such as English and French) in the manner of the 'conversion of' or 'transformation of' x to y, whereas recent scholarship suggests that the proper translation of āśrayasyaparāvṛtti, in Sanskrit, should be 'revolution to' or 'reverting to' the basis; this is quite distinct from the idea of releasing an alambana as the object/objective/support of concentration (aka, 'non-grasping'). This seems important, as 'reverting to the basis' is quite a different process, and would seem to be more in-line with developments in Ch'an, T'ian T'ai, and Dzogchen.

[viniketa]

BTW, Moderators, would this thread be not be better placed in 'Dharma-free-for-all'?

[catmoon]

Done.

[viniketa]

Thank you, catmoon!

[Malcolm]

In fairness, it is not entirely clear how grahika and grahya could be nondual and yet cittasantanas are still multiple in some sense. One can also see how East Asian stuff like rocks and mountains having Buddha nature arose - if grahika and grahya are nondual how could they not?

Cittasantanas are real. Subject and object are not.

[Greg]

In fairness, it is not entirely clear how grahika and grahya could be nondual and yet cittasantanas are still multiple in some sense. One can also see how East Asian stuff like rocks and mountains having Buddha nature arose - if grahika and grahya are nondual how could they not?

Cittasantanas are real. Subject and object are not.

I'm still not clear as to how cittasantanas could be real and multiple without being subjects and objects of one another. Multiplicity and nonduality would seem to be mutually exclusive.

[Karma Dondrup Tashi]

Please excuse the newb question - I presume in Vajrayana 'citta-santana' is pretty much the same as 'bindu'?

[Malcolm]

Please excuse the newb question - I presume in Vajrayana 'citta-santana' is pretty much the same as 'bindu'?

citta santana means "mind stream".

[Malcolm]

In fairness, it is not entirely clear how grahika and grahya could be nondual and yet cittasantanas are still multiple in some sense. One can also see how East Asian stuff like rocks and mountains having Buddha nature arose - if grahika and grahya are nondual how could they not?

Cittasantanas are real. Subject and object are not.

I'm still not clear as to how cittasantanas could be real and multiple without being subjects and objects of one another. Multiplicity and nonduality would seem to be mutually exclusive.

They can be subjects and objects of each other. This is specifically admitted in Yogacara theory. What does not exist is the apparent external world of subjects and objects.

[Karma Dondrup Tashi]

citta santana means "mind stream".

_/\_

Right. But I meant - the mindsteam is the bindu, correct? I.e. they aren't really different things?

[Malcolm]

citta santana means "mind stream".

_/\_

Right. But I meant - the mindsteam is the bindu, correct? I.e. they aren't really different things?

In father tantra, bindu refers to vāyu.

[Karma Dondrup Tashi]

In father tantra, bindu refers to vāyu.

_/\_

Would you consider that thigle chenpo (qua fruit) could be understood as somewhat analogous to the concept of a "mindstream"?

I am pretty certain I am not asking this question in the right way and in any case I don't mean to derail the discussion with my more simple questions. Just trying to make a connection.

[Lotus_Bitch]

there is no contradiction to the advaita vedanta and dzogchen perspective of the basis.

Of course there are differences: deep and important differences. Only someone ignorant of the details of both with make such a ridiculous claim.

I find what jyoti is saying funny, because Adi Shankaracharya totally dismissed the possibility of individual alayavijnana's. Advaita Vedanta is very much a theistic/eternalist view of existence.

[Jnana]

There is a tendency to translate these passages into Romance languages (such as English and French) in the manner of the 'conversion of' or 'transformation of' x to y, whereas recent scholarship suggests that the proper translation of āśrayasyaparāvṛtti, in Sanskrit, should be 'revolution to' or 'reverting to' the basis; this is quite distinct from the idea of releasing an alambana as the object/objective/support of concentration (aka, 'non-grasping'). This seems important, as 'reverting to the basis' is quite a different process, and would seem to be more in-line with developments in Ch'an, T'ian T'ai, and Dzogchen.

This is also explicit in some Yogācāra passages. As is the notion of the innate, luminous purity of the mind (citta prakṛtiprabhāsvara; citta-prakṛtiviśuddhi). According to this view the mind is innately pure and all obscurations are adventitious. The processes of the path just remove the defilements which cover and obscure this purity. For example, at the end of the Dharmadharmatāvibhāgavṛtti:

Although [upon full awakening] there has been a revolution of the basis, nothing has undergone an actual change. How this is the case is demonstrated by the analogies [of the sky, gold, water, etc., in the root text]....

For example, intrinsically, the sky is just pure. But it is not considered so when it is clouded over by mist, etc., which are adventitious to it. When it is free of that [mist, etc.] it is then [considered] pure.... The purity is not originated. Rather the purity is just [newly] seen when it has become free of what prevented it from being seen. The fact that the sky is [now] perceived to be pure does not mean that it should be taken as something which has undergone change.

Likewise, gold exists simply in its own splendor. But when its luster is hidden by adventitious stain one does not perceive [its splendor], and when it is freed from the stain its [splendor] is perceived. That is all. By perceiving [the splendor of the gold], one is not creating it.

Similarly, water exists simply in its own sparkling clarity. But the water, through its association with mud, is not perceived as [clear]. And when freed from the mud it is perceived [as such]. That is all. Perceiving it as such does not cause the substance of the water, which has been continually present, to generate [clarity], nor is that [clarity] created. One should not take the water to be something that has undergone change just because one [now] perceives its clarity.

In the same way, the innate luminosity in the revolved basis is not previously nonexistent. Rather, through the appearance of adventitious obscurations it did not appear, just like the impurity [in the above analogy of the sky], the lack of splendor [in the analogy of gold], and the lack of clarity [in the analogy of water]. That is all. When the [innate luminosity] is freed from those [obscurations] it appears. From this, through that revolution, the real nature (dharmatā) comes to appear; but by its appearing it is not [newly] generated, nor is it created. Because there is no [creation] of it, the real nature and the revolved basis consisting of it are constant.

[viniketa]

This is also explicit in some Yogācāra passages. As is the notion of the innate, luminous purity of the mind (citta prakṛtiprabhāsvara; citta-prakṛtiviśuddhi). According to this view the mind is innately pure and all obscurations are adventitious. The processes of the path just remove the defilements which cover and obscure this purity. For example, at the end of the Dharmadharmatāvibhāgavṛtti

Thank you for the note, Jnana. This is precisely that to which I was pointing. In English (conventional communication), time-space relational referents (prepositions) become very important. Changing "of" ->> "to" makes this 'innate' property of the 'purity' much more clear. It is an aspect of Yogācāra that seems often misinterpreted or overlooked. This, in turn, makes the position of 'not one, not many' more clear, as well.

I've read some of the English 'commentaries', but have not had access to the Dharmadharmatāvibhāga or its -vṛtti. Thank you for the quote.

[viniketa]

Multiplicity and nonduality would seem to be mutually exclusive.

Map the Aristotelian square of oppositions to this:



There is still a non-excluded middle that is a unity with the four 'extremes'....