complete yogacara 2003

Yogcra 2003 Lectured by Professor Bhikkhu Dhammajoti

Yogcra

Contents Lecture 2: 5th March 2003 Background of the arising of Yogcra Lecture 3: 12th March 2003 Hnayna schools that contributed to the doctrine of Yogcra

Lecture 4: 19th March 2003 Idealistic doctrines of Drntika

Lecture 5: 26th March 2003 Bja theory of Sautrntika

Lecture 6: 2nd April 2003 Bja theory of Sautrntika (II)

Lecture 7: 9th April 2003 The theory of prva-anu-dhtu

Lecture 8: 30th April 2003 The theory of laya-vijna

Lecture 9: 21st May 2003 The theory of laya-vijna

Lecture 10: 28th May 2003 The nature of laya-vijna

Lecture 11: 4th June 2003 Three aspects of laya-vijna and the theory of bja

Lecture 12: 11th June 2003

The important of sahabh relationship for the establishment of

vijaptimtrat

Lecture 13: 18th June 2003 Vsan

Lecture 14: 25th June 2003 Vsan and bja

Lecture 15: 2nd July 2003 Six characteristics of the bja

Lecture 16: 9th July 2003 Three levels of Truth in Yogcra

Lecture 17: 6th August 2003 Three svabhva

Lecture 18: 3rd Sept 2003 Three svabhva

Lecture 19: 17th Sept 2003 Bhrnti-vijna as opposed to amala-vijna

Lecture 20: 24th Sept 2003 Vijaptimtrat

Lecture 21: 1st Oct 2003 Yukti logical proof

Lecture 22: 8th Oct 2003 Epistemological Idealism

Lecture 23: 22nd Oct 2003 Pratyaka and Anumna

Lecture 24: 23rd Oct 2003 Theory of Pratyaka of Sautrntika and Vaibhika

1


Lecture 2: 5th March 2003

Background of the arising of Yogcra Yogcra originated from about 3rd or early 4th century AD. Asaga and Maitreya (ntha) are so-called founders. Scholars are not sure whether this Maitreya refers to the Maitreya in the Buddhist legend. According to tradition, Asaga got the teachings of Yogcra from the Maitreya Buddha in meditation, and then he preached. This tradition is clearly given in the Chinese tradition. For instance, there is one stra called *ryadean-vikhypana-stra by Asaga. It says In the past, I heard the teachings of the Yogcra-bhmi from Meitreya, the Bhagavat, who is to become the Buddha in the future This is a tradition, or in a way it really does not matter whether Maitreya was a real historical figure. What is important is, there is an early part of Yogcra philosophy which is said to have been transmitted by a certain people called Maitreya. This is a belief of a people. The idea of receiving teachings from the Buddha in meditation is really a very early one. There is another stra that is translated around the 2nd century AD. That stra is translated by a certain Central Asian monk called Lokakema. The earliest Chinese translation can be traced to about 2nd century AD. At that time, there was a Mahyna Stra. This Stra is restored as *Pratyutpanna-buddha-samukhvasthit-stra. The idea is, when in meditation, the Buddha can be appeared in front in the very present moment. The stra says, when you do meditation, concentrate your mind, you can see the Buddha. Also you can ask questions from the Buddha. There is another text, about the early 3rd century AD, [] * Revata-paripcch-stra [conjectured by Professor]. In this stra, a certain Arhat went up to Tusita and met Maitreya Buddha, and he asked question from Meitreya Buddha. This is to show that this idea of meeting Buddha in meditation. Even more specifically, meeting Maitreya in Tusita has been around in the very early period. So we can therefore think of the historical origin of Yogcra in this way that most slightly, Asaga in his meditation, he has various problems in his mind. He wanted to solve doctrinal problems, and he practiced Yogcras tradition. He practiced meditation and with particular those problems in his mind. He got certain solutions and inspirations. He interpreted these as the teaching from Maitreya. That is reasonable to think like this. The background of Asaga time Asaga was from the Northern India. Tradition says that his brother was Vasubandhu (author of AKB, and also later on he wrote Yogcra treatises.) Tradition says that, at first, Vasubandhu belonged to rvakayna (so-called Hnayna). In fact he started as Sarvstivdin. He was attracted by the teaching of Sautrntika. So he cited the interpretation and explanation of the Sautrntika whenever he discussed a controversy between the Sarvstivda and Sautrntika. Later on we can see slowly he changed and became Mahynist. Tradition says that his conversion was due to his brother. In Northern India, there was already a tradition of Yogcra. We can call it rvaka-yogcra. It is important to realize that, at a beginning, Yogcra was not Mahynist. Yogcra was a movement of meditators (Yogcrin-s).

2


In the Mahvibh (Great commentary on Jnaprasthna), this book was completed around early 2nd century AD. There were many valuable data. In this book already, we were told there was movement of meditator called Yogcrin. We know, therefore there was a movement of rvaka-Yogcra. In fact they emphasized the ability of the mind to transform things. They also spoke of the illusory nature of external thing. For instance, different people look at a woman can have a different kind of perception. There is a very definite quotation which explains the attitude of the rvaka-Yogcra who were recorded in the early 2nd century AD. So the Mahyna-Yogcrin formally evolved out of this, or in another word, constituted part of the sources of the Yogcra. The origin of Mahyna is a very complex. We cannot think of a particular single line of development. Certainly this rvaka-yogcra is one of the important sources, because they emphasize the meditational experience. We learnt from the tradition that there was in fact a vihra in Northern India called Revata-vihra. We are told by Xuan Zang that in this vihra, they propagated the practice of rvaka-yogcra. [Revata, from the early Theravda Buddhism, was a meditator]. One more fact, by this time, already the Praj-pramit stra was quite prevalent. The so-called Hnaynists were struggling to answer many questions made by the early Mahynists, particularly the concept of nyat (sarvam nyam). That is certainly contradictory to the Sarvstivda school which says everything has a svabhva. Even when a thing has become past (atta) or angata, still a svabhva exists as a dravya (substance). The only thing is that, it doesnt have activity. But it doesnt mean that it become past, and become no more; in future, it has not yet existed. Surely that kind of doctrine is contradictory to the doctrine of nyat. So the rvakayna had to face the challenge. Asaga was brought up in that kind of background. He would have learnt various sources from the Yogcra teaching who based their teaching on meditation. When you meditate, you realize that what you experienced in meditation seems to be more real than what is said to be reality in the waking state. When in the deep meditation, we experience things which are very real to us. To us, they are more real than the external thing. So these meditators have a certain traditional teachings which must have been around in Northern India during Asaga time. So couple with the fact that, at that time, there was a Mahyna teaching to say, everything is empty. So doctrinally, there was a clash. Asaga was exposed to early tradition. He was faced with these problems. In this background, Asaga tried to solve these doctrinal problems resulting from the contradiction between the teachings of the rvaka tradition on the one hand, and the teaching of sarvam nyam on the other. So we could imagine that Asaga practicing the rvaka-yogcra as if in the meditation, and tried to find out the answer to this contradiction. Actually he solved some problems in the meditation according to tradition from Maitreya. We know that, in this early stra, there was a tradition of possibility of meeting the Maitreya. So he got the inspiration, and he attributed to Maitreya. That is one possibility of looking at the traditional account of the origin of Yogcra. Then we could divide into two parts. One part was teaching that were inherited by Asaga, from various sources. But all these various sources seem to attribute this teaching to Maitreya, and he himself, having received this teaching, tried to systematize them and interpret them. So his own interpreted tradition was sometimes different from what he actually inherited from diverse sources.

3


Two, the systematization and interpretation by Asaga himself. The fundamental portion called mla-bhmi of the Yogcra-bhmi stra represents the inherited teaching by Asaga. The very portion that Asaga received is from Maitreya. In this background, one feature is the dissatisfaction with the Mahyna teaching at that time that everything is empty. Therefore we can expect that in this early Yogcra, one major theme is that the early teaching before 3rd century AD, we have praj-pramit stra, which preached the doctrine of sarvam nyam. That teaching is not satisfactory. That teaching was neyrtha. And the teachings of this period inherited and synthesized by Asaga are ntrtha. Philosophical speaking, early Yogcra is a kind of epistemological Idealism. Really speaking, there are two types of Idealism

1. Epistemological Idealism 2. Metaphysical Idealism

As the name suggests in the first form, it emphasizes the epistemology. In the second form, it emphasizes the ontology. In the first form, there is an emphasis that in the knowledge process, the mind can only grasp the psychic content. In other words, our knowledge is derived from not exactly from the so-called external object, but from the representation in the mind. This is opposed to Realism. Realism says that independent of the mind, external reality exists and we know reality as it is in the material form. Epistemological Idealism emphasizes that actually we know the external reality only through the psychic content via mental content (/ representation in the mind). This type of position does not deny the external thing do not exist, and does not assert that the only reality is the mind. It emphasizes about the knowledge process. How we know thing? We know thing through the mental content. It says that all the objects that we perceived are not apart from the mind. However the intrinsic nature (i.e. svabhva) which is the basis of this object (dharma) exists separately. The view that the external object we perceived are not apart from the mind. We only know the object through the mind. But there is an intrinsic nature of this thing, which is beyond words, and this intrinsic nature exists as a plurality or separately. In another words, it doesnt try to reduce everything that we perceived outside to a single monistic mind. It doesnt go further to say external things dont exist. So we can say that this is not proper vijaptimtrat philosophy. It doesnt go to that extent to say that everything is merely vijapti (here it means vijna). It just say that, whatever that we can know is necessarily linked up with the mental content. But those things that we know, the objects/ dharmas outside are derived from intrinsic nature, this intrinsic nature is separate in themselves. But when come to metaphysical Idealism, it says nothing exists apart from the mind. This mind is the absolute reality. Here certainly, it denies the separate existence of intrinsic nature of outside. They are all so-called external objects merely a projection of a single mind. What exists in reality is only the mind. This is called metaphysical Idealism. We could say that epistemological Idealism represents the early Yogcra; and metaphysical Idealism, the later Yogcra.

4


Therefore we can say later Yogcra is the elaboration on early Yogcra. Any form of Idealism whether early or late would be opposed to what is Realism. We think table is so real, in fact they really are not as they appear to us. This is the position of Idealism in general. If we want to find the early Yogcra doctrine, go to the works of Asaga. After Asaga, Vasubandhu and others elaborated further. And we come to a doctrine that is a kind of logical development of the earlier form (early Yogcra). In the later Yogcra, there is a proper vijaptimtrat philosophy. So we have understood the background of the arising of Yogcra. To summarize, we have said that Yogcra originated partly form the early Yogcrin-s called rvaka-yogcra. This tradition was inherited by Asaga. This tradition was prevalent in Northern India. It was a tradition of meditation. They emphasized the meditational experience. It emphasized that the reality so-called experience in meditation is more real than the so-called external reality. However, it was essentially rvaka-yna. But at that time, we have praj-pramit tradition that was well-established starting from the 1st century BC., or 1st century AD. That tradition preached that everything is empty. So there was a contradiction. Asaga practicing rvaka-Yogcra was faced with some kind of contradiction between these two traditions (1). Everything is empty; (2). Not everything is empty, svabhva exists. He wanted to solve this doctrinal contradiction, and while practicing the Yogcra, that was focused on the practice of visualizing the Maitreya, he found certain answers. So he ascribed this teaching to Maitreya. Additionally all the teachings at that time came from different sources, ascribed from Maitreta, were put together as teachings derived from Maitreya. Yogcra was divided into two parts:- One part are those inherited from tradition ascribed to Maitreya. The other part consists of those teachings which were systematized and elaborated by Asaga. Yogcra emerged in the background of rvakayna. So rvakayna, the so-called Hnayna school contributed to the Yogcra teachings also. Drntika There was a group of Buddhists called Drntika. It was a movement of popular preacher, who was at the same time, interested very much in meditation. They utilized all kinds of popular means to preach. Dhammapada and other texts were derived from this tradition. They had a lot of ideas which we could say Idealistic. They emphasized even the unreal thing, non-existent object can serve as an object of perception. They say that when we perceived something, that something may be real, existent, or non-existent. This is in contrast to the Sarvstivda position. For Sarvstivda, whatever that we perceive is real, existent. For example, we can perceive individual because there are 5 skandha-s. So the individual is an idea that is super-imposed on the real. The unreal is based on the real. So what is conceptualized can also be perceived. But there is an underlying basis of the real. That is the Sarvstivda tradition. Drntika hold the view that even the unreal thing can give rise to perception. Think about it. If you have a teaching that even an unreal thing can be perceived, that comes very close to Idealism. Most probably, they were encouraged by their meditational experience I can imagine unicorn, unicorn is something that doesnt exist. But I can imagine that, it means I have a conscious of that; or I can

5


imagine a tortoise hair, or rabbit horn. Isnt that unreal? Doesnt it prove that even unreal thing can cause consciousness? What is the answer of Sarvstivda? They say, when you have a perception in your mind, for instance, rabbit with horn, what happen is that, you have experience of perception of the horn, and the perception of the rabbit. You have put them together. So the consciousness/ awareness of the rabbit with horn, really is the super-imposition on the real. But without horn and rabbit, there is no imagination. This is their approach. At that time, there were certain Buddhists, particularly Drntika, already had the doctrine, even non-existent object can serve the object of perception, and this pave the way for the arising of Yogcra. We shall be looking at others so-called Hnayna schools that contributed to the doctrine of Yogcra.

*************************************


Hnayna schools that contributed to the doctrine of Yogcra The early phase of Yogcra is more probably described as an epistemological Idealism. In other words, it is a teaching which says that we dont know external reality directly, but only through the representation in the mind, or through the psychic contents. In the epistemological Idealism, there is no definite explicit denial that external things do not exist. Professor remarked in that sense, Sautrntika for that matter, even in the earlier phase of Buddhism could be described as a kind of epistemological Idealism. In the later phase of Yogcra, they really have gone further and asserted the idea of cittamtra nothing exists apart from the mind. The mind is the only absolute reality. Then they come to metaphysical idealism. Yogcra developed from what is called rvaka-yogcra. At the beginning, the word Yogcra did not refer to Mahyna. It refers to a movement of practitioners who emphasize meditation and stress the supremacy of the mind, the validity of the meditational experience. These people existed in North India, and it was the background in which Asaga had this training. He was so-called Hnaynist. He started as Sarvstivda, and got interested in meditation. He practiced rvaka-yogcra. In fact, more specific than that, there was a temple called Revata-vihra in Northern India, which is said to have courses on rvaka-yogcra. In addition to that, at that time, Mahyna was existed since the first century A.D, and there was a teaching of nyat (emptiness). Asaga was confronted with a contradiction, on the one hand, there was this Mahyna teaching that everything was empty; and on the other hand, the tradition to which he had been exposed, said that dharmas are real. He tried to resolve these doctrinal problems. One could speculate that he probably tries to achieve it through meditation, then he wanted to practice Yogcra. In the meditational experience, he seems to have got some inspiration and insight. Also at that time, there was already this new form of teaching emerging as Yogcra attributed to different sources, finally, collectively attributed to a person called Maitreya. All these put together, we have a type of Yogcra doctrine which was preached by Asaga which we traced to the teacher Maitreya. It is very difficult to determine whether Maitreya is existed or not. Maitreya seems to be a family name. Tradition described all these early teachings to Maitreya. So we can talk about the early Yogcra that was the teaching ascribed to Maitreya, but actually perhaps from different sources, plus

6


the interpretation by Asaga. Subsequent to that, there was a development called the later phase of Yogcra. Some people also included Vasubandhu as crya-s of early phase of Yogcra. Asaga lived in about 4th century AD or the early 5th century AD. Scholars argued there are more than one Vasubandhu. At least they said one Vasubandhu was the author of AKB (the so-called Hnaynist Vasubandhu), another Vasubandhu who was the brother of Asaga who was Mahynist. Drntika There was a group of Buddhists called Drntika [from dnta]. Dnta means simile. Most of them were interested in meditation, and they also interested in preaching. They believed that the message of the Buddha must be spread to the masses. In that process, they did not hesitate to use dnta (similes), etc. The early Yogcrin very likely was one section of Drntika. Drntika was not the name of the school. It was a movement which emphasized that the teaching of the Buddha must be spread to the masses, and they were well known for using dnta. Sautrntika evolves from Drntika. Yogcra partly comes from Sautrntika. There was no a single source to say that Yogcra directly comes from Sautrntika. But certainly it was one of the major sources. It would be good to understand some doctrines of the so-called Hnayna schools. They continue to flourish even after the arising of Mahyna. The teaching of Asaga probably represented some amount of synthesis between the so-called Hnayna doctrine and the emerging Mahyna doctrine. In Yogcra, they have their way to understand what is meant by nyat, what is the middle way? For them, they criticized that the early Buddhists did not understand them, even the early Mahynists who say everything is empty, is extreme. In that process, they came up and offered their own version of middle way and nyat. The background and the evolution of Yogcra Yogcra doctrine, due to certain ideas, certain crya-s, certain inter-action, certain reaction, etc., thus we have a Mahyna. The second phase also, in term of the Buddhas teaching, it is prattya-samutpanna. The Mahyna doctrine is conditioned by the early teachings. Sources from Hnayna schools that contributed towards the Yogcra 1. Sarvstivda. It has a doctrine of svabhva, and smarthya/ akti. Every dharma a very unique factor of existence that has a specific characteristic has two aspects: 1. svabhva (intrinsic nature/ self nature); 2. smarthya (activity). They believed that if you dont understand like this, there are many problems cannot be solved. For instance, karma produces effect. Karma is hetu; effect is vipka, or phala. But we also know that, according to Buddhist teaching, a karma does not immediately give rise to effect, it takes some times, what happen even after one moment. A past thing is not real, how come the past karma gave rise to certain situation? How can a non-existent thing have causal efficacy? Thus we cant explain that. They felt that is the correct understanding. Time was just the illusion of the world. Dharma has always been there. Even to say, always, we have already imposed the idea of time. The underlying essence is very important for Sarvstivda. In the perception process, whatever that is unreal

7


is based on the real. If you can perceive something, there must be an underlying substratum / reality which forms the basis of imagination. The idea of underlying basis has a very powerful influence that came to influence the development of Buddhist thoughts even in Mahyna. 2. Pudgalavdin. They are Vtsputrya, Smitya, etc. There were a lot of Buddhists who were worried about the problems of continuity in Buddhism. The Buddha has taught everything is anitya, the Buddha also taught that whenever there is karma, there is vipka. Buddhism has also shown that there is this sasric process. At the same time, with the teaching of anityat, nairtmya, how can you explain this thing who does karma, who ripe the effect, who goes around in sasra, etc.? That is why, later Buddhists explained in term of svabhva. One group of Buddhists proposed the idea of pudgala. This pudgala is ineffable. Ultimately we cant talk about its nature, in a necessary relation with the 5 skandha-s. So pudgala is a dynamic reality. When you have 5 skandha-s, put the 5 skandha-s, we dont just get the mechanical sums of 5 skandha-s. the result is something more than 5 skandha-s. That something more is pudgala. Mahyna later on talked about the reality as ineffable. Even one can argue that nirv is also ineffable. Once they have accepted the idea of pudgala, they can solve many problems, for instance, pudgala that retains the memory, pudgala goes around in the sasra, pudgala that does karma and ripes the vipka, etc. They themselves emphasized the idea of pudgala is not the same as tman. They dont mean that is a kind of permanent soul, less still an absolute that is destined by divine source. This idea of pudgala is especially important for Yogcra, for there is a doctrine called laya-vijna (store consciousness), it is consciousness that is more fundamental than the six consciousnesses. The six form of consciousnesses arise on the basis of this consciousness I have my own laya-vijna, you have your own laya-vijna, our consciousness is linked with the universal mind. Example, like a water, there are islands A,B,C, etc. Individual has its own consciousness. But underneath is all linked together. So we can talked about collective laya-vijna. The idea of laya-vijna is that, the very fundamental consciousness on the basis of which this so-called visual consciousness, etc arises. It is that fundamental consciousness which all karma efficacies are stored as bja-s. It is like a stream, or torrent that goes around in sasra. Your laya-vijna carries your karma seeds, each is stream, or torrent goes around in sasra. Think of it, the idea of laya-vijna is like an individual person which has some relative reality that seems to be at least in part influenced from the pudgalavda. 3. Sakrntivda According to Vasumitra, Sakrntivda represents the early phase of Sautrntika. This school says, there are two types of five skandha-s. first, there are five skandha-s in a flux. They are momentary. These five skandha-s never transmigrate because every moment, they are different. Second, there is another set of five skandha-s which is more fundamental than the empirical five skandha-s which forms the basis of these empirical five skandha-s. That fundamental five skandha-s transmigrate in sasra. The so-called empirical self of five skandha-s is like the activity that manifests. Ultimately this idea can be traced back to Sarvstivda. 4. Sautrntika A lot of doctrines of Sautrntika contributed to the Yogcras doctrine. What are these doctrines?

8


1. Meditation:- the so-called rvaka-yogcra most slightly was one sub-division within Drntika. They emphasized on meditational experience. 2. Theory of bja and vsan. 3. The concept of seventh consciousness which is more fundamental than, and forms the basis for the 6 consciousnesses. 4. Theory of Indirect Perception. 5. Doctrine that unreal things can serve as object of perception.

They have a doctrine that unreal things can serve as an object of perception. When you perceive something, that something may be real or unreal. But for Sarvstivda, whatever that we can perceive must be real, though they say they perceive pudgala which is not real, but it is based on the 5 skandha-s which are real. In the MVS, it says Drntika asserts that the object of perception is unreal. [In AKB, there is an argument, the object of perception may be real, may be unreal.] The object of perception (lambana-pratyaya) is unreal.

MVS (288b). Translation:- The Drntika says it is like the case of a good-looking woman will variously adorn entering into an assembly. On seeing her, some give rise to respect; some give rise to craving; some give rise to hatred; some give rise to jealousy; some give rise to disgust; some give rise to compassion; some give rise to equanimity. It should be understood that herein: a son seeing her give rise to respect, those who are indulgent in sensuality give rise to craving, those who harbour enmity give rise to hatred; those who share the same husband, i.e., with her, give rise to jealousy; those who practice the auci-bhvan give rise to disgust; those who are vtarga (i-s who are free from attachment) give rise to compassion; thinking thus: O this beautiful appearance will soon be destroyed by impermanence; those who are Arhat-s give rise to indifference. From this one should know that viaya (object of perception) are not a real entity.

This is a description of epistemological idealism. We know something through the way that things represented in the mind. The same woman, when the son sees her, he gave rise to respect; when Arhat-s see her, gives rise to indifference. The object that is presented is understood through the mind. This doctrine does not deny the external reality. It doesnt say that woman is not there, but as an object of perception, it is unreal. Conclusion says that object of perception is not real, without going into metaphysical question as to whether there is substratum of this object of perception. What is perceived is something that arises in

9


the mind, this arises differently according to whether you are i-s, arhat-s, etc. From this, there is no need to have a real thing for one to perceive, or give rise to awareness.

************************ Lecture 4: 19th March 2003

Idealistic doctrines of Drntika

Yogcra did not derive solely from the Sautrntika. There are different sources. Sautrntika is one of the major sources. [See the last lecture.] Another movement called Drntika (illustrator, allegory master). This is referred to a group of Buddhist monks who were skillful in popular preaching. They used similes, stories, etc., they were also meditators. They based themselves on the stra-s. They were called Stra-dhara. There is a quotation from MVS in the last lecture which says that the external data is represented to the perceiver in different ways. The conclusion is that the external objects are not real. What we see cannot be separated from the mental contents. This idea came from Sautrntika, and eventually can be traced to Drntika. Yogcra means the practice of Yoga. Yoga is generally understood as meditation. But it really means much more than that. Yoga means not just meditation, it means also the system of spiritual practice. There are certain groups of Buddhist masters who emphasize meditation. They emphasize in practice. Thus they are called Yogcra, and who are most probably among the Drntika, though they are not confined apparently to Drntika or to any groups for that matter, they have already this notion of epistemological Idealism. Sautrntika evolves from Drntika. To understand the idealistic doctrine of Sautrntika, we should have some idea of those of Drntika. We have to depend basically on MVS (Great Commentary by Sarvstivdin-s in Kmir). Here we also see the doctrine of Drntika. There are few examples of their Idealistic doctrines. They are not yet idealistic in the Mahyna sense. They never assert that the external reality does not exist. But what they assert is that the external reality as we can understand as perceptible to us, is dependent on the mind. It is not apart from the mind. That is called epistemological Idealism it is there, we can infer. For example, if I see a monk in yellow robe, how do I know that monk exist? Because I see a monk there. How do I know I see a monk? Are you really seeing monk or dreaming? There are many questions that can be asked. In the dream also, we think we are seeing things, but when we wake up, we are not. How can I be so sure that now I am not dreaming? For the standpoint of Sautrntika, when I see something, I can infer that something exist, because that something is the sense datum, the information that I received. But I would not have the information that is contained in that sensation unless there is something outside that causes that sensation. Therefore, through a process of inference, we know external reality exists. Sautrntika has a doctrine of bahiranumeyavda (inferability of the external). We have representation or information in the mind about something outside, so we can infer that there must be something that causes the information. So it is through the process of anumna (inference).

10


From this description, we can see for that matter, Drntika-s are not Idealists in the later Mahynic sense. They are called Representational Realism. Before we talk about the idealistic tendency we must remember that they are not Idealists in the full-fledged sense. They are not subjective Idealism. They believed in objective reality outside. Controversy of rpyadhtu In Buddhism there is an argument as to whether you can have an existence that is without rpa (corporeal). In the rpyadhtu, some (Sarvstivdin) think that definitely there is no material substance in rpyadhtu. It exists only mentally. Where other Buddhists say rpyadhtu, the term doesnt refer to an existence where there is totally no matter. There is some kind of subtle matter. It doesnt mean that really there is absolutely no rpa. There is a controversy here. Nirodha sampatti and asaj-sampatti. There is this kind of meditational attainment called nirodha sampatti and asaj-sampatti. There is a type of meditational attainment in which there is no thought, the thinking process has stopped completely. We can get into it by discarding the saj and vedan. It is said that an rya, when they are over-burdened by their thoughts and their emotions, they consciously and willingly get into nirodha-sampatti just for a rest. Others who are not Buddhists, they get into a similar type of meditation called asaj-sampatti, where there is no saj, but by a wrong notion taking that kind of state when there is no thought is moka itself. Thinking like that, they entered into it. In that sense, it is a hindrance. In the case of Buddhist rya, they entered into nirodha-sampatti consciously, for a particular purpose, that is to say for contemporary resting the mind. This kind of meditational experience where there is absolutely no mental activity. Now this raises many questions? How can a person in a state where there is absolutely no mental activity? Is it possible? If a person is in that state, what is the difference between that person and death person? After that meditation, what happen if once come out of it, for a long time there is no mentation, where does suddenly a citta come from? It is in this controversy asserted by Buddhist tradition, as to whether really you can have a sattva (being) who are completely without thought. MVS says like this:- 1. There is no sentient being who is without rpa; there is also no sampatti (meditation) without citta. So the doctrine is very clear that all the sentient beings in the 3 dhtu-s are in possession of both the citta and the rpa. From this statement, they are not subjective Idealistic. They dont think that only the mind exists. Clearly they say both mind and rpa exist. In spite of that, we can see many other doctrines which definitely has exhibited their idealistic tendency. 2. , (MVS, 96) Apart from cetan, there is no vipka-hetu ; apart from vedan, there is no vipka-phala. Vipka-hetu is karma in a broad sense, whatever that can contribute to a retribution.

11


According to Sarvstivda, karma is not just mental. Karma is also physical. There is a concept called avijapti-rpa. Sautrntika as well as Drntika say what is called vipka-hetu is from cetan. It is like what the Buddha says cetan is kamma. So the emphasis is the mental aspect of it. It is only cetan. This doctrine is opposed to Sarvstivda. Vipka-phala in our experience, normally vipka includes all the things that give rise to experience, whether is desirable or not desirable. These people are saying, there is no vipka-phala except vedan. Again vedan is mental. This is a clear doctrine which is idealistic, which subsumes both karma and retribution within the mental domain. 3. (MVS, 587) Bodily, vocal and mental karma are non other than cetan. It means karma is cetan. It is emphasizing the mental aspect of karmic action. 4. , (MVS, 593) All karma-s are transformable, even the nantarya-karma also are transformable. 5. (MVS, 228) asadlambana vijnam perception of unreal or non-existent object. There is a controversy as to whether we can actually see something that is non-existent. The Sarvstivdins position is that, whatever you can perceive, must be real. For Drntika, even things that are not real can be an object of perception. It means what we perceive may or may not exist. In another words, we can perceive things that are non-existent. So what we normally think, or take for granted to be so real outside because of perception, actually may or may not exist even. This is certainly idealistic. Given this kind of doctrine, it is not difficult to have the emergence of Yogcra doctrine of Idealism. 6. (MVS, 288) sayoga-vastu (object of attachment) is unreal. Sayoga-vastu means ssrava-dharma (Impure-dharma, even rpa, etc.) We get attached to a person or a thing, we think that they are real, something real outside. So because of that attachment, for instance, rga arises. So we think that because of that vastu outside is real, it causes arising of our klea-s. For Drntika, these sayoga-vastu are not real. Defilements ultimately is an internal process. There is no need to have a real outside. lambana is not real, they are only a mental representation. 7. () (MVS, 379b) mrga-satya comprises amatha and vipayan. When they talked about mrga-satya, it comprises amatha and vipayan. So this is a clear doctrine which emphasizes inner meditational experience, that is a path. From these quotations, we can see Drntika is the forerunner of Sautrntika, already had a doctrine of idealistic tendency in nature which emphasizes the mind, meditation and inner experience. Therefore we can understand how they have helped to pave the way for the emergence of Yogcra Idealism.

12


**********************


Bja theory of Sautrntika It is from the school of Drntika, we have Sautrntika, and it is from the Sautrntika, there is Yogcra. To understand the emergence of Yogcras thoughts, we should go back to Drntika. Hence here is another example of the important of Abhidharmas thought. According to some scholars, Drntika and Sautrntika refer to the same group of people. But that theory doesnt seem to be acceptable. At the beginning, these two schools are not the same. At first, there was Drntika, and slowly it evolves into the Sautrntika. In the period of MVS (completed by 150 AD), the thoughts of various schools are quoted in MVS. We find the name of Drntika, not the Sautrntika. It means Sautrntika came into existence after the compilation of MVS. Likewise, there is no mention of Ngrjuna in MVS also. We believe that Sautrntika evolves from Drntika. Sautrntika became very prominent in the process of challenging the bhidharmika-s. Drantika has several doctrines which are idealistic [read the last lecture], they emphasized the supremacy of mind. Sautrntika-s too contribute tremendously to the emergence of Yogcra, particularly with regard to several doctrines. The first is bja theory, the second is laya-vijna (= sarva-bjaka-vijna). Outline of the theory as developed in Yogcra Yogcra says, there is a stream of consciousness that flows around in sasra. It is called laya-vijna. Inside the laya-vijna, there are all kinds of karmic seeds from beginning-less time. This so-called seeds are potential energy. So laya-vijna is neither different from the seed nor identical with the seed. This flow consists of karma bja. This bja in the form of potential energy can be understood as conditioning forces. Everything is explained in term of bja. Karma doctrine is explained in term of bja. For example, how we have a phenomena experience? They say it is all from the bja-s. It is a very central doctrine of Yogcra. Another name of laya-vijna is sarva-bjaka-vijna (Vijna comprising all seeds). Bja theory of Sautrntika This bja theory is at first derived from the observation of the external world. In a way, we can see how Drntika could have contributed to it. Drntika-s are the people who established Buddhist doctrine on the basis of Dnta-s. That is in a way is very consistent with the Buddhas attitude of empiricism. Drntika and Sautrntika are the people who based themselves on the stra-s. They followed that tradition of emphasizing the visible examples and the actual experience. They say, when you see a growth of a plant, in the process from seed and finally to a fruit, there is a whole process of transformation (santati-parima). Santati (=satti) consists of sprout, stem, leaves, flowers and fruits. From this example, they say they can explain the whole process of karma.

13


Karma (bja)

santati-parima

Phala viea

First thing, there is no need to assume the past thing must be there for it to be able to give fruit at some final point. All you have is only pratyupanna (present) moment. That present moment, the previous akti is passed on to the next moment in a series. The potential energy is stored in the present moment. Then it passes on to the next moment. So there is a santati (= satti). And because every moment is different, therefore, there is parima (here it simply means change). At a specific point, it gives fruit (phala). Hence this explains the whole process. Does the fruit come directly from the seed? Answer: No, because the seed doesnt even last one moment. The moment you put into the soil, it became to decay from moment to moment. In this theory, few things are to be noted:- (this is in nutshell the bja theory )

1. Phala does not come or is not produced by bja directly. 2. It is produced from a santati-parima. 3. However, this santati would not be projected without the seed.

[Read the handout explanation of bja, parima, viea, santati, etc] But if one wants to trace the origin of this theory, we can say that the germ of it already is found in Drntikas doctrine. Sautrntika comes from Drntika. We dont know exactly when that happens. When they were still Drntika-s as they seen in the MVS, they were still Sarvstivdin-s. But when they became Sautrntika, they changed and became Vibhajyavdin-s. Sarvstivda was a very broad community. They consist of bhidharmika-s, individual crya-s, Drntika-s, etc.; but they were united by the doctrine that past, present and future dharma-s are existent. But they may differ in many ways. Drntika-s were very radical, this is how they changed over to another camp called Vibhajyavdin. We dont know when that happens. According to Chinese sources, their mla-crya-s (original masters or founder) called Kumralta (late 2nd 3rd AD). He is said to be one of the 4 suns in the universe. Four suns are Ngrjuna, Aryadeva, Avaghoa and Kumralta. It must be during this period that the Drntika evolves finally in the distinct manner into the Sautrntika, and they changed their standpoint, and became Vibhajyavdin-s. Thinking this clue, we want to know whether we can see any trace of bja idea in Kumralta doctrine. Fortunately there is a work which is ascribed to him that is still extant, called Strlakra (= Dntapakti). According to Chinese tradition, it is by Avaghoa. There is a theory by some French scholars, saying that one of them first composed it, then later was revised by another person. Or probably Avaghoa composed it, then was revised by Kumralta, ot another way round also. Whether it was by Kumralta or by Avaghoa, we can say both of them were Drntika-s. It is important to see this work whether there is any doctrine that resembles the bja theory. According to Chinese tradition, Kumralta was a mla-crya. We were told by the chief disciple of Xuan Zang,

14


Kwei-chi (). The followers of this master came to be known as Drntika because this master composed Dntapakti. In this work, he employed dnta extensively. [Read the Introduction of the Chinese version of Dharmapada, KL. Dhammajoti] About a century ago, a manuscript was discovered in Sanskrit. The colophon in that manuscript says that it was by Kumralta. So we know this work that existed in Chinese actually is the same as Sutrlakra. We have seen some kinds of description of bja theory in the Strlakra,. That is to say, karma came to be described in term of bja (seed), a seed that is sprouting, and developing into a plant, finally to a fruit (phala).

Strlakara

Now I would like to give a dnta in order to make its meaning clear. Just as the seed of a crop, as a result of coming together of various conditions (pratyaya-s) give rise to the sprout. However in reality this seed does not produce the sprout. By virtue of the fact the seed ceases, there is the growth of the sprout; because the seed ceases, hence there is no fault (doa) of eternalism. By virtue of the fact that there is a growth of the sprout, there is no annihilism.

Historically speaking, this bja theory was started by Drntika even at the stage before they changed to Sautrntika. It was at the time of Kumralta. Another sources which is around the same period, we see this theory in Mla-madhyamaka-krika by Ngrjuna (in chapter 17, verses 7 - 10), the gist of the bja theory:-

Just as the series comprising akura-di (sprout, etc) proceeds from the bja; from this, the fruit is produced. Apart from the seed, there is no series; from the seed, there is a series. From the series, there is a fruit. Therefore, a phala which is preceded by a seed (bja-prva phalam) is neither interrupted nor eternal.

In the same way, from the [initial] citta, the mental dharmas proceed in a series. From this series, there is a fruit; apart from the citta, there is no series. From the citta, the series proceed; from the series, there is a fruit. Therefore, the phala which is preceded by karma is neither interrupted nor eternal.

*************************

Lecture 6: 2nd April 2003

Bja theory of Sautrntika (II) Bja theory, most slightly, could be traced to the Buddhas teaching. In the A.N.III,33, the idea is that, tah is described as bja; karma is described as khetta (field). When the tah is not destroyed, like it is sown in the fertile field, there will be karma. A karma that is alobhajam or alobhapakatam, it is like a

15


bja that is not destroyed (akhadabjam). But those not born of alobha, etc., they are like the bja that had been destroyed. It is like the akuala mla which is uprooted (ucchinn-mla). So the idea of mla is like a root. The mla is a potentiality. So this is also the idea of bja. Definitely in those cases, the word of bja is mentioned. Some of the characteristics of Drntika:-

1. They are illustrator; 2. They are meditators; 3. They are stra-dhara-s.

Their bja theory can be traced back to stra-s. They based themselves on the Buddhas teaching. The Buddha himself has compared to karma like a bja. So they are those who uphold the authority of the Buddhas stra-s. Thats why, they came up with the theory of bja. How do Sautrntika-s explain the bja? First thing, it is a real entity (dravya). They are just a potentiality. Bja is just a name. When one asks them, in the continuation of a being (satti), all bja-s are stored up, what is the relationship between satati and bja? Their answer is bja-s are neither identical with satti nor completely different. Satti is nothing but potentiality, or rather is derived from the potentiality only. The next moment of existence comes from the potential of the earlier moment, and a being continues because of the potentiality. They are not a dravya. Therefore we cant say that they are the same thing or they are the different things. The idea of neither-nor relationship is also taken over by Yogcra. Another two names for laya-vijna is sarvabjaka-vijana and vipka-vijna. Sarvabjaka-vijna is a vijna that comprises all seeds. The flows are the seeds that are flowing. These seeds are not dravya. They are distinct forces, thus we cannot say they are exactly the same nor different from satti. Beings consist of nma-rpa. Prva-anudhtu doctrine In the time of Vasubandhu and Saghabhadra, there was a great Sautrntika master called (sthavira) rilta. He has a theory of prva-anudhtu. In brief, this doctrine is actually the name of bja doctrine. According to Samghabhadra, he says once I have refuted the doctrine of bja, I have also refuted all other doctrines. Those doctrines include prva-anudhtu, aviprana (doctrine of Smitya). Apparently at that time, there are various theories which essentially agree with bja theory. To summarize:-

1. Bja is just a potentiality; 2. It implies something very subtle, latent, not manifested; 3. It signifies cause efficacy. The bja is a cause, from bja to phala; 4. It is continuous. It is accumulated from what preceded. Bja is something that is come from the

past. Past saskra-s are all stored in the form of energy, we called them bja, either kuala or akuala bja-s.

The word prva-anudhtu expresses all these significations.

1. Prva means it is something that has been karmically accumulated from before. 2. Anu means following, continuously. It has a sense of subtlety. The word paramu, though

there is grammatically differences, but doctrinally, the Sarvstivda as well as Sautrntika explain paramu as parama+au (extremely subtle, smallest). Anu though not exactly the same as au, but they take it to mean subtlety.

16


3. Dhtu means a source; the idea of root. The Buddha has said that someone whose karma-s which is born of alobha is like ones whose karmic seed is totally cut from the mla (ucchinn-mla). The root is the source. The source means that from which thing arises. It is a cause.

In the AKB, they explain 18 dhtu-s. In this context, the word dhtu is also explained as gotra. What is meant by gotra? Gotra means species. In the sense, there are 18 specific types of elements in the universe. Example, kara (a mine) can produce minerals. It is a source. Dhtu in a sense of gotra signifies the source of arising or the source of all dharma-s. It is a causal efficacy that give rise to anything. Thats why, bja is also called dhtu, and hence in riltas version, he uses the word prva-anudhtu. He says that prva-anudhtu , i.e. bja is ineffable. But all we can say is that it represents the hetu-pratyayat (the fact of causality). Causal efficacy is that within the 6 yatana-s. In summary: prva-anudhtu is wherein all the karmic forces are subsumed. If one asks about the real nature, it is really ineffable. All we can say is that it is hetu-pratyayat within or represented by 6 yatana-s, i.e. mind and body. Hetu-pratyayat represented by the fact that in the continuity of these 6 yatana-s (psycho-physical complex), that is to say these satti, one previous moment is the cause for the next moment. Within that, there is a causal efficacy for one to continue to exist into the next moment. That hetu-pratyayat is prva-anudhtu. It is prva, because it comes from beginning-less time. And it is latent, potential, hence is called anu, it follows along. And it is causal efficient. Hence is called dhtu. This is a doctrine of prva-anudhtu. It is just another name for bja theory. The word dhtu signifies causal efficacy, just like bja. When Sautrntika-s are asked in the AKB, what is the bja? For Sautrntika-s, they dont mean a real dravya. It is just a concept to give to potentiality or potential energy. The concept is referred to what? Their answer given by Sthavira is that the bja or the prva-anudhtu are 6 yatana-s, having the causal efficacy. Sautrntika answer in AKB:-

(AKB (C) p.22c) But what should we understand by seeds [ask the Sarvstivdins?] By seeds we understand nmarpa (iii.30), that is, the complex of the five skandha-s,

capable of generating a result, either immediately or mediately, by means of the parima-viea of its series. The series is the saskra-s of the past, the present and the future, in relation to causality, that constitutes an uninterrupted series. The parima, or the evolution of the series, is the modification of this series: the fact this series arises differently from itself at each moment.

The viea, or culmination point of this evolution, is the moment of this series that possesses the capacity of immediately producing a result.

This is the explanation of the prvcrya-s respected by Vasubandhu. The idea is basically the same, nmarpa is psycho-physical complex. It is that energy within the human being. It is not a real thing. It is just a name to say that in the nma-rpa, there is this causal efficacy. If there were no such efficacy, then all karma-s would be lost. Then we cant continue into the next moment, or from one life to another life, because there is a satti (continuation). In that continuation, there is a karma force which is called bja or prva-anudhtu. In this theory, it does away with the need of sarvstitvas idea.

17


Aviprana doctrine This is in brief the bja theory of Sautrntika. Another name is aviprana doctrine. When you have done karma, there is a force or vsan, that force is never lost. That karmic force is not destroyed until the vipka. It is like a deed, when you borrow money from another person, how can he return his money? It is the deed itself that guarantees the payment. It is not exactly the same in everyway as the formulation of bja theory of Sautrntika. But from the point of view of Saghabhadra, the essential feature are about the same, that is causal efficacy, latency, continuous, accumulating from beginningless time, and goes on until the vipka is produced. So Samghabhadra says once he has refuted the theory of bja, he has refuted all other theories. Prvcrya Vasubandhu representing the prva-crya. They are the Sautrntika masters. They seem to be Yogcrin, the earlier movement of Yogcra. They explained bja as nma-rpa. This is similar to what rilta says, that is prva-anudhtu is six yatana-s. These two are basically the same. They differed in one idea. rilta says if you talk about the basis of vsan (perfuming), the idea of perfuming is conditioning. Perfuming is actually a karmic force, whatever we do, that is deposited in our mind, a conditioning force, when that conditioning force is strong enough, it becomes a definite force, that definite force is called bja. Likewise we accumulated so many bja-s from our karma-s. Vsan Where does this perfuming take place? What is the basis of conditioning? According to this, there are various theories.

1. One theory says it is in the citta-santati, that is within the mental series, that perfumes in the mind.

2. According to Sthavira, he says it is six yatana-s. it is the basis on which the perfuming takes place.

3. Prvcrya-s say nma and rpa mutually are basis of condition for each other, or mutually perfume each other. That is to say, they mutually seed to each other.

In Buddhism, the body-mind cannot be separated. In AKB, when beings are born in rpyadhtu, where there is no rpa. But when they reborn in kmadhtu or in rpadhtu, where does the rpa comes from? It must have come from citta. Conversely, when someone is in nirodha-sampatti, where there is no citta-caitta. But the person (i.e. rpa) without nma, when a person comes our from nirodha-sampatti, where does the thought comes from? The conclusion is that, the potential energy of the mental aspect can be subsumed into the physical aspect, and these two are mutually perfuming. Therefore they are mutually seed to each other.

According to Sautrntikas bja theory, the bja-s continue until a vipka is produced: This is also implies a theory of the mutual perfuming of nma and rpa.

AKB (C) p.25c:

In the two sampatti-s, the citta is interrupted for a long time. How, upon coming out of this sampatti, can a new citta be born from a citta destroyed for a long times?

18


The Vaibhika-s find no difficulty in this: past dharma-s exist (v.25) consequently the citta previous to this sampatti, the citta in sampatti (sampatticitta) or the citta of entry into the sampatti is the similar and immediate cause (samanantarapratyaya, ii.62) of the citta after the sampatti or the citta-of-leaving (vyut-thnacitta; TD 27, p. )

[The Sautrntika-s reason as follow:] When a person is born in rpyadhtu, rpa or matter is cut off for a long time (iii.81b): if this person is then reborn in kmadhtu or in rpadhtu, his new rpa does not proceed from the series of rpa previously interrupted for a long time, but rather, from the citta. In the same way, the citta of leaving the sampatti does not have for its cause the citta previous to the sampatti: it is born from a body possessing organs. This is why the Ancient Masters said, Two dharma-s are the seed one of the other: these two dharma-s are a citta and a body possessing organs.

***************************** Lecture 7: 9th April 2003

The theory of prva-anu-dhtu

Bja in brief Bja theory is basically a karma theory of Sautrntika. The important concept is santati-parima-viea. it is a transformation of the series, at the specific point, at which karma is ripe, in a sense that conditions assemble, then the fruit is given. Otherwise the whole series will keep on going. It doesnt mean a static thing going. It means, at every present moment, you have bja of all kinds. This bja is not a real entity. It is just a concept of karmic force. Thus, there is a problem when you say bja is just a concept (prajapti). They are against the Sarvstivdas way of ontologizing entity. How can a thing which is not real has the causal efficacy? On the one hand, bja is a karmic force which has causal efficacy, on the other hand, it is not a real thing, but simply a concept. Here there is a problem. Finally Sautrntika has to say bja-s are neither completely identical with samtti nor different from samtti. Vsan in brief What is the basis of vsan (perfuming, trace)? It means bja must be stored somewhere. Really vsan is just a bja. This perfuming comes to be potent karmically efficacious as a continue forces. Then one asks a question the basis, what are these bja-s form? There are several theories:- 1. Perfuming unto the citta-caitta santati 2. 6 yatana. It means the whole being. So those conditioning forces operate or perfuming on the whole being. But really, though it is 6 yatana, it stress on the citta. 3. Nma-rpa are mutually bja-s. This theory is hold by prvcrya. This theory say that the potential forces for the mental domain comes from the physical aspect. Physical force can come from mental. [read the last lecture rpyadhtu and nirodha-sampatti]. According to vykhy, prvcrya-s are the Yogcra masters. At this stage, they are not Mahynists. They are Sautrntika. 4. Perfuming on the subtle citta. This theory is hold by Mahsaghika. The basis for perfuming is the sukma-citta for the arising of the other mind. It is not the mano-vijna. This theory also would have contributed to the Mahyna idealistic doctrine. Prva-anu-dhtu According to the 6 yatanas theory, the basis for the perfuming are the 6 yatana. This theory is proposed by (Sthavira) rlta. In a way this theory does differ very much from the third one. But in

19


rltas explanation, he explains 6 yatana, i.e. eye, etc., constitute the basis for perfuming. So he has a very important doctrinal term called prvnudhtu. The idea of dhtu is connected with the idea of bja. In fact, in AKB, where it is explained that there are 4 mahbhta-s. These 4 are always together. So a question is asked, supposing I have a solid thing, earth element is a predominant one. But it doesnt mean the other three are not there. So a question is asked, in what form do the other three exist? The answer is the potential form. So in that context, the word is bjata they exist as seed or potential. In this kind of explanation, the idea of bja is explained as mahbhta. Dhtu is explained like a mine in a sense of source of arising. Anu has a sense of going along. These bja-s are carried along from the previous moment prva. So prva-anu-dhtu means you have entity which is a force, which is a potential energy, that potential energy goes on throughout sasra, as a stream from moment to moment. So rlta says, six yatana re-arise from moment to moment. So the causal ability of six yatana-s of a being to re-arise from moment to moment, that causal ability is called prva-anu-dhtu. Finally he says it is ineffable (avaktavya, anabhilapya). What you can say is that efficacy within six yatana-s which enable six yatana-s to renew itself to continue. In another words, all the karmic forces, memory, etc., are subsumed in prva-anu-dhtu. From this, you have continue existence, or experience of the whole world. This theory comes very close to the Yogcras theory of laya-vijna.

(Look at the sheet) The (prva) anudhtu doctrine of Sthavira rlta 1. Anudhtu has the character of hetu-pratyaya and samanantara-pratyaya. But unlike in Sarvstivda, the samanantara-pratyaya is not confined to citta-caitta, it refers to any anteriorily born dharma which is immediately continued by the posteriorily born dharma. (Ny. 441c : )

Explanation Anudhtu is something which has the characteristic of being hetu-pratyaya, this is a potential energy, causal forces. Everything [including physical and mental] comes from prva-anu-dhtu. Samanantara-pratyaya, literally means completely without gap, it means equal and immediate condition. Prefix sa also means equal, it expresses the idea of same-ness. There is a homogeneity. That is a kind of pratyaya that obtains in a homogeneous causal series. For example, kuala thought gives rise to kuala thought. C1 C2 C3 C1 (preceding one) is the samanantara-pratyaya for C2 (succeeding one) C2 is the niyanda (outflowing) of C1. Contrast with vipka-hetu Vipka-hetu cannot be samanantara, because vipka-hetu is a karma, it must be either kuala or akuala. But vipka is neutral. It is avyakta; whereas karma is always either kuala or akuala. Therefore cause is kuala or akuala; and the result is neutral. They are not the same. So they are not samanantara.

20


Controversy Samanantara-pratyaya is certainly obtained in the mind. There is a controversy as to whether we can talk about samanantara-pratyaya with regard to non-mental thing. According to Sthavira, he holds that, in fact, every dharma (mental and physical) is born of samanantara-pratyaya. The idea of hetu-pratyaya is to emphasize that it is a causal force. The idea of samanantara-pratyaya is to emphasize the idea that it is uninterrupted going on from moment to moment. So the previous moment being the cause or condition for the next moment.

2. Sthavra denies the sahabh-hetu, and proposes the anudhtu as the necessary anterior-hetu for the arising of any dharma.

Explanation According to Sarvstivda, there are two types of causality 1. Prvaja (anteriorily arisen); 2. sahajta (simultaneously arisen). For prvaja, it is first the cause, and later the effect. Example, karma as a cause, later we get the effect. Sarvstivda says there is another type of causality also, that is sahajta, cause and effect exist together. Example, tripod. The very existence of one state depends on the other two. They are mutual cause-effect. They are simultaneous. For them, it is not necessarily the first type. You can have also cause and effect arising and existing at the same time. That concept is called sahabh-hetu. rlta denies sahabh-hetu thoroughly. According to Sautrntika, they say dharma-mtra nothing but dharma. So they explained that we experience flashes of dharma. Those dharma-s are explained in one moment as cause, another moment as effect. They are all dharma-s. They are not simultaneous, because there is only one moment. In his doctrine, everything must be subsumed within that present moment. That present moment would be cause for the next moment.

3. Anudhtu signifies that a citta is perfumed (bhvita) to possess many dhtu-s, which include kuala, akuala, as well as ansrava dhtu-s; these mental as well as material dhtu-s simultaneously continue as an uninterrupted series.

Explanation: the word dhtu like bja, it has many many dhtu-s. This dhtu can be kuala, akuala, ansrava, etc. All these potential energy are stored inside the 6 yatana-s. these mental as well material dhtu-s simultaneously continue as an uninterrupted series.

4. Anuaya serves as both the raya and viaya of vijna.

Explanation: For any vijna, for instance cakur-vijna, you need caku and rpa. In this case, caku and rpa are pratyaya-s for cakur-vijna.

According to sahabh-hetu of Sarvstivda, they say that these three exist at the same time. According to Sautrntika, it is not possible. Because caku and rpa belong to the previous moment at the moment when cakur-vijna arises. So the caku is the raya (basis) of indriya. Rpa is the viaya. For Sarvstivda, viaya is something outside there; caku also is something outside the mind. When these two things are present, the cakur-vijna arises. But in Sautrntika, given by rlta,

21


both these two actually are prva-anu-dhtu. Everything comes from the same source. That source is the mind. Therefore this teaching leads to Idealism.

5. Anuaya is the anudhtu of klea. It is different from the klea which is manifested (paryavasthna) it has the nature of a cause and constantly follows on latently.

Explanation: Klea is actualization; anuaya is a potentiality. There is a big controversy as to whether you can make distinction or not. For Sarvstivda, these words are used interchangeably. For Sautrntika, definitely they made distinction kleas in the anuaya form and klea in the paryavasthna form. Anuaya in the potential form, that is called prva-anu-dhtu. This correspond to the potential form of klea. The scope of prva-anu-dhtu is much broader. It is the source of everything. It is not just the source of klea, it is also the source of kuala.

6. The abandoning (praha) of klea is the destruction of the anudhtu of klea. As a result, the anudhtu qua hetu does not induce a subsequent anudhtu.

Explanation: What is meant by klea-praha? It means bja is destroyed, that bja is prva-anu-dhtu. Normally our senses will go on from moment to moment. Unless you destroy a subtle potential forms, there wouldnt have a actual one. When we say we have destroyed a particular klea, i.e. rga, we have to destroy the root. In their theory, they say you destroy prva-anu-dhtu. When you destroy this, since there is no seed-state or no potential form, then you cannot give rise to the next one. It doesnt continue.

7. The anudhtu having the character of hetu is capable of effecting fruition on a subsequent birth, having as it does the function of a vipka-hetu. In this case, this six yatana-s perfumed by karma/klea is called the anudhtu, which serves to induce the subsequently arisen six yatana-s.

Explanation: This is talking about the cosmology. It is not just the explanation of karma. It means the whole being going round and round the sasra. It is the prva-anu-dhtu. So when your prva-anu-dhtu is still not destroyed, you give rise to the next jti (birth) constantly. This is meant by vipka-phala. [vi-pac(to cook), mean to mature, to ripe]. So every moment you have a new fruit. The whole of 6 yatana-s is being perfumed by the new forces. We accumulate new bja-s.

*********************************

Lecture 8: 30th April 2003

The theory of laya-vijna There is a stanza quoted in *Mahyna-sagraha by Asaga. There is a theory of laya-vijna, theory of bja, theory of perfuming, and all the major ideas of Yogcra are found in this stanza. In the earlier text of Yogcra, they talked about only seven consciousnesses [6 + 1], not the eight. Later on, the scheme of Yogcra is elaborated into 8 consciousnesses. Sometimes there are nine.

1st 6th : From visual consciousness mental consciousness 7th : manas 8th : laya-vijna 9th : amala-vijna

22


In the earlier text, they talked about seven consciousnesses, i.e. six normal consciousnesses + one more fundamental, more subtler, forming the basis of these six. These seventh consciousness is called by different names. In Mahyna-sagraha, it is called laya-vijna. Other names are given: dna-vijna, mla-vijna. laya is a store house, where all the karmic forces in the form of bja, a potential energy, are stored. Everything arises from the laya-vijna. dna is from d to take, to grasp. Thus the word is translated as grasping consciousness or sustaining consciousness. Because it is this consciousness that sustains all the indriya-s. They argued that this subtle and fundamental consciousness must be there, for instance in the state of nirodha-sampatti, where there is no mental activity, then we would die if there isnt any subtle consciousness. They developed that there is a subtle consciousness which is subtler than the first six consciousnesses. Later on, they elaborated on this scheme and talked about eight consciousnesses. The seventh one is called manas. Manas is no more synonymous with vijna and citta. According to the schools of earlier stages, like Theravda, Sarvstivda, and Abhidharma schools, that is before the Mahyna, citta, manas and vijna are synonyms. When we looked at different functional aspects, we use different names. Citta refers to a mind that has always been [in the future period]; vijna refers to the mind that is active, that arises; manas refers to the same mind that has already arisen, that has became past, and forms the supporting basis for the arising of the next moment of consciousness. In the Yogcra, these three are no more the same. Manas is that consciousness that grasps the laya-vijna as if it is a real tma. The fact why we cannot experience nairtmya is because of manas. We have tmagraha because of the function of manas. The laya-vijna is the grand basis of everything. In some schools, they talked about the ninth. Even the laya-vijna is not an absolute entity. It is the absolute that is agitated. Example, when the water is agitated, there is a wave. There is an activity. That is the laya-vijna when the mind is agitated. So when there is no wind, there is no wave, but the mass of water exists. That original state of mind is pure, thus is called amala. The whole idea of Yogcra is to train ourselves in such a way we realize the so-called external phenomena, world is nothing, but the mind. When we realized this, our consciousness is transformed. This is compared to the ceasing of activity. So we realize the ultimate essence of mind that is called amala-vijana. Sometimes it is called pariuddha-citta. The idea is that ultimately the real nature of mind is pure. Compare this to Theravda in A.N.I.10, pabhassara citta the mind is transparent, pure. The idea of the original radiant nature of mind is found in Vibhajyavda lineage. The idea that the original nature of mind is pabhassara is actually a common idea of Vibhajyavda lineage. Vibhajyavda lineage is opposed to Sarvstivda lineage. Historically facts: the Sangha was split into Mahsghika and Sthaviravda. From Sthaviravda, further split into Sarvstivda and Vibhajyavda. Theravda comes in Vibhajyavda. According to the Northern sources, vibhajya has to do with the debate on time, that only the present is real. In the Theravda texts, there is this idea the citta is originally by nature shining forth, radiant (pabhassaram); ta ca kho gantukehi upakkilesehi upakkiliham that which is defiled by adventitious kilesa-s. The defilements are considered as something not originally part of the mind, it comes from outside. Therefore we should abandon, then the original nature of mind will shine forth.

23


Within the Vibhajyavda, there are some divisions. For instance, Mahsghika also is within the fold of Vibhajyavda. They also talked about the idea of original pure nature of mind. In fact, we see that when Yogcra developed the idea of laya-vijna, they must get justification. They quoted the name of few schools. Sources of their teaching found in *Karmasiddhiprakaraa One text called *Karmasiddhiprakaraa, by Vasubandhu. It tells about the sources of the teaching. In that context, they mentioned several schools. One is the Tmraparya (lit. copper palm) or Tmrathiya (lit. a kind of robe which is copper/ reddish in color). Theravda is known in the Northern India, not as Theravda at such. Theravda, in Sanskrit form is Sthaviravda. Within Sthaviravda, Theravda is considered as only one branch. Tmraparya is known to Northern India. In this text, Tmraparya mentions the bhavaga-vijna (). Bhavaga theory, in its major functions, is to explain karma. Though in earlier texts, we find via-sota, but they dont speculate at such. For the first time, the bhavaga idea occurs in the Pahna-pakaraa. Apparently that is only the canonical reference. Later on, in Abhidharma texts, bhavaga becomes a familiar term. So the idea of bhavaga, historically was formulated later in Theravda Buddhism. Thus the significance of aga according to Northern explanation, aga has the idea of causal efficacy. Our existence (bhava) is sustained by this bhavaga. Bhavaga is therefore a neutral state of the mind. It continues in sasra. Definitely we cannot say bhavaga is the same as laya-vijna. The last moment that we die, our consciousness enter into the unconscious state. That is bhavaga. So it is in this bhavaga, in the moment of cuti, that the karma is stored; when the consciousness enter into a new womb, that is called patisandhi, at that time, all the karmic forces from the earlier life is passed on. So there is a continuation of this. Therefore this is an attempt to explain the continuation or preservation of karmic efficacy. As far as that point is concerned, it is very similar to the idea of laya-vijna. laya-vijna is a concept to account for the continuation of karma. The only thing, they say, they talked about bja. The forces is said to be bja, they stored in the stream that goes on in sasra. The mind that is active is called vthi-citta in Theravda tradition. The mind that is not active is the bhavaga. Bhavaga represents the passive state of the mind, that is in the neutral state. Buddhaghosa says the mind in passive state, bhavaga or vthimutta. The mind when active is vthi-citta. The state of bhavaga/ vthimutta is referred to as the natural condition of mind, pakai-citta, which is pabhassara. In Dhammapadahakath, pakatimano hi bhavaga-citta ta appaduham the natural mind is the bhavaga-citta [that is also called vthimutta (free from the mental process)] that one is not corrupted (pure). Buddhaghosa associating bhavaga as a pure state of the mind. Here we can see a very similar idea with amala-vijna. In the same text, other teaching of Vibhajyavdin lineage is quoted. That is the Mahsghika. It comes under the broad lineage of Vibhajyavda. They also say only the present is real. Normally we think that Mahsghika and Theravda are so different. The idea of the Buddhalogy is very developed in Mahsghika, but historically, they came from the same lineage. Therefore in the midst of all these

24


differences, one find underneath that are common. For instance, Pa-Chao, a Chinese scholar, he made the comparative study of the Pli and other schools. Then he found that, of all the other schools, the basis structure of Mahsghika, in many ways are similar to Theravda. So this idea of citta that is pabhassara is one of the strong doctrinal point of Mahsghika. They have inspired by the Buddha teaching in A.N. They have a doctrine called mla-vijna. They say mla-vijna is a sukma-citta (subtle mind) that is the basis for the arising of six consciousnesses. The Karmasiddhiprakaraa quotes mla-vijna as another source. In the other text of Yogcra like Sandhi-nirmocana Stra, they say that six consciousnesses evolve from the mla-vijna. That mla-vijna is an laya-vijna. Another school quoted in this text as one of the sources for their laya-vijna idea is Mahsaka. When the MVS mentions Vibhajyavda, whom they referred to? So Vibhajyavdin in MVS is referred to Mahsaka. They have the teaching that there are three types of skandha-s.

1. Kaika-skandha : the skandha that last only one moment. 2. Ekajanmvadhi-skandha : the skandha that stays/ endures one life. 3. sasrika-skandha :

The first two cannot go beyond one life. The third one, sasrika-skandha, the skandha that lasting throughout sasra. Here we see a similar idea that bhavaga that is doesnt stop when one dies. The only thing is that they dont say skandha, they talked about citta. Here in Mahsaka, they talked about skandha that goes throughout sasra until the person gains nirva. The idea of laya-vijna is like a kind of pudgala. laya-vijna is like a person in which all the karmic force is stored. But the emphasis is on the vijna aspect, not the rpa aspect. Read the stanza quoted in Mahyna-sagraha. [next lesson]

*********************************** Lecture 9: 21st May 2003

The theory of laya-vijna

This text Abhidharma-mahyna-stra says in connection with laya-vijna.

ukta hi bhagavatbhidharmastre | andikliko dhtu sarvadharmasamraya | tasmin sati gati sarv nirvdhigamopi ca || Lit. For it has been said by the Bhagav in the Abhidharma-stra, [it (laya-vijna) is] the dhtu from beginningless time, which is the complete basis of all dharmas. That being (existing) the totality of destiny comes to be; and also the attainment of nirva.

The purpose of writing a treatise Vijaptimtrat-siddhi

tma-dharma-upacra hi ya vividha pravartate | vijna-parimosau | lit. That manifold metaphorical designation of tma and dharma operate, this one is vijna-parima.

25


In the world, we have problems because of tma-graha and dharma-graha. The whole text starts by stating the purpose of writing the treatise. This shows that Yogcrin-s were practitioners. They were not interested in pure philosophy. It looks like that they were very philosophical, that is because, when they began to analyze, they become very philosophical. But their ultimate purpose is very soteriology. At the beginning, the purpose of writing treatise is to help us to understand that we have attachment to tma and dharma. And two are realized, both are nyat.

tma-graha realizes pudgala-nyat / pudgala-nairtmya. This is called klea-varaa. Dharma-graha realizes dharma-nyat / dharma-nairtmya. This is called jeya-varaa.

Why are we in sasra? Because we have hindrances. To summarize, there are basically two hindrances. One is hindrance with regard to klea, according to them, even by removing all of klea-s, we cannot be liberated. We can be an Arhat. But for them, Arhat is not the same as Buddha-hood. To be a complete Buddha, we have to break the other type of hindrance called jeya-varaa. Buddha has overcome both type of hindrances. For Arhat-s though they have overcome klea-s, but the praj is not perfected. To overcome this, one has to realize the so-called pudgala or tma is not real. By doing that, one breaks the tma-graha. To overcome the dharma-graha, one has to further realize that even the dharma, skandha-s are unreal, the skandha which the bhidharmika-s called as real dharma, for Yogcrin-s also, dharmas are nya. The tma and dharma are just idea. They are upacra (figurative speech). They are just metaphorical expression / designation. Vikalpa-vsan Vsan means habitual energy. Due to the perfuming of imagination (vikalpa), we imagine there is tma, dharma, etc. We have these kinds of ideas. The ideas are conditioning forces. They are stored in the form of bja-s. Whenever we see a person, we think that person is so real. We have all these problems from beginningless time, there is conditioning forces, this is called vsan. All these take place in the process of the transformation of laya-vijna. laya-vijna arises due to this different type of conditioning forces (vsan). What is meant by parima? It is threefold.

1. Vipka refers to laya-vijna 2. manana (lit. thinking), refers to manas-vijna. 3. Vijapti (= vijna) refers to six types of consciousnesses.

First, all these metaphorical expression that we attached to operate in us is actually coming from consciousness. They are evolved because of the type of habitual energy/ conditioning forces that had been in us from beginningless time. It evolves and becomes threefold.

26


Why laya-vijna is called vipka? One of the name of laya-vijna is vipka-vijna. Because each persons laya-vijna, in each case is the vipka from their own karma. For example, I exist because of my laya-vijna. This is the effect aspect. So as laya-vijna evolves, basically diversifies into three aspects. One is the laya-vijna itself. The second is the manas-vijna. The third is six consciousnesses. In another word, when our consciousness arises, first thing is, we have that total basis (i.e. laya-vijna). Another aspect is manas. The concept of 7th consciousness came a bit little later. In the historical development of laya-vijna theory, first we see six ordinary consciousnesses plus the basis. Later on they sub-divided and added in manas. At that time, manas is given a special function. Manas attaches itself to the laya-vijna as if a soul. Because of our conditioning forces, we cannot help grasping it as if it is the tman. That is why we are not liberated. Thus we cant experience nairtmya (anatta). That function of consciousness is called manas. Later on, it is given the place of 7th consciousness.

(taken from Vijaptimtrat-siddhi by Sthiramati) The layavijna

(Storehouse consciousness) we have briefly explained the names of the three kinds of consciousness, but have not yet dwelt in detail upon their characteristics. The first kind, the consciousness that is retribution (vipka) is called the laya-vijna (i.e., the eighth consciousness). Now what are the characteristics of this consciousness? The stanzas say:

2b The first is the laya-vijna (i.e., storehouse or repository consciousness). It is also called vipka-vijna (retributive consciousness) and sarvabjaka-vijna (the consciousness that carries within it all bja-s or seeds). [It brings to fruition all seeds (effects of good and evil deeds).]

3 It is impossible to comprehend completely (1) What it holds and receives (updi), (2) Its place or locality (sthana), and (3) Its power of perception and discrimination (vijapti). It is at all times associated with five

mental attributes (caitta-s), namely mental contact (spara), attention (manaskra), sensation (vedan), conception (saj) and volition (cetan).

But it is always associated only with the sensation of indifference (upeka).

Threefold characteristics

1. laya-vijna is called vipka-vijna. It is the effect (phala) aspect.

27


2. laya-vijna is called sarvabjaka-vijna. It is the cause (hetu) aspect. It comprises all the seeds. All the karmic-bja-s are stored inside. laya-vijna is nothing but actually the totality of all seeds.

3. Intrinsic-nature aspect. It means it is neither identical with nor different from the bja-s.

To summarize, there are three things we cant pin-point at it, 1. First laya-vijna is very subtle; 2. Locality 3. The way the perception takes place as laya-vijna arises bifurcating into the subject and

object. Vijna refers to the mind that is operating/ arises. The mind cannot arise by itself. It arises with caitta-s. When the mind arises, five caitta-s are always together with laya-vijna, that are mental contact (spara), attention (manaskra), sensation (vedan), conception (saj) and volition (cetan).

*************************** Lecture 10: 28th May 2003

The nature of laya-vijna

Dhtu means causal-efficacy. It is a theory of Vibhajyavda lineage, that is to say, a theory that is built on the standpoint that only the present exists. laya-vijna is existing at all times only in the series of present (eternal present). From moment to moment, all the preceding moment of causal-efficacy is subsumed within laya-vijna. Simultaneous relationship Their relationship is a simultaneous one. It is a potential force that is continuing in the mind due to all karmic conditionings. For example, as I see that thing in a certain way at certain time, my habitual tendency to see in that way is reinforced. That is a simultaneous relationship. laya-vijna is a mental event. In Abhidharma, vijna always signify the mind that is arising. This is in contrast with citta. When the citta arises, we have laya-vijna. Really laya-vijna is only a relative reality. When we look at three level of truth, we would see that it relegated to the domain of the relative. This is the domain of prattya-samutpda. laya-vijna is where prattya-samutpda operates, i.e., the phenomena world. laya-vijna is like the agitated wave. Absolute reality is that calmed down water, i.e. pure, peaceful, absolute, that is the pariuddha-citta. laya-vijna is a phenomena that is agitated aspect of it. It is not pure (klia). The mind contains all kinds of seeds. When one becomes enlightened, there is no agitation. So the laya-vijna ceases at that time. When the mind arises, it hasnt arisen by itself. It arises together with caitta-s. What are the accompanied mental factors? There are five. It is at all times associated with five mental attributes (caitta-s), namely mental contact (spara), attention (manaskra), sensation (vedan), conception (saj) and volition (cetan). When we look at these five, these are the very five that we find in the stra-s. In a way, it signifies that Yogcra actually based themselves on the stra. [For Sarvstivda, there are ten] From their standpoint of view, they are very faithful to the Buddhas teaching.

28


Why it is always associated only with the sensation of indifference (upeka). Why it is always associated only with the sensation of indifference? Because laya-vijna is the fundamental consciousness (mla-vijna). It is from this that there are other consciousnesses. So when we come to vedan, according to Stra and Abhidharma, there are three type of vedan, i.e. pleasurable, un-pleasurable, and neutral. It is said that at all time, laya-vijna is neutral, because it is a fundamental, it is in a subtle state. The idea of neutral state signifies that it is a subtle feeling; but on top of it, we get happy or dejected. Therefore, that which always connected with vijna, it has got to be a neutral type. Theravdas notion of bhavaga From their point of view, they knew that the teaching of bhavaga in Theravda is similar to their teaching of laya-vijna. Bhavaga represents the mind in a neutral state. When we die, the cuti-citta and the next moment, the paisandhi-citta. They are actually bhavaga in a different mode. The bhavaga that is entered into a womb is the bhavaga in the mode of paisandhi. Where is the karma at that time? Karma is stored in the bhavaga. Therefore, in the bhavaga concept, few things are similar. One is that signifies the subtle neutral continuous state of mind; that sustains you as a being in sasra. That is also the concept of laya-vijna.

(taken from Vijaptimtrat-siddhi by Sthiramati) 4

It belongs to the non-defiled-non-defined moral species. The same is true in the case of mental contact (spara) and so forth. It is perpetually manifesting itself like a torrent. And is renounced (i.e., it ceases to be called the laya) in the state of Arhatship (the state of the saint who enters Nirva).

Non-defiled-non-defined moral species In term of moral species, there are kuala, akuala and avykta. Avykta in northern tradition is further divided into nivta and anivta.

Nivta (block, hinder) obstructive to spiritual progress, e.g. satkyadi. Anivta not obstructive to spiritual progress, e.g. table, etc.

According to their system, any di is akuala. Satkyadi is not classified under nivta-avykta. For example, if I have satkyadi, my soul is real. Because of believing in the soul, you want to purify the soul. You are not harming others. Another example, if I give dna, my soul will go to heaven, etc. So according to their conception, satkyadi is not akuala. It comes under nivta-avykta and anivta-avykta.

29


laya-vijna is to be classifi

complete yogacara 2003

Documents

vsan lecture

svabhva lecture

anumna lecture

arising of yogcra lecture

doctrine of yogcra lecture

theory of bja lecture

amalavijna lecture

anudhtu lecture