Are there any schools of Mahayana or Vajrayana Buddhism that do not ascribe to the view that all is one mind?

[Dgj]

As far as I know, they all do, but I am largely uneducated in this area.

Are there any that would find fault with statements like this famous one by Huangbo: "All the Buddhas and all sentient beings are nothing but the One Mind, beside which nothing exists."

Or that specifically taught otherwise or counter to this idea? Or taught a doctrine that overruled or made this idea redundant or irrelevant?

[SteRo]

Only those that follow yogacara hold that view.

[zerwe]

If you have the time or inclination to study the major Tenet schools and their respective subdivisions within Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism (Vaibhashika, Sautantrika, Cittamatra, Svatantrika, and Madhyamaka) you will find that your statement is an enormous generalization that doesn't hold up.

Shaun

[Astus]

As far as I know, they all do, but I am largely uneducated in this area.

It really depends on whether Huangbo is understood correctly or incorrectly. If one reads that sentence as a statement about a single universal consciousness, that is not accepted by any Buddhist school, nor was that meant by Huangbo. If one understands it as that all appearances are suchness, then nobody has a problem with it in Mahayana or Vajrayana.

Also, just to make it clearer, besides the quoted translation by Blofeld, here are others:

"All the buddhas and sentient beings are only the one mind; there is no other dharma." (Buswell)
"All Buddhas and all sentient beings are no different from the One Mind." (Lok To)
"The Buddhas and all the sentient beings are only the One Mind—there are no other dharmas." (McRae)

[Dgj]

Only those that follow yogacara hold that view.

Thanks! Which ones don't? I see statements like this in most Mahayana and Vajrayana schools works.

[Simon E.]

As far as I know, they all do, but I am largely uneducated in this area.

It really depends on whether Huangbo is understood correctly or incorrectly. If one reads that sentence as a statement about a single universal consciousness, that is not accepted by any Buddhist school, nor was that meant by Huangbo. If one understands it as that all appearances are suchness, then nobody has a problem with it in Mahayana or Vajrayana.

Also, just to make it clearer, besides the quoted translation by Blofeld, here are others:

"All the buddhas and sentient beings are only the one mind; there is no other dharma." (Buswell)
"All Buddhas and all sentient beings are no different from the One Mind." (Lok To)
"The Buddhas and all the sentient beings are only the One Mind—there are no other dharmas." (McRae)

Dzogchen would and does demur.

[Astus]

Dzogchen would and does demur.

So according to dzogchen there are dharmas that are not such? Do you have some examples for those things?

[Dgj]

As far as I know, they all do, but I am largely uneducated in this area.

It really depends on whether Huangbo is understood correctly or incorrectly. If one reads that sentence as a statement about a single universal consciousness, that is not accepted by any Buddhist school, nor was that meant by Huangbo. If one understands it as that all appearances are suchness, then nobody has a problem with it in Mahayana or Vajrayana.

Also, just to make it clearer, besides the quoted translation by Blofeld, here are others:

"All the buddhas and sentient beings are only the one mind; there is no other dharma." (Buswell)
"All Buddhas and all sentient beings are no different from the One Mind." (Lok To)
"The Buddhas and all the sentient beings are only the One Mind—there are no other dharmas." (McRae)

Dzogchen would and does demur.

Thanks! Please elaborate.

[Johnny Dangerous]

None of them subscribe to the idea that everything is ‘one’ mind.

[Dgj]

As far as I know, they all do, but I am largely uneducated in this area.

It really depends on whether Huangbo is understood correctly or incorrectly. If one reads that sentence as a statement about a single universal consciousness, that is not accepted by any Buddhist school, nor was that meant by Huangbo. If one understands it as that all appearances are suchness, then nobody has a problem with it in Mahayana or Vajrayana.

Also, just to make it clearer, besides the quoted translation by Blofeld, here are others:

"All the buddhas and sentient beings are only the one mind; there is no other dharma." (Buswell)
"All Buddhas and all sentient beings are no different from the One Mind." (Lok To)
"The Buddhas and all the sentient beings are only the One Mind—there are no other dharmas." (McRae)

As far as I know, they all do, but I am largely uneducated in this area.

It really depends on whether Huangbo is understood correctly or incorrectly. If one reads that sentence as a statement about a single universal consciousness, that is not accepted by any Buddhist school, nor was that meant by Huangbo. If one understands it as that all appearances are suchness, then nobody has a problem with it in Mahayana or Vajrayana.

Also, just to make it clearer, besides the quoted translation by Blofeld, here are others:

"All the buddhas and sentient beings are only the one mind; there is no other dharma." (Buswell)
"All Buddhas and all sentient beings are no different from the One Mind." (Lok To)
"The Buddhas and all the sentient beings are only the One Mind—there are no other dharmas." (McRae)

Forgive my questioning please. I know you are vastly more educated than I on this topic, that's probably why I have questions; I'm uneducated.

Is it really possible that all these teachers stated "All is the One Mind..." Or similar, but none of them meant what the sentence literally means at face value? I understand how and why it means what you say it does. You've patiently and skillfully explained it before and I appreciate it.

That said, there are scholarly views that at least mention early Madhyamika thinkers countering this Yogacara view, which seems to imply they didn't immediately see it as meaning other than it sounds at face value. If they saw it as you present, there is nothing to refute.

For example:

"Another area in which Mādhyamakas differ from one another is in their attitude toward the other main school of Mahāyāna Buddhism, the Yogācāra school, which Mādhyamikas present as advocating a kind of subjective idealism. Early Mādhyamikas tended to refute the Yogācāra doctrine that all the contents within awareness arise out of awareness itself and are thus ontologically at one with consciousness. Later Mādhyamikas found room for that view, usually by portraying Yogācāra as a philosophy that prepares one intellectually and emotionally for the difficult truth that all things are lacking in inherent natures and all that we think of as knowledge is ultimately without grounding."

-Hayes, Richard, "Madhyamaka", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2019 Edition),

[LastLegend]

As far as I know, they all do, but I am largely uneducated in this area.

Are there any that would find fault with statements like this famous one by Huangbo: "All the Buddhas and all sentient beings are nothing but the One Mind, beside which nothing exists."

Nature is not a thing or located inside or outside, how can anything exists outside?

[SteRo]

Only those that follow yogacara hold that view.

Thanks! Which ones don't? I see statements like this in most Mahayana and Vajrayana schools works.

Many don't. But since this topic is dangerously close to a thicket of views I won't make statements like "this school doesn't" because one might find within all schools at least one exceptional sub-school that does.
JD's post seems noteworthy because saying "one mind" actually might be more easily associated with Hindu/advaita than with Mahayana yogacara.

[Astus]

Is it really possible that all these teachers stated "All is the One Mind..." Or similar, but none of them meant what the sentence literally means at face value?

Huangbo was not a Yogacara teacher, and what he calls One Mind is a term not for the eight consciousnesses but for buddha-mind, for suchness, for emptiness. See what he said:

"The Buddhas and all the sentient beings are only the One Mind—there are no other dharmas. Since beginningless time, this mind has never been generated and has never been extinguished, is neither blue nor yellow, is without shape and without characteristic, does not belong to being and nonbeing, does not consider new or old, is neither long nor short, and is neither large nor small. It transcends all limitations, names, traces, and correlations. It in itself—that’s it! To activate thoughts is to go against it! It is like space, which is boundless and immeasurable."
(Essentials of the Transmission of Mind, in Zen Texts, BDK ed, p 13)

Also note that in the very next chapter Huangbo calls it not One Mind but No Mind, and they mean the same thing actually, the ultimate realisation, that is, no conceptualisation, no attachment.

That said, there are scholarly views that at least mention early Madhyamika thinkers countering this Yogacara view, which seems to imply they didn't immediately see it as meaning other than it sounds at face value.

If you ask whether there are schools that do not follow the doctrine of consciousness only, that needs further clarification, because there are various interpretations of that term, so what is seemingly refuted by one is not actually the view of the other.

[Simon E.]

True that. And perhaps those who constantly forward a simplified Yogachara view as being the sole view of Buddhadharma might take note....

[LastLegend]

Characteristics of human self.
Characteristics of animal self.
Characteristics of demon self.
Characteristics of god self.
Characteristics of hungry ghost self.

Which one we want to be?

One Mind or no? Which one are we stuck with?

[Dgj]

Is it really possible that all these teachers stated "All is the One Mind..." Or similar, but none of them meant what the sentence literally means at face value?

Huangbo was not a Yogacara teacher, and what he calls One Mind is a term not for the eight consciousnesses but for buddha-mind, for suchness, for emptiness. See what he said:

"The Buddhas and all the sentient beings are only the One Mind—there are no other dharmas. Since beginningless time, this mind has never been generated and has never been extinguished, is neither blue nor yellow, is without shape and without characteristic, does not belong to being and nonbeing, does not consider new or old, is neither long nor short, and is neither large nor small. It transcends all limitations, names, traces, and correlations. It in itself—that’s it! To activate thoughts is to go against it! It is like space, which is boundless and immeasurable."
(Essentials of the Transmission of Mind, in Zen Texts, BDK ed, p 13)

Also note that in the very next chapter Huangbo calls it not One Mind but No Mind, and they mean the same thing actually, the ultimate realisation, that is, no conceptualisation, no attachment.

That said, there are scholarly views that at least mention early Madhyamika thinkers countering this Yogacara view, which seems to imply they didn't immediately see it as meaning other than it sounds at face value.

If you ask whether there are schools that do not follow the doctrine of consciousness only, that needs further clarification, because there are various interpretations of that term, so what is seemingly refuted by one is not actually the view of the other.

Always a pleasure getting to learn from you!

Edit: The following is written assuming your explanations as correct, but pointing to how these teachings are misunderstood and searching for similar thinking. I am not arguing against your interpretation.
End edit


Anyway, these statements are nearly identical to Hindu statements. For example: "All is consciousness" is a really common Hindu teaching. "All is Mind" lacks any discernable difference without a great deal of explanation and redefining of terms or using them in unusual ways.

The Hindu view is that nothing exists but consciousness, for them this consciousness is god and it does exist.

The Huangbo statement is too similar for anyone but a Buddhist scholar to see a difference and be able to read the coded message within that explains he meant something very different from what he said.

"All the Buddhas and all sentient beings are nothing but the One Mind, beside which nothing exists."

So, from this, at face value, mind is something that exists, nothing else does, and this mind is singular. To make it mean that "One Mind" isn't denoting some self existing, all encompassing entity requires jumping through some hoops.

I know I'm not the first to think this way, so it seems like there must be schools of Mahayana or Vajrayana Buddhism or at least individuals within said groups that found this wording and teaching problematic.

Someone must have noticed it being dangerously close to, or rather completely identical to (at face value), Hindu teachings, which could confuse or mislead people, and refuted it, or at least explained it carefully as correct but suggested using different wording?

That said, you seem to suggest reforming my question for clarity:

"If you ask whether there are schools that do not follow the doctrine of consciousness only, that needs further clarification, because there are various interpretations of that term, so what is seemingly refuted by one is not actually the view of the other."

This is a good idea, could you be more specific as to how I could do so?

[LastLegend]

Linjii:

“Followers of the Way, the one who at this moment in front of my eyes is shining alone and clearly hearing my teaching, this one dwells nowhere, penetrates throughout the ten directions and is completely free in the three realms. Goes into the state of differentiation, and is not affected by it; in an instant, pierces through the Dharmadhatu. On meeting a Buddha it is a Buddha, on meeting a patriarch it is a patriarch, on meeting an arhat it is an arhat, on meeting a hungry ghost it is a hungry ghost.”

I am wondering if ‘meeting a hungry ghost it is a hungry ghost’ to be taken literally?

[Dgj]

Only those that follow yogacara hold that view.

Thanks! Which ones don't? I see statements like this in most Mahayana and Vajrayana schools works.

Many don't. But since this topic is dangerously close to a thicket of views I won't make statements like "this school doesn't" because one might find within all schools at least one exceptional sub-school that does.
JD's post seems noteworthy because saying "one mind" actually might be more easily associated with Hindu/advaita than with Mahayana yogacara.

Thanks but the "One Mind" thing is common in Mahayana Buddhism, I don't know about Vajrayana. It's not like this is my unique phrasing. I was quoting Huangbo, who is absolutely not alone in using the term.

[Dgj]

None of them subscribe to the idea that everything is ‘one’ mind.

Thanks.

Well Huangbo literally stated this and so have many other Mahayana teachers.

"All the Buddhas and all sentient beings are nothing but the One Mind, beside which nothing exists."

-Huangbo

[SteRo]

Thanks! Which ones don't? I see statements like this in most Mahayana and Vajrayana schools works.

Many don't. But since this topic is dangerously close to a thicket of views I won't make statements like "this school doesn't" because one might find within all schools at least one exceptional sub-school that does.
JD's post seems noteworthy because saying "one mind" actually might be more easily associated with Hindu/advaita than with Mahayana yogacara.

Thanks but the "One Mind" thing is common in Mahayana Buddhism,

I don't agree.