japlady@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Rebecca Radnor) (05/18/91)
I would like to discuss some basic teachings of the vijnapti-matra
(mind only) school of buddhism in terms of the recent postings on
meditation, awareness, self, etc. Let me make it clear from the outset
that I am not an adherent of any sect of buddhism, and I certainly don't
"believe" in vijnapti-matra. If anyone who responds to this discussion
belongs to a group, more power to you; I respect your choice of teacher,
tradition, method, and so on. But please, no "propaganda". It is, in my
opinion, detrimental to any serious dialogue when the assumption of a
'superior' way is introduced. The reason for this choice of topic is that
this school does provide some theoretical basis for discussion; although it
does not assert any ontological reality (or refute as the madhyamikas do)
the mind-only teachings do analyze the structure of consciousness and its
role in the construction of illusion and the possibility of insight. I
welcome any response, criticism, etc., just so long as it is not a 'battle
for authority'. If there are any specialists (in the acadmic sense) in the
madhyamika or yogacara traditions and you would like to discuss academic
issues, e.g., textual exegesis, please reply via e-mail. Thanks.
One of the basic doctrines in vijnapti-matra is the teaching of the
three own-natures, namely; 1) the immagined nature in which we mistake the
objects of perception to be actual external realities (including the
separation of thinker and thought), i.e., we believe the categories of
worldly discourse actually refer to ultimately real entities; 2) the
dependent nature, signifying the interdependence of all perception (the
basis of this being the co-dependence of the perceiver and perceived, or
subject and object); and 3) the perfected nature which is the realm of
suchness, or the way things truly are. In this threefold doctrine we see
the traditional division between worldly truth (#1) and ultimate truth (#3)
that is common to most buddhist schools. Here the vijnapti-matrins add the
dependent nature which acts as an axis around which the other two truths
'revolve'. It is important to notice that the state of ignorance and the
state of insight are 'different in terms of the perceptual realm; in other
words there is no separation between worldly and ultimate truths. Imagined
nature is simply the dependent nature "covered" by illusion, and the
perfected nature is the dependent nature (#2 again) w/o imagination. This
structural explanation of consciousness helps avoid the error of positing
substantive realities as ultimate truth (although this still happened in
the later development of this school).
Whether we agree with the mind only teachings or not, I think it is
important to keep in mind their emphasis on 'perception. We have to
remember that unless we are elightened, whatever that means or if it is at
all possible, any theory of truth will be a product of our
thinking/consciousness. What use is it to assert some foundational reality
above and beyond this world when our consciousness is of this world? If we
are to proceed succesfully in our dialogues a "manageable topic" is, I
think, the investigation of the limits and/or possibilities of our
consciousness.
In order to clarify the doctrine of the three natures regarding the
issues of awareness, meditation, etc., I'll give a quote (sorry) by Asanga
(Maitreya?). It runs as follows: " The conceptualization of what is unreal
exists, but in that [conceptualization] duality is not found; here
emptiness is found [in conceptualization] and also that [conceptualization]
is found in this [emptiness]." (from the Madhyanta-vibhaga ch.1 verse 1.)
The point of this verse (according to Vasubandhu's commentary) is that the
flow of perceptions is a fact, but that the inherent error in
perception--the division between the perceiver and perceived--is actually
non-existent. Furthermore, the 'truth' of our perceptions is that it is
empty of any substantive elements, that is, it is empty of an independently
existing subject and an independently existing object (subject and object,
according to vijnapti-matra, being the basis for all other illusions).
Even consciousness and emptiness are interrelated so there is no
possibility of "absolutizing" either one.
So, what does this have to do with meditation? In the awareness of
passing thoughts the very notion of a self that sees thinking is still a
product of consciousness. This dualistic assumption is so strong that even
in our deepest sleep the clinging to a self is still operative. Can we
simply be aware of the arising of this self/other mode of consciousness w/o
concluding, or judging that one or both of these elements have an inherent
existence? The very act of judgement presupposes a duality; "we" perceive
"X" and say something about it. To mistake the structure of our language
(with its categories of subject/predicate etc.) with the structure of the
world is anaive assumption about the relationship between "language" and
"reality". The very language I'm using now in some way assumes a duality
(language vs reality); this is why the vijnapti-matra relegates worldy
discourse to the imagined nature.
J. C. c/o Japlady