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