Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Yogacara and a Cosmic Consciousness
Joshua
Veteran
I have a pesty habit of projecting a cosmic consciousness onto many things Buddhist. Naturally when I read about Yogacara the implications of a cosmic consciousness run deep and are there for the taking if I'm already projecting it. Would anybody else draw the same conclusion? Or am I over-projecting my ideas like usual?
As a side-note, this statement from the Eight Consciousness article on Wikipedia makes me wonder if I might have a lot in common with non-dual Hindu concepts (or all those denominations that aren't Vaishnavas) as I cannot escape ideas of a collective consciousness, I know that I cannot ascertain anything for sure, but I also believe in likelihoods, and this is the supreme likelihood that binds me.
I can't criticize this beyond the fact that it is, technically, beyond the scope of human knowledge, but it is amazing food for thought that has infinite allure and philosophical day-dreaminess for me, unfortunately, many disagree.
As a side-note, this statement from the Eight Consciousness article on Wikipedia makes me wonder if I might have a lot in common with non-dual Hindu concepts (or all those denominations that aren't Vaishnavas) as I cannot escape ideas of a collective consciousness, I know that I cannot ascertain anything for sure, but I also believe in likelihoods, and this is the supreme likelihood that binds me.
Several Yogācāra notions basic to the Abhidharma wing [of Yogācāra] came under severe attack by other Buddhists, especially the notion of ālaya-vijñāna, which was denounced as something akin to the Hindu notions of ātman (permanent, invariant self) and prakṛti (primordial substrative nature from which all mental, emotional and physical things evolve). Eventually the critiques became so entrenched that the Abhidharma wing atrophied. By the end of the eighth century it was eclipsed by the logico-epistemic tradition [of Yogācāra] and by a hybrid school that combined basic Yogācāra doctrines with Tathāgatagarbha thought. The logico-epistemological wing in part side-stepped the critique by using the term citta-santāna, "mind-stream", instead of ālaya-vijñāna, for what amounted to roughly the same idea. It was easier to deny that a "stream" represented a reified self. On the other hand, the Tathāgatagarbha hybrid school was no stranger to the charge of smuggling notions of selfhood into its doctrines, since, for example, it explicitly defined the tathāgatagarbha as "permanent, pleasurable, self, and pure (nitya, sukha, ātman, śuddha). Many Tathāgatagarbha texts, in fact, argue for the acceptance of selfhood (ātman) as a sign of higher accomplishment. The hybrid school attempted to conflate tathāgatagarbha with the ālaya-vijñāna.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-8">[9]</sup>
I can't criticize this beyond the fact that it is, technically, beyond the scope of human knowledge, but it is amazing food for thought that has infinite allure and philosophical day-dreaminess for me, unfortunately, many disagree.
0
Comments
Of course this is a realistic notion of individuals existing in interdependence with others, not independent and self-reliant. The trick is maintaining one's individuality selflessly.
Personally, I believe that all of these different ideas within buddhism are, as the saying goes, just different fingers pointing to the moon. The buddha teaches whatever will help the individual on his own journey. Reality is indescribable. All of these different schools and teachings are just different ways of looking at reality. Use whatever helps you.
On a non-pragmatic side, I am a perfectionist and I can't really believe in something I know is little more than conjecture, I say little because in my mind it's unlikely that X amounts of (or perhaps infinite) consciousnesses sprang forth in time immemorial, rather I figure awareness happened, hence a primordial consciousness and some way through the workings of confusion and ignorance it was partitioned into what appears to be multiple mental continuums. But talk about a circumspect philosophy! Though I see this as most likely it is still no more than conjecture therefore that little pragmatic theory above doesn't function on somebody as neurotic as I.
Concerning Upala's statement, I totally agree with what can be absolutely ascertained, which for many on these forums is all that ought to be discussed, I understand, but I am talking about Yogacara which seems to speak of a cosmic consciousness to me. And though, as I already said, I cannot have true conviction in such an idea, it is certainly my favorite idea to exercise and therefore if someone can corroborate my suspicions then I'd obviously be inclined to study Yogacara in great depth. So a corroboration is what I'm looking for I believe.
Again, I know nothing is for certain, but my ultimate question is: Does the Yogacara school infer a cosmic consciousness?
What would this cosmic consciousness be? If the former, it is conditioned and will at some point cease. If the latter, there's no substance to it... no changing, no experiencing.
The Buddha taught that there's no permanent or separate self in any conditioned phenomena. We have to work really hard to come to terms with that, since it goes against everything we've been taught and feel. We must find that place of honest introspection that allows us to let go of trying to find something "out there" and become focused on trying to figure out what's "here".
Peace will never come from asking unanswerable questions (I know the question about Yogacara's view isn't unanswerable, it's either yes or no, but the real question "is there a cosmic consciousness" is unanswerable). This is the trap, the obstacle to overcome, and it repeats. There's a knot being wound, and if it grasps to some idea it will become tighter and tighter around that idea, and become difficult to unwind despite what your direct experience will show you. This is how belief obstructs the path.
The place we need to find is where we're comfortable not knowing. "I don't know" is hard to admit to ourselves, but the fact is we may never know (in this life) about such things. So... we should concentrate on what we can find out, which is the true nature of all phenomena through diligent practice and meditation.
Namaste
I can certainly understand that, in the process of looking for shared ground, we encounter "Ah ha!" moments where similarity seems to leap out at us. As we engage in this search for reconciliation as a genuine part of our personal Right Action, these moments arise and can enthuse us as when we were children and proudly showed off a new skill or understanding. May I, however, as a visceral enthusiast put you on your guard: sometimes our reaction to the new understanding may be misplaced. I am never as clever at finding links and complementarities as I sometimes delude myself into believing.
Having rushed in "where angels fear to tread" and gotten (what a wonderful usage: may I borrow it back, you colonists?) seriously burned with embarrassment.
I don't know enough about either 'cosmic consciousness' or cittamātra to say if one implies the other. Should I thank you for a new area of investigation or shout at you for interrupting the washing-up?
the Buddhist theory of consciousness centers around the 5 sense consciousnesses and mind. Yogacara splits this mind into two: manovijnana and manas.
Manovijnana is the mind as it acts to apprehend its object (dharma), as the eye-consciousness seeks to apprehend its object (form). This mind is cogitative and deliberative but it is unsteady and easily interrupted. Its crudeness makes it easier to 'enlighten'.
Manas is the mind as it acts to generate the idea of personhood, the essence of a person. This mind is also cogitative and deliberative but it is steady and uninterrupted. Its subtlety makes it much harder to 'enlighten'.
So, if manovijnana has its 'external' objects, then what is the object of manas? The Yogacara say that the object of manas is alayavijnana; manas is attached to alayavijnana and regards it as the inner self.
Alayavijnana is called the ripening consciousness, the store consciousness, and the root consciousness "because it has many seeds (bija) that are of the nature of ripening in various ways."
Bija "are those which, found in the root-consciousness as various potential forces, immediately generate their own fruits." Bija are habit energy or perfuming energy, which comes in three types:
1) Image - refers to the dual structure of our perceptual activities
2) Discriminating influence - refers to the dual structure of our conceptual activities
3) Name - refers to the linguistic activities that involve naming and conceptualizing.
These three types of seeds are the potentials proceeding from 'grasping and the grasped' and are also the potential producing 'grasping and the grasped'. Thus they fuel the wheel of samsara.
So, alayavijnana bears the bija like the ground bears the seeds. It stores up the seeds that are perfumed by the defiled dharmas, and it is the object of attachment by manas resulting in the erroneous notion of atman. [It seems like this is saying that the alayavijnana is the seeds also. And this need not sound so weird: a cup carved of ice could hold liquid water.]
Alayavijnana:
(2) is the uninterrupted retributive mind;
(3) is the mind in the course of transmigration;
(4) is that which appropriates the body;
(5) is the support for life and heat;
(6) is the mind at conception and death;
(7) exists by reason of namarupa;
(8) is the substance of consciousness-food on which the other
three foods (food in mouthfuls, food by contact and
through aspiration) depend;
(9) is the mind in nirodhasamapatti;
(10) is the foundation for pure and impure dharmas.
[Notice that the roles are reversed. Here manas is the object of alayavijnana; above it was the other way around.]
["connatural biological extraversion" I like that.]
OK, so, IMO, you would easier find notions of a collective consciousness within Indra's Net, the Flower Garland Sutra, and Chinese devotional Buddhisms. The first book I quote from up above, however is an excellent treatment of (collective) unconscious within Yogacara, Freud, and Jung. The author seems to conclude that comparisons should not be made hastily and that conclusions of similarity should not be drawn prematurely.
Find a copy of The Buddha Within by Shenphen Hookham. She has a really wonderful elucidation of the three natures in Yogacara and Yogacara-Madhamaka.
Buddhism definitely has a plethora of skillful means and direct ways of approaching realization that are not quite so explicit in Vedanta and only in that way can i consider it superior.
Really?
As Upala said and I probably should have clarified more, it might be better put to say a "collective unconscious". From my put of view, if there be a cosmic consciousness, it would be the absolutely most subtle awareness there is, the supreme primordial awareness that separates the dualistic idea of reality from non-reality. The singularity. Not even aware of it's own existence probably, which is probably why this illusion is occurring, to experience itself as I would typically expound my own philosophies. Which begins wrapping back around to what Simon said:
..
So I'd like to ask everybody, especially you karmadorje and upalabhava, is a collective unconscious a perfectly valid idea in (especially Mahayana) Buddhism? Or am I seriously (and I won't forget your advice Journey) over-projecting my own ideas here trying to force misshaped jigsaw pieces to fit together to reconciliate my own unembraced limited understanding of the universe?
You have that many Buddhist books on 'esotericy' subjects at your library? Damn, you really do work at a big library!
No problem. It's the end of finals week; this place is slow. Here's some snippets from another book on the topic.
Since language is a shared medium of interaction, the impressions of conventional usage impart similar influences upon our perceptual and conceptual processes, conveyed through the most fundamental levels of unconscious minds. These influences in the form of the "impressions of language" comprise the common aspect of the alaya-vijnana, our common "psychic inheritance" if you will, which allows us to experience the world through similar perceptions and, all too often, provokes us to respond to these perceptions in similarly afflicted ways. The impressions of conventional usage thus both reflect the common discriminative concepts, names, and phenomena that comprise our social and cultural lives, as well as facilitate further common experiences and activities which, over time and in the aggregates, bring about and perpetuate this common "receptacle world" which "appears similarly to all who experience it in accordance with their own similar karma."
I think it is a valid concept, but one should be careful not to reify and concretize what is an abstraction. I don't think Buddhism would posit an existent deep pool of memory or mind from which individual minds arise and owe their existence. I think it is better to think of the collective unconscious as being that {set} of shared preconditions that result in diverse sentient beings experiencing reality similarly. In this way also, Buddhanature should be thought of; tathagatagarbha is not a concrete substance within enlightening beings, it is the set of qualities found in common in those on the path to Buddhahood.
Assume the soul exists. Choose almost any ancient theory of the soul. Follow that line of logic to its ultimate conclusion.
Assume hugist has some idea he believes, and may share with us?
I wish I could have these books in my hands but alas I live in Rochester, Indiana without job or spare money. Fortunately some I can read online.
..
Unrelated but worthy of mentioning, I really enjoyed the use of the word engine there. I'm going to play around with that in the future.
Now perhaps more of Upala's recommendations are available free of charge, I haven't yet went on an egg hunt, but I just did an experiment with the last exert because I particularly enjoyed both it and the book's title and without even resorting to torrents I found this at the top of the search results!
The 8th consciousness (and all other consciousnesses) is an individual, momentary, non-substantial stream of consciousness. Nothing cosmic.
As for non-dual awareness: this too, is empty, non-substantial, momentary stream of awareness. A cosmic non-dual awareness have no place in Buddhism: it is a Hindu teaching.
It is very subtle... many people who realized non-duality misunderstood it to be a cosmic essence. See Thusness/PasserBy's Seven Stages of Enlightenment for more information - from Stage 5/Anatta realization onwards, the empty nature of consciousness starts to be realized and notions of a cosmic substance is removed.
"...This individual stream of consciousness is itself non-dual and entire; the need to reify a Universal Brahman is understood as the karmic tendency to 'solidify' experiences..."
If this teaching is correct, it will obliterate every belief I have and leave me vulnerable like Nietzschean Nihilism. Thank you.
It's always a pleasant feeling being vulnerable. At least now I can be humbled and begin seeking real convictions now that the slate is clean as Nietzsche would say.
Will I make it over that barricade? Something tells me that it's the mark of a true Buddhist, would you say so?
I am not familiar with Nietzsche but this certainly isn't Nihilism.
Why?
Hearing... seeing... thinking... experiencing is still as clear, vivid, obvious, undeniable as before.
It is just seen that there is no agent behind experiencing... no 'me'... nor a Big Self... or a Cosmic Consciousness... behind this arising thought, sound, sight.
In seeing, there is just scenery, no seer... there is no inside or outside or an agent behind seeing... In hearing, just sound, no hearer... In thinking, just thoughts, no thinker. Just experiences arising due to interdependent origination.
There is just vivid but insubstantial arisings... It's arising rejects the notion of 'non-existence' while its immediate subsidance (due to its impermanent nature) rejects the notion of an inherent 'existence'.
The truth of Buddhism is thus beyond nihilism (non-existence) nor eternalism (inherent existence).
Of course you're right from an eastern perspective, and mostly on a western one to, but if I maintain a proper understanding of Nietzsche's own lifestyle of his philosophy, it is step towards his, and especially is ideal of society's, spiritual progress. The idea here to which I'm referring is to simply wipe the slate clean of all conceptualizations only to overcome your vulnerability, once done you can begin building a real, non-culturally socialized truth--of course in the west there's naturally going to be re-conceptualizations, something that must be avoided in the case of Buddhism.
xabir, I agree, but I don't think the connotations of our uses of 'concept' were the same. I was talking in a certain, overall, absolute sense. Whereas you're speaking in a conventional way, as you said it only functions initially as a raft. Furthermore, you're talking about an instrument of comprehending Buddhism's core teachings whereas I'm dealing with the fundamental nature of reality which is not only not integral towards Buddhism, it isn't even advertised as far as I know, on the basis that such knowledge is unattainable.
My belief is that ultimate reality is "as it is", empty of intrinsic existence. Relative reality is dependent, to some degree, on the view of the being in question and the world view of their co-inhabitants. Buddhism has many tried and tested paths to ultimate reality, yet there will always be ground breakers, sometimes recognised, sometimes ignored, sometimes deluded. I have seen quoted that there are 84,000 paths for the 84,000 delusions. I suspect that the real number is innumerable. One of the fundamentals of Buddhism is impermanence so it makes sense that Dharma itself is fluid and changing.
However, its much quicker following a path that's already been tread rather than cutting our own new path from scratch. I sometimes get the impression that some Westerners wish to do this. I don't think that they understand that its like building your own car before driving to work, aka reinventing the wheel. Also, by result of treading the pre-existing path, the dharma will be shaped by personal understanding anyway. Nevertheless, this is not aimed at you, just a general observation that I have.
I don't subscribe to a universal consciousness, yet I imagine that if this was understood as a relative phenomenon, then I don't see that it is directly in contradiction to Buddhism. Maybe the "Wisdom mind of the Buddha's" refers to something like this? I cannot deny that I've considered it. For instance where do Buddha's go after paranirvana and how do they continue to help beings? Are they responsible for our appearance of reality? This is very theistic stuff and I don't ponder it for a long time, yet I would be violating the rules of my meditation if I rejected these thoughts as I'm meant to practise non-rejection and non-acceptance. Ideas come and they go.
Even the term atman, is merely a pointer to something said to exist inherently. If the atman were to exist supported by emptiness then I do not even have a problem with this. Again, this not my personal view, yet I could easily accept another Buddhist if they had such a view, though I would insist that it is not inherently existing.
I have a primitive, as yet not fully formed, view on reality and the individual. That is the luminous, glowing, mind stream of the individual is supported on emptiness, (ie not inherently existing). This mind stream is actually non-dualistic and non-locatable. The condensation, differentiation, or reification of the mind stream is conventional reality. However, I qualify this by saying that I only hold this idea at the moment.
Anyway, time to go. Have fun!
Cheers, WK
Do you have a particular book in mind? It seems like The Power of Now is his shining achievement?
I still can't escape a collective (un)consciousness. All the reasons people give for its fallacies apply themselves to our mental-continuum. Why can't there be a supra-mental-continuum? It's perfectly plausible and in fact makes the most sense when considering buddha nature and when also considering that all the shramanic and vedic religions believe they have found the superior path. Obviously Buddhism makes the most sense, but often that superior sense is on account of admitting that certain basic questions can't be answered. Buddhism seeks to stop exercising thoughts on impossible ways of existing. Does a collective (un)consciousness conflict with this, no. But most people on this forum are pretty convicted that the idea is silly, so I'm inclined to try to ignore the thoughts on a provisional faith, like I would with rebirth, to see if the outcome is as advertised.
I guess I'll read the damn book. =/
Or thats how I perceive it to be. :hiding:
I don't know how flawed my thinking is though. :dunce:
I can at least say that pantheism can certainly be a product of a collective (un)consciousness and I think that Buddhism and a collective unconsciousness can function together. Whether the three can coexist is a mystery to me, it depends on how one defines Pantheism.
By definition, God means "the supernatural being conceived as the perfect and omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe."
So, that said, simply, its the belief that the universe IS reality, it is everything, it is infinite. And as I said, from they way I have feel, I sort of consider the whole encompassing universe and reality to be a collective "consciousness", per se, infinite and ever changing. We are part of it, and it is part of us; we are one.