[Y-Indology] chitta maatra Vs vijnaana maatra

[Guest guest]

vpcnk wrote:

 

> Would it be meaningful to distinguish between chitta maatra and

> vijnaana maatra in Vijnaanavaada?

Strange that you ask since there has just been a very long and detailed

debate on this very topic on the Buddha-L list which began when I suggested

that cittamaatra as found in the Lankavatara-sutra (not a pure Yogacaara

text -- syncretic) has quite different implications to vij~napti-maatra (not

vij~naana-maatra) as found in early Yogaacaara texts. Although citta-maatra

is found a very few times in Yogacaara texts, usually for causa metri, the

authors clearly prefer vij~napti-maatra. The situation in the LAS is the

reverse. Note also that there is a discernable development of ideas even

looking through the early group of Yogacaara texts.

> Chitta maatra or mind only, as the "source" of the world and the

> invidual self (only in the epistemological/psychological sense).

The usage of citta-maatra in the LAS seems to be used in an ontological

sense that results in idealism.

 

> Vijnaana maatra or consciousness only, which aims at isolating

> consciousness as the path to reach the truth.

The aim of Yogacaara is to pass beyond the false dualism of both perceiving

subject (= vij~naana) and perceived objects.

 

> Also apart from vijnaana maatra as only the path, are there any

> specific references to Vijnaana maatra as the reality or nirvaana, as

> described in Vijnaanavaada or even Mahaayaana texts?

No -- the favoured term is vij~napti-maatra and this is never equated to

reality or Nirvana. There is an important difference between

vij~napti-maatra and vij~napti-maatrataa -- the realization of which can be

thought of as enlightenment. The chief scriptural source for Yogacaara is,

of course, the Sandhi-nirmocana-suutra (translated into English by John

Powers).

 

Some important web resources are the following:

 

1) "A Brief Retrospective of Western Yogaacaara Scholarship in the 20th

Century."

This is a 1999 essay by Dan Lusthaus. In addition to problematizing many

issues, he gives an extensive annotated bibliography. It can be found at:

 

http://www.uncwil.edu/p&r/yogacara/ISCP_99_Yogacara_retro2.html

 

2) "What is and isn't Yogaacaara"

Another excellent overview piece by Dan, at:

 

http://www.human.toyogakuen-u.ac.jp/~acmuller/yogacara/intro-asc.htm

 

3) "Vijnaptimatrata and the Abhidharma context of early Yogacara,"

by Richard King. Originally published in Asian Philosophy, Vol. 8, No. 1

(Mar.1998): 5-18. On web at:

 

http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-ADM/richard.htm

 

Hope this helps.

 

Stephen Hodge

[Guest guest]

> Strange that you ask since there has just been a very long and

detailed

> debate on this very topic on the Buddha-L list

 

Oh! how unfortunate! I'd been wanting to raise this questions for the

last few months now - fundamentally because of my studies into both

the Vijnaaptimaatrataasiddhi and the Gaudapaadiya Kaarikaas where I

perceived similar philosophical/spiritual inclinations - but somehow

only just got the time.

 

Let me go through the list then.

 

>which began when I suggested

> that cittamaatra as found in the Lankavatara-sutra (not a pure

Yogacaara

> text -- syncretic) has quite different implications to vij~napti-

maatra (not

> vij~naana-maatra) as found in early Yogaacaara texts. Although

citta-maatra

> is found a very few times in Yogacaara texts, usually for causa

metri, the

> authors clearly prefer vij~napti-maatra.

 

Can you distinguish between chitta maatra, vijnaana maatra and

vijnaapti maatra - as to in what contexts these terms are used in

Vijnaanavaada. If it is not too much trouble, it would be very useful

if you can give the meanings of the terms in reference to the

relevant texts.

[Guest guest]

Dear Sir/Madame:

 

Please see my other recent post as I address some of the questions below.

 

 

>I've a question on Vijnaanavaada Buddhism and would be grateful for

>any help/suggestions :

>

>Would it be meaningful to distinguish between chitta maatra and

>vijnaana maatra in Vijnaanavaada?

 

 

I don't myself always make a distinction, due to the lack of a clear

distinction in many Buddhist texts, but I would like to defer to those more

knowledgeable.

 

See my note on Vasubandhu's Vimsatika and vrtti in other post. Bruce C. Hall

may have addressed this in his article in the Journal of the Intern. Assoc.

of Buddh. Studies. I believe the article came out in the 1980s.

 

You may also want to look at L. Schmithausen's "Alaya Vijnana": it is

extremely thorough with notes about all the different mind-oriented words.

Also, William Waldron has written on the notion of alaya vijnana in early

Buddhism.

 

 

 

>Chitta maatra or mind only, as the "source" of the world and the

>invidual self (only in the epistemological/psychological sense).

>

>Vijnaana maatra or consciousness only, which aims at isolating

>consciousness as the path to reach the truth.

>

>Here chitta or mind is distinguished from vijnaana or consciousness,

>even as "early" Buddhism had them as seperate categories in its five

>skandha formulation.

 

 

See my other post. The two words are not always used in discrete senses in

early Buddhism.

 

I'm not sure about your other questions.

 

Lynken Ghose

 

 

 

 

 

_______________

Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com

[Guest guest]

vpcnk (it would be nice to have a proper name rathe than an acronym) wote:

 

> the Vijnaaptimaatrataasiddhi and the Gaudapaadiya Kaarikaas where I

> perceived similar philosophical/spiritual inclinations.

I don't know too much about Gaudapaada but possibly this similarity is more

apparent than actual -- at least as far as early Yogacaara thought (Maitreya

/ Asa`nga / Vasubandhu) is concerned. Their's was a phenomenological system

rather than a strictly onotological one.

 

> Can you distinguish between chitta maatra, vijnaana maatra and

> vijnaapti maatra - as to in what contexts these terms are used in

> Vijnaanavaada. If it is not too much trouble, it would be very useful

> if you can give the meanings of the terms in reference to the

> relevant texts.

1. As I said before, citta-maatra is the favoured term used by the

La`nkaavataara-suutra where it is stated that the world (jagad / tri-bhava

etc) IS citta-maatra. True Yogacaarins never say this. There is also the

question of what citta is -- in Buddhist terms it is a stream of discrete

mental events, more akin to "thoughts" -- so one might translate

citta-maatra as "thought-only". There is also, incidently, some debate

about the actual import of "maatra" -- Alex Wayman hads written an

interesting paper, available digitally on the net somewhere, that discusses

this problem.

 

2. I do not recollect ever seeing vij~naaana-maatra in any Yogacaara

text. It may be used by philosophical opponents only.

 

3. Vij~napti-maatra signifies "representation-only" -- the theory that we

do not have direct access to any perceptual object but merely cognize a

mental construct that we project and mistake for reality. This is what, in

my opinion, is meant by the theory that there are no baahya-artha. That

early Yogacaarins DID accept there is some kind of inexpressible stuff

(vastu-maatra) lying outside our minds is clear from the Maitreya chapter of

the Sandhi-nirmocana-suutra and various commentaries (only available in

Tibetan translation). It is inportant to realize that Yogacaara perceptual

/ conceptual theories derive from their analysis of meditational processes,

as also will be seen in the Maitreya chapter of the SNS.

 

4. Vij~naana-vaada: also seems not to have been used by Yogacaarins

themselves.

 

Hope this helps.

 

Stephen Hodge

[Guest guest]

-

"vpcnk" <vpcnk

<INDOLOGY>

Tuesday, February 26, 2002 3:52 AM

Re: [Y-Indology] chitta maatra Vs vijnaana maatra

 

 

>

> > Strange that you ask since there has just been a very long and

> detailed

> > debate on this very topic on the Buddha-L list

>

> Oh! how unfortunate! I'd been wanting to raise this questions for the

> last few months now - fundamentally because of my studies into both

> the Vijnaaptimaatrataasiddhi and the Gaudapaadiya Kaarikaas where I

> perceived similar philosophical/spiritual inclinations - but somehow

> only just got the time.

>

> Let me go through the list then.

>

> >which began when I suggested

> > that cittamaatra as found in the Lankavatara-sutra (not a pure

> Yogacaara

> > text -- syncretic) has quite different implications to vij~napti-

> maatra (not

> > vij~naana-maatra) as found in early Yogaacaara texts. Although

> citta-maatra

> > is found a very few times in Yogacaara texts, usually for causa

> metri, the

> > authors clearly prefer vij~napti-maatra.

>

> Can you distinguish between chitta maatra, vijnaana maatra and

> vijnaapti maatra - as to in what contexts these terms are used in

> Vijnaanavaada. If it is not too much trouble, it would be very useful

> if you can give the meanings of the terms in reference to the

> relevant texts.

>

>

>

>

>

> indology

>

>

>

> Your use of is subject to

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

> I don't know too much about Gaudapaada but possibly this similarity

>is more apparent than actual -- at least as far as early Yogacaara

>thought (Maitreya / Asa`nga / Vasubandhu) is concerned. Their's was

>a phenomenological system

 

But the last three verses in the Trimshika are clearly ontological

asserting that reality is pure consciousness - vijnaana maatra.

 

> 1. As I said before, citta-maatra is the favoured term used by

the

> La`nkaavataara-suutra where it is stated that the world (jagad /

tri-bhava

> etc) IS citta-maatra. True Yogacaarins never say this.

 

But I thought Vaasubandu uses chitta instead of vijnaana when

expounding the illusory nature of the world and the self.

 

> 2. I do not recollect ever seeing vij~naaana-maatra in any

Yogacaara

> text. It may be used by philosophical opponents only.

 

Last three verses of Vijnaaptimaatrataasiddhi - Trimshika.

 

>

> 3. Vij~napti-maatra signifies "representation-only" -- the

theory that we

> do not have direct access to any perceptual object but merely

cognize a

> mental construct that we project and mistake for reality

 

I would dispute this reading of vijnaaptimaatra - even as the Buddha

said his system was not a darshana (a school of philosophy) but a

yaana - a vehicle to liberation. IMO, it would be much more

meaningful to read the verses relating to vijnaaptimaatra from a

spiritual practice point of view - it seems to me that Vaasubandhu is

teaching how to isolate consciousness as the thing in itself apart

from chitta. Because the verses that immediately follow expound the

ontological nature of reality - as pure consciousness - vijnaana

maatra.

[Guest guest]

Dear Vpcnk,

 

I suppose your msg is intended for me though you haven't bothered to

indicate my name nor (again) have you bothered to sign your own mail with

your name. I won't bother to reply next time.

 

> But the last three verses in the Trimshika are clearly ontological

> asserting that reality is pure consciousness - vijnaana maatra.

1) The term "vij~naana-maatra" is not mentioned in my edition which only

has "vij~napti-maatra".

2) Do you understand the difference between "vij~napti-maatra" and

"vij~napti-maatrataa" ?

 

> But I thought Vaasubandu uses chitta instead of vijnaana when

> expounding the illusory nature of the world and the self.

Where ?

 

> > 2. I do not recollect ever seeing vij~naaana-maatra in any

> Yogacaara text. It may be used by philosophical opponents only.

>

> Last three verses of Vijnaaptimaatrataasiddhi - Trimshika.

 

Ditto above -- you must have a divergent edition of the Trimsika: al the

ones I have do not use "vij~aana-maatra" but "vij~napti-maatra". I suppose

you are now going to tell me that the two terms are synonymous.

 

> > 3. Vij~napti-maatra signifies "representation-only" -- the

> theory that we

> > do not have direct access to any perceptual object but merely

> cognize a

> > mental construct that we project and mistake for reality

>

> I would dispute this reading of vijnaaptimaatra - even as the Buddha

> said his system was not a darshana (a school of philosophy) but a

> yaana - a vehicle to liberation.

Pls dispute as much as you like but if you look at the primary sources and

commentorial literature in detail you will see that such is the early

Yogacara standpoint. I have quoted several of these in the course of the

similar debate on Buddha-L in january and February of this year -- pls refer

to those. Your second statement seems to be a non sequitur.

 

> IMO, it would be much more

> meaningful to read the verses relating to vijnaaptimaatra from a

> spiritual practice point of view - it seems to me that Vaasubandhu is

> teaching how to isolate consciousness as the thing in itself apart

> from chitta. Because the verses that immediately follow expound the

> ontological nature of reality - as pure consciousness - vijnaana

> maatra.

If this muddled "Hinduizing" reading of Vasubandhu makes sense to you, then

who am I to gainsay you. But I suspect that you do not really understand

Vasubandhu since you insist in reading "vij~napti-maatra" as

"vij~aana-maatra".

 

Best wishes,

Stephen Hodge

[Guest guest]

Dear Stephen,

 

> 1) The term "vij~naana-maatra" is not mentioned in my edition

>which only has "vij~napti-maatra".

 

My source is Stephen Anacker's Seven Works of Vasubandu which

contains the Sanskrit originals. AFAI remember, the last three verses

in the Trimshika use only Vijnaana-maatra and not Vijnaapti-maatra.

 

> 2) Do you understand the difference between "vij~napti-maatra"

and

> "vij~napti-maatrataa" ?

 

Nope - please enlighten.

 

> Pls dispute as much as you like but if you look at the primary

sources and

> commentorial literature in detail you will see that such is the

early

> Yogacara standpoint.

 

Maybe you're right - as I've not had much access to such works.

But again it is the same commentorial literature of Dignaaga and

Dharmakirti and their followers, who though claim to be adherents of

Vijnaanavaada (the first was infact a direct student of Vaasubandhu),

still turned Vaasubandhu's philosophy upside down, by asserting that

consciousness was momentary - while Asanga and Vaasubandhu clearly

held that it was nityam or permanent.

 

> If this muddled "Hinduizing" reading of Vasubandhu makes sense to

>you, then who am I to gainsay you.

 

It doesn't befit a scholar like you to make such frivolous and

provocative statements.

 

The school is called "Yoga"acaara right? So if you interpret

everything in Vijnaaptimaatrataasiddhi only on an intellectual basis,

where exactly is there scope for Yoga at all? And what's the "siddhi"

doing in the title? Are we going to be enlightened by merely

understanding that everything is "representation only"?

[Guest guest]

Nanda Chandran wrote:

 

> My source is Stephen Anacker's Seven Works of Vasubandu which

> contains the Sanskrit originals. AFAI remember, the last three verses

> in the Trimshika use only Vijnaana-maatra and not Vijnaapti-maatra.

Anacker's version seems to be based on Levi's 1932 edition.

As reproduced, verse 26 = vij~napti-maata, verse 27 = vij~napti-maatra,

verse 28 = vij~aana-maatra. However, this last must be a typo because no

other published edition has that -- they all have vij~apti-maatra here also,

as is corroborated by Tibetan and Chinese.

 

 

> > the difference between "vij~napti-maatra" and "vij~napti-maatrataa" ?

> Nope - please enlighten.

The difference is quite straightforward but I'll get back to you on this

briefly in the next few days -- I am very busy with other work

 

> Maybe you're right - as I've not had much access to such works.

This is a problem not necessarily of your making -- much of the important

literature, especially commentaries have not been translated. To have

access to them one really needs Tibetan skills. However, I find that many

people make unwarranted assertions about Yogacara without being in

possession of the full facts.

 

> But again it is the same commentorial literature of Dignaaga and

> Dharmakirti and their followers, who though claim to be adherents of

> Vijnaanavaada .

Well not quite. There is also a huge gulf between Dignaaga / Dharmakiirti

and the earlier Yogacarins. It is also debatable whether they should

actually be labelled Vij~naanavaadins -- a bit too simplistic -- and with

their pramana interests they have moved away from classical Yogacara.

 

> > If this muddled "Hinduizing" reading of Vasubandhu makes sense to

> >you, then who am I to gainsay you.

> It doesn't befit a scholar like you to make such frivolous and

> provocative statements.

My words were meant neither frivolously nor provocatively. I believe i)

that your understanding of Vasubandhu is mistaken, ii) your understanding

seems to approximate a Vedantic view rather than a Buddhist one, iii) you

are perfectly entitled to your understanding if it makes sense to you but do

not expect others to agree with you. I note that the person with whom you

were recently debating on Buddha-L also disagrees with you -- though in far

less friendly terms -- on similar grounds.

 

> The school is called "Yoga"acaara right? So if you interpret

> everything in Vijnaaptimaatrataasiddhi only on an intellectual basis,

> where exactly is there scope for Yoga at all?

I'm not sure what you mean by "only on an intellectual basis" -- also do you

mean me personally or one in general ? It is also clear from Vasubandhu's

Tri.m`sika that the realization of vij~apti-maatrataa is the result of

meditation -- this is also clear in many other Yogacara sources. However,

pls note that "Vijnaaptimaatrataasiddhi" seems to be a made-up title for the

work which is normally known only as the Tri.m`sika.

 

> And what's the "siddhi" doing in the title?

Well, as I said, that title seems to be an invention of Western scholars.

But "siddhi" is used in the sense of "proof" or "establishment".

 

> Are we going to be enlightened by merely

> understanding that everything is "representation only"?

No -- and I never said that one would be enlightened thus. Vasubandhu

describes the process quite well, I believe.

 

Best wishes,

Stephen Hodge

[Guest guest]

Dear Stephen,

 

> Anacker's version seems to be based on Levi's 1932 edition.

> As reproduced, verse 26 = vij~napti-maata, verse 27 = vij~napti-

maatra,

> verse 28 = vij~aana-maatra. However, this last must be a typo

because no

> other published edition has that -- they all have vij~apti-maatra

here also,

> as is corroborated by Tibetan and Chinese.

 

Are you sure?

 

In my edition I remember specifically searching for Vijnaaptimaatra

in the last three verses and don't remember seeing them - I remember

the word "vijnaanamaatravey" in one of the verses. Which in my mind

is reasonable since the last three verses in the Trimshika are

distinct from the rest of the verses in the sense that they try to

establish the ontological nature of reality. While vijnaaptimaatra

or "representation only" relates to unreality, vijnaanamaatra

or "consciousness only" teaches of the nature of reality as pure

consciousness.

 

Also "representation only" can hardly be considered as any

new/original contribution of Yogaacaara as it is an old Sautraantika

theory. So what's the great point in Vaasubandhu trying to teach this

as a main teaching in what is considered his magnum opus?

 

> Well not quite. There is also a huge gulf between Dignaaga /

Dharmakiirti

> and the earlier Yogacarins.

 

Is that really true considering Dignaaga was a direct disciple of

Vaasubandhu?

 

>It is also debatable whether they should

> actually be labelled Vij~naanavaadins -- a bit too simplistic --

and with

> their pramana interests they have moved away from classical

Yogacara.

 

In my mind it is scholasticism vs spiritual practice.

 

>i) that your understanding of Vasubandhu is mistaken,

>ii) your understanding seems to approximate a Vedantic view rather

>than a Buddhist one,

 

For both the above conclusions to be established, you've to first

prove it to be so based on textual references and reasoning. You

cannot merely say "vijnaanamaatra is a typo" as the last three verses

deal with an entirely different issue in contrast to the previous

verses.

 

>iii) you are perfectly entitled to your understanding if it makes

>sense to you but do not expect others to agree with you.

 

The same could be said of both parties to the argument.

 

>I note that the person with whom you

> were recently debating on Buddha-L also disagrees with you --

though in far

> less friendly terms -- on similar grounds.

 

That's hardly relevant. If you say "this is what Yogaacaara teaches",

you should prove it based on textual references and reasoning.

 

>

> > The school is called "Yoga"acaara right? So if you interpret

> > everything in Vijnaaptimaatrataasiddhi only on an intellectual

basis,

> > where exactly is there scope for Yoga at all?

> I'm not sure what you mean by "only on an intellectual basis" --

 

My original complaint against your interpretation of vijnaaptimaatra

is that it is ignoring the implied spiritual practice of the teaching.

 

>However,

> pls note that "Vijnaaptimaatrataasiddhi" seems to be a made-up

title for the

> work which is normally known only as the Tri.m`sika.

 

Do you have any more information on this? I thought the

word "Vijnaaptimaatrataasiddhi" has been used by later commentators

too in reference to Vaasubandhu's work.

 

> But "siddhi" is used in the sense of "proof" or "establishment".

 

Or can it be in the sense of a "spiritual accomplishment or power",

the way it is normally used in classical Yoga - remember this school

of Buddhism is called Yogaacaara. And I've also noted some verses in

the Trimshika which seem to be very similar to Patanjala Yoga Sutra.

 

In my mind, the very purpose of the rise of the Yogaacaara is to stem

the tendency to indulge in negative dialectic (ala Maadhyamika) and

point to what really needs to be done after understanding the

significance of the chatushkoti - to practice yoga.

 

>Vasubandhu describes the process quite well, I believe.

 

If so, can't the title be interpreted as "understanding the true

significance of vijnaaptimaatrataa, you're on the right path to

enlightenment (siddhi)"?

 

Rgds,

Nandakumar

[Guest guest]

>ii) your understanding seems to approximate a Vedantic view rather

>than a Buddhist one,

 

I would like to touch upon this issue again.

 

All this opposition to my interpretation of Mahaayaana is based on

one fact : that I assert that there's a positive reality implied in

the teachings of the Mahaayaana. For this I'm accused of "Vedaantic

bias".

 

I would like the following points to be considered in this regard :

 

1. Of late it has become popular to assert that the two extremes

Buddhism avoids is absolutism and nihilism. This is plainly wrong -

the two extremes are only eternalism and nihilism. See the

chapter "Examination of essence" in MMK - it is only these two

categories that are declared to be extremes.

 

2. The two main schools of Maadhyamika - the Svaatantra of

Bhaavaviveka and the Prasangika of Buddhapaalita are divided only on

one issue - whether reality can be expressed or not.

 

The former thinks there's nothing wrong with it as long as we're

aware than any such expression is only relative. Bhaavaviveka even

quotes Gaudapaada approvingly in his Tarkajvaala.

 

The champion of the latter school, Chandrakiirti, whose work

Prasannapadaa is considered THE commentary on the MMK, is agreed on

an absolute reality and only opposes any expression of it. For this

even he's condemned as having a Vedaantic bias by a modern author of

Buddhism (see Kalupahana's History of Buddhist Philosophy)!

 

The problem with modern interpreters is that they are mere scholars

who can only appreciate Buddhist philosophy at an intellectual level.

Beyond that they're unable to penetrate into its spiritual depths.

Every Buddhist philosopher of yore was a samnyaasin, who having

rejected a life of the body/mind/senses was walking the "razor" path -

a hard and difficult life - mere ideas will not satisfy them. They

need a concrete real to substitute that which they have abandoned

(samsaara) - that's what will lead to calm and bliss - nirvaana. In

contrast most modern interpreters enjoying a life of the

mind/body/senses have no such spiritual commitment to their

philosophy and seldom go beyond the chatushkoti and make itself a

view.

 

3. Advaita as a philosophical system was non-existent at the time of

Naagaarjuna and Vaasubandhu - so nobody can clearly say that these

Bauddha achaaryas were opposed to Advaita. And it is significant that

by the time of Advaita, neither Maadhyamaka nor Yogaacaara was in

vogue having been replaced by the Sautraantika Vijnaanavaada of

Dignaaga/Dharmakirti/Shaantarakshita/Kamalaseela, who again started

harping on the theory of momentariness (kshanikavaada), which was

opposed by both Naagaarjuna and Vaasubandhu.