Vasubandhu’s Abhidharmakosa: The Critique of the Soul (metaphysics)

daytripper23

Part 1:

Translation

[Non-Buddhist Opponent:] Every action depends on an agent. As, for
instance, when we say that Devadatta walks, in this case the action of walking depends on the walker, Devadatta. In the same way, consciousness is an action. Therefore, whoever is conscious must exist.

[Vasubandhu:] Who is this “Devadatta?” Is he a soul? But that’s just what
you have to prove. Now, is he what is called a “person” in everyday usage?
That’s not any single thing; that name refers to various caused entities. Devadatta is conscious in just the same way as Devadatta walks. And how is it that Devadatta walks? Devadatta is no more than momentary caused entities that form an unbroken continuum. Fools who presuppose that the cause of the appearance of the continuum in a different place is a single being, a body, say that “Devadatta walks.” They call the arising of the continuum in another location “walking.” On our view, the “walking” of Devadatta is like the propagation of sound or the spread of a fi re. In the same way, thinking that the cause of consciousness is a unitary being, fools say that “Devadatta is conscious.” Hearing them say this, the Noble Ones say the same thing, in order to conform to received usage.

A sutra does say that “Consciousness is conscious of an object.” What does the consciousness do to its object? It doesn’t do anything. But just as it is said that “the effect conforms to the cause,” it comes into existence, similar to its object, without doing anything to it. That’s what it means to say that “consciousness is conscious of an object”; it comes into existence, similar to its object, without doing anything to it. Now, in what way is it similar? In appearance. It’s because of this similarity in appearance that the consciousness represents its object, rather than the sense-faculty that is also one of its causes. Or, since there is a continuum of moments of consciousness, each one caused by the last, there is no error in saying “Consciousness is conscious of an object,” since the word “agent” can be used to refer to a cause. It’s like saying “A bell rings.” Moreover, just as a lamp moves, in that way, consciousness knows its object. And how does a lamp move? The term “lamp” is applied metaphorically to a series of fl ames. When these flames appear in different places, we say “It moves to such-and-such a place.” In the same way, the term “consciousness” is applied to a series of thoughts. When they arise with different objects, we say “Consciousness is conscious of such-and-such an object.” Just as physical form is produced and remains in existence, but has no creator that is different in substance from itself, it’s the same way with consciousness.

I am perplexed by this wording of arising consciousness as "similar to its object". According to the text, consciousness is strictly a caused entity, or in other words, an effect. But is not this second part (bolded) a strange way of describing that?

Why not say that the consciousness arises in respect to its object, or something along those lines? Instead, Vasubandhu says simply it comes into existence (here, I think appearence means circumstantially arising in a basic sense) - and that further, in that appearence "appears similar to the object". Thus, here we find no paradigmatic explanation of the object in relation or respect to consciousness, but simply their similarity.

What is "similar", even and especially in appearance? By appearance, is it as if we were looking at or viewing something? If that is the case, then it seems to me that at best, consciousness might be considered an abstract object, which to my mind, is dissimilar to a material object. Or rather, I do not even know how "similarity" can become any point of comparison.

What is Vasubandhu attempting to represent here?

Thoughts?

daytripper23

Perhaps I can clarify my question a bit:

(Bold section)
Now, in what way is it similar? In appearance. It’s because of this similarity in appearance that the consciousness represents its object, rather than the sense-faculty that is also one of its causes.

Vasubandhu seems rather ambiguous with the word appearance. Appearance could denote the circumstance, which I would call "arising". But unlike arising, appearance may also be treated as a relative term: It appears - to whom or what? Whether it is actually relative "appearance" seems to be left ambiguous. It is just said that the object and conscious are similar.

It would seem that they have some relationship though, when he goes on to describe that in this similarity, consciousness represents its object.

So to further specify my question, I am wondering how he works from one rather ambiguous verb appearance to the explicit faculty of representation. It just seems a bit slippery to me.

Anupassī

The days and nights are slipping away, autumn leaves in a gale.

Why do you chain yourself with such convolutions of the intellect?

RenGalskap

Daytripper, this has been translated from another language. How much of what you're worrying about is due to the original language, and how much of it is due to the translation?

daytripper23

Yeah, that occurred to me, I should have acknowledged this first. I don't know have access to any other translation, and unfortunately I have the task to write criticism on this passage.

On the other hand, I am open to any way of positively conceptualizing this in english. With a broader understanding of the argument, if its perhaps a bad interpretation (on my part or the one I have received) can we by any means translate better?

For instance, as I suggest "arising" instead of "appearing", the usage just doesn't seem to have proper implications. I am looking for any working modality, but am just not seeing it.

But yea, I suppose in that sense any objection is only weighted as far as the english language "can express". Maybe it would be better to relieve some of the pressure.

By the way, Anupassī, I do tend to find mental contortions useful, as I have found for myself that language is a significant dharma.

So I do not feel chained, at least not unreasonably. This is in fact my usual manner of expansion. If you will indulge a metaphor of my own, you might say I am applying limiting pressure, maybe even using a chain or strap to pull my metaphysical limbs in towards the body. But as I pull inward on the strap, applying this pressure, I stretch out. (That's how I do my hamstrings.) So perhaps it might be more "comfortable" to consider it a kind of stretching exercise.

So if I am attempting a certain pose, where you find simple seated position works, I am open to that position. Don't necessarily feel limited by my limitations/objections. I am interested in seeing how people work with the text. If my concerns are addressed or not, that is fine. Just looking for insights.

Here is the second exchange...

[Opponent:] If consciousness arises from a previous moment of consciousness, and not from a soul, then why isn’t it always qualitatively the same whenever it arises? Alternatively, why don’t moments of consciousness follow each other in a fixed order like that of sprouts, stems, leaves, and so on?

[Vasubandhu:] All caused entities exhibit a “state of constant change.” That’s the nature of whatever is caused, so that necessarily the continuum varies from one moment to the next. Otherwise, since those who are without desire and absorbed in meditation have bodies and minds that keep arising in the same way, there would be no first moment at which they were different, and these meditators could never rise out of their trance by themselves.

In fact, the series of thoughts is fixed. Each arises only when it is time for it to arise. When a thought arises, another appears that has a similar appearance, or else having the same object, depending on the category to which the thinker belongs. For example, immediately after thinking of a woman, some would think of the impurity of her body, or of her husband or son,5 and again later, by the evolution of the continuum, another thought about that woman might appear, having the same object; and that thought might produce another thought of the impurity of her body, or of her husband or son, depending on what category the thinker belongs to. It’s impossible for it to work any other way. Now there are many thoughts that might follow thinking about a woman, some diverse and some similar to the original thought,depending on which causal propensities are strongest, except when, at the same time, a particular kind of contributing cause intervenes from outside the body.

daytripper23

BTW the text can be found online.

http://buddhisttorrents.blogspot.com/2009/05/buddhist-philosophy-essential-readings.html

The chapter I am reading is 26

BrotherBob

'..it comes into existence, similar to its object, without doing anything to it. That’s what it means to say that “consciousness is conscious of an object”; it comes into existence, similar to its object, without doing anything to it. Now, in what way is it similar? In appearance. It’s because of this similarity in appearance that the consciousness represents its object,...'

daytripper,

I imagine this as the function of 'imagination' based on memory; the conditioning of experiences with similar objects.

We have contact, sensation, perception, impression, and consciousness (imagining the object as something) and labeling it as that thing all (based on previous volitional action - karma), then we like, dislike or are neutral about what we imagine and label, and finally we act in some way toward the imagined object (volitional action - karma)

'And the wheel it goes round and round and the painted ponies go up and down...' an old song, a very old song.

daytripper23

This is where I always become confused. Doesn't our imagination, or the way we frame a given situation, eventually have outward feedback?

BrotherBob

Results? yes. I imagine it's called something like the 'results of karma.'

I like the idea if feedback loops, myself. I find it facinating!

zendo

Anupassī wrote: »

Why do you chain yourself with such convolutions of the intellect?

Well spoken, Anupassi!

treederwright

Vasubandhu, was a exponent of realist and chittamatrin schools. to even approach this topic i'd study those first.

treederwright

also this is a "tibetan" discussion not "zen". Posting statements of supposed realization will not exempt you from facing the facts yourself. Food for thought.