Candrakirti and the ālaya

[cloudburst]

There are some who thought the Buddha taught such a thing aka the Pudgalavadins. I myself have never seen a sutra statement, for example, in the Pali canon, where the Buddha unambiguously claims there is an ultimate self of the kind proposed by Pudgalavadins.

interesting.

Perhaps you can send me a citation by PM where he says such a thing. To me it seems a little strange and not in accordance with what I have understood about the Buddha's teaching in the Pali canon, etc.

sure, I'll have to find it. It's in his commentary on the Avatara, probably on this section, bet 35 and 44... I'll let you know.

I suggest you read the Kosha, Chapter nine.

love to

If you think the Buddha taught such an ultimate self, or the aggregate(!?) as ultimate, please tell me where.

can't, just picked it up out of the air after reading thousands of pages of commentary. Never heard the notion challenged, so never really invesigated. I'll see if I can trace it down to something concrete.

[cloudburst]

Cloudburst-

Doesn't it make more sense to "birth" a storehouse consciousness, inherent or not, due to things such as "memories," "habits," etc., than to create the notion of ālayavijñāna as that which is merely the "mental consciousness knowing emptiness?"

Only if it were requited to explain conventional reality such as memory, habit etc.. Since the mental consciousness can perform the function, there is really no need for an eighth consciousness. If this explanation were born from a misunderstanding of Buddha, better to excise it.

The ālaya is emptiness, that is all that is needed for karma to function. No consciousness that stores seeds is required. But consciousness can know that emptiness, this is how Jayananda is glossing things because of the Lanka passage which describes the ālayavijñāna as subtle and deep, and easily mistaken for a self and also the Lanka passage to declares ālayavijñāna is emptiness.

N

ok. or that.

[cloudburst]

So then the question becomes not so much about the this consciousness, the ālayavijñāna, but paratantra, dependent nature.

pass. It's the two truths fro me, you an keep your three natures. I find the explanation produces more problems than it solves

As to your first question -- definitely this is Jayananda's interpretation. Given the way Candrakirti cites the Lanka to this effect, it is probable that this is Candra's point of view as well, though I would not swear to it. Given that the Budddha of the Lanka also treats the Ālaya as an interpretable doctrine, the Buddha (as presented in this sutra) seems to have presented ālayavijn̄āna to just a consciousness that apprehends emptiness, but it is not so clearly stated. All the Buddha really says there is that "know that only emptiness is indicated by the [the term] ālayavijñāna".

I find all this very interesting. It is novel (to me), intriguing and, as long as we are not positing the old eighth storehouse consciouness, satisfying.

I am sorry but I will have to spend some serious amount of time with these things before I really can respond any further. But I will. Jayananda has an exhaustive presentation of his perspective on Yogacara that fills his commentary.

Well, we will look forward to it.

It will be a different world when more of the classical Indian texts get translated.
I personally find it bizarre that no-one has translated Prasannapada or the Avatarabhyasya or the Catuhsatakatika. I suppose patience is the order of the day.

[Malcolm]

I personally find it bizarre that no-one has translated Prasannapada or the Avatarabhyasya or the Catuhsatakatika. I suppose patience is the order of the day.

Yes, I agree and it is my personal bitch with Buddhist studies of Madhyamaka, as you know. There is no base line by which we can judge what all these Tibetans are gossiping about in their treatises unless one reads Tibetan and Sanskrit.

N