“This is only perception.” So begins the first verse of Vasubandhu’s Vimsatikakarika, Twenty Verses on citta-matra, mind-only, a text known for its arguments that all this, experience, perception, outer objects, everything, is only perception, vijhapti-matra. Yet, all this being perception, Vasubandhu teaches in the final verse of Trimsikd-vijhapti-karikd, Thirty Verses on Perception, that it is ultimately “the non-conceptual source, constant beneficial/ Ground, joyful, the liberation body, the dharma body of the great sage.” The verses that lead to this conclusion describe how non-dual consciousness evolves increasingly sophisticated concepts that lead it to misapprehend itself as self and object, grasper and grasped, and so the Trimsika begins: “Self and object, these varied figures of speech proliferate/ In the evolution of consciousness that occurs in a threefold manner./”

These two texts, the Twenty Verses and the Thirty Verses on Perception, have at times been read and translated together as Vijhapti-Matrata-Siddhi, Demonstration of Perception Only, and are regarded by many to serve as a distilled presentation of the Yogacara view. This work tells the tale of these two texts, which I refer to together as, the Mind Only Verses. Biography provides a way to survey a range of interpretations, and the ways people have used the Mind Only Verses. It also provides a frame of reference for including all voices that contribute to the text’s life and for acknowledging those persons who enliven a text through their study of it. This is helpful because the Mind Only Verses has received interpretation from academics, religious teachers, and those of varied affiliation. The biography unfolds over time, for the Mind Only Verses that is from 4th century India unto the present day across the world, from India to China to Tibet to America and further reaches. Each time and location plays a part in the text’s life. “Glimpses of a Biography” draws out concerns over religion and philosophy, faith and reason, head and heart, and that these are not opposed to one another.

Introduction

The Inquiry

I recall my first encounter with Michel Foucault’spctnoplicism. a critique of normative power dynamics? Imagine a prison, a large circular building with individual cells circling the periphery that are divided and walled such that a prisoner may only look at a central tower in the middle, while windows backlight the prisoner from behind to create surveillance “like so many cages, so many small theaters, in which each actor is alone.. .and constantly visible.” I imagined sitting in a prison cell with a single open wall facing a dark tower wherein a guard, unseen, may be watching me at any and every moment. Because the guard may surveil at any moment, I begin to self-surveil, to monitor my behavior to suit the guard’s expectation, to suit the expectation of the watcher. Foucault describes “the major effect of the Panopticon: to induce in the inmate a state of conscious and permeant visibility that assures the automatic functioning of power,” and I would add, paranoia. The guard was the first watcher, and then I undertook the role, and saw that I self-surveilled in the course of everyday activities though which I continuously adhere to a barely conscious power dynamic.

I felt completely shaken. I sat on the burnt-orange couch of my undergraduate apartment feeling paranoia, wondering, why do I behave as I do? Have I made these choices, or have I unknowingly adopted a self-surveilling gaze with destructive expectations and a distorted view of reality? Did someone else do this to me, or did I do this to myself? While never having been physically coerced, mere mental perception gave rise to a completely different experience and a completely different world. My study of Foucault’s panopticism showed me that I had produced this experience. Such philosophic issues have the capacity to shift how we understand ourselves, the world, and how we act within it. Argument, analysis and example, can shake one’s convictions as this encounter shook mine. Vasubandhu’s Mind Only Verses have been shaking convictions since the 4th century CE. They call into question everything that appears before our senses.

Do we question and investigate our assumptions about ourselves and the world? How do we learn to do so? Foucault provides an opportunity of doing so. Vasubandhu’s Mind Only Verses, the Vimsatikd and Trimsika-vijhapti-kdrikd provide another opportunity that scholars and contemplatives have undertaken since the 4th century CE. Vasubandhu’s Mind Only Verses describe experience and the world through a perceptual causal story, a mental causal story rather than a physical one. The.AT/W Only Verses challenge the privileged causal story that we often accept without question. A story that we perhaps had not considered even having alternatives. The student benefits from reading the alternatives, and from examining evidence regardless of what theses is ultimately accepted.

“This is only perception.” So begins the first verse of Vasubandhu’s Vimsatikakarika, Twenty’ Verses on citta-matra, mind-only, a text known for its arguments that all this, experience, perception, outer objects, everything, is only perception, vijhapti-matra. Yet, all this being perception, Vasubandhu teaches in the final verse of Trimsikd-vijnapti-karika, Thirty Verses on Perception, that it is ultimately “the non-conceptual source, constant beneficial/ Ground, joyful, the liberation body, the dharma body of the great sage.” The verses that lead to this conclusion describe how non-dual consciousness evolves increasingly sophisticated concepts that lead it to misapprehend itself as self and object, grasper and grasped, and so the Trimsika begins: “Self and object, these varied figures of speech proliferate/ In the evolution of consciousness that occurs in a threefold manner./”

The Vimsatika argues for a view of mind-only and has inspired strong reactions and debate since Vasubandhu composed it around the fourth century CE—e.g. more than ten Indian commentaries—and similar debate has continued to this day in Buddhist philosophy. Does mind-only deny the existence of a physical world? What is Vasubandhu’s intention? Is mind-only merely skillful means, while the ultimate goal is non-duality? If so, why does he argue so fiercely for mind-only? Is he only instigating doubt?

The autocommentary of Vimsatika verse ten begins to place the mind-only view in the broader Buddhist context of selflessness of both phenomenon and persons. Vasubandhu clarifies the purpose of mind-only in the Trimsika, where he describes that one first abides in mind-only having eliminated the outer object, an experience wherein7 outer objects are seen to be insubstantial. Having done so the inner subject is seen as equally insubstantial. With this cultivated, one stops grasping at an inner subject and dwells in non-duality. Having eliminated all propensities for further grasping at any concept of inner or outer, subject or object, one thus achieves the goal of liberation.

Isolating Vasubandhu’s arguments explores relevant themes, however it divorces these steps from part of a developmental process. Mind-only is neither to be neglected, nor clung to. Mind-only plays a pivotal role in Vasubandhu’s soteriological project, however this step, while crucial, must still be understood as a step on the path to nonduality. One better understands these dynamics when reading Vasubandhu inter-textually in this case, in reading the Vimsika and Trimsikd together.

These two texts, the Twenty Verses and the Thirty’ Verses on Perception, have at times been read and translated together as Vijhapti-Mdtratci-Siddhi, Demonstration of Perception Only, and are regarded by many to serve as a distilled presentation of the Yogacara view. This work tells glimpses of the life story, the biography, of these two texts, which I refer to together as, the Mind Only Verses. I have done so because of the precedent of reading these texts together, and because ambiguities often arise when reading Vasubandhu’s works in seclusion. I have also taken inspiration from Jonathan Gold’s suggestion, “It is extremely fruitful to read these texts together, inter textually, for their common methods and goals.” Finally, I have done so because the text’s interwoven philosophic and contemplative qualities are personally valuable.In this endeavor, I

ultimately strive for a balance of clarity and confusion in order to facilitate inquiry. The Mind Only Verses are not a single thing nor a fixed thing. They were written by a single person, Vasubandhu, but they do not belong to any single person, time, or place. No single person or field of study holds exclusive domain over the Mind Only Versus and its interpretation. This being the case, the biography affords some measure of showing the multiplicity of interpretations across time and space. These conversations have validity and their own right and much comes of bringing them together in a biography. I have set out to convey some of the context for understanding the arguments and issues relevant in the life of the Mind Only Verses. So too do I strive to complicate the process of understanding the text, to prevent a reader from to rigidly or singularly conceptualizing the Mind Only Verses. I do so because I value the inquiry, and I care that others have the opportunity to experience a similar inquiry, for philosophers and logicians, contemplatives and practitioners all benefit from it.

Vasubandhu was a philosopher, Buddhist teacher, logician, and contemplative. He teaches and informs all of these and consequently his Mind Only Verses offer an encounter that to some degree functions along all these spectrums. I previously cited Foucault as an example because I want to convey that Vasubandhu’s challenge need not have anything to do with Buddhism. Scholars, secular and religious, have benefited from studying Vasubandhu’sMind Only Verses. One can read the Mind Only Verses as philosophy, as an exercise in argument, as instruction in Buddhist practice, or as fulfilling any number of other functions. Vasubandhu’s Mind Only Verses offer much to Buddhist practitioners, to the intellectually curious, and to those who have a passion for inquiry into fundamental questions. The process of inquiry sets forth the possibility for internal and external revolution. And the process of inquiry knows no categorical confines.

Vasubandhu wrote and argued from a Buddhist context, yet so too is his work a contribution to philosophy. These categories have use, and they help to delineate the difference between religion and philosophy, faith and reason, head and heart. However, these categories are not mutually exclusive territories, and many written works intersect such boundaries, for example, Karl Brunnholzl’s /j/ot/ww.s Heart, Stefan Anacker’s Vasubandhu: Three Aspects and Mark Siderits’ Buddhism and Philosophy. Reflecting on such matters, Siderits says that “It is not at all clear that that ‘head’ and ‘heart’ constitute a strict dichotomy.” He further muses that “It is not obvious that the matters we consider religious (or ‘spiritual’) necessarily belong on the ‘faith’ side of any such divide.” Reason and faith, head and heart, philosophy and religion, logic and contemplation, scholarship and Buddhist practice, all such categories have use, yet neither can they be found as strict dichotomies. Vasubandhu’ sMind Only Verses include them all, and these qualities offer something to all, regardless of specific personal commitments.

Methodology and Biography

I frame my study of Vasubandhu ’sMind Only Verses as a biography. Or as glimpses of one as it were. Princeton currently publishes a series in this genre new to religious studies, “A Biography” that features biographies of such texts as The Tibetan Book of the Deaf the Bhagavad Gita, The I Ching, The Book of Genesis, and Thomas Aquinas's Summa Theologiae. Vasubandhu’s Mind Only Verses, the Vimsatika and Trimsikakarika, fit in this corpus well despite being less known than the other works. Those books thus far published deal with texts that feature in a religious tradition of some kind. Some of the subjects tilt toward the philosophic. Some of the texts feature entire works such as

The Tibetan Book of the Dead, and some examine smaller parts of larger works as is the case with The Book of Genesis. In all cases of this series, the texts in question have been interpreted and used in a variety of ways over the course of their, shall we say, lives—lives that include translation over centuries, from diverse cultures that each have individual histories, and contexts secular and religious. A labyrinth of interpretations awaits whoever begins to study any one of them, especially when approaching such a task from a modem context. The biography provides a way to survey the range of interpretations, and the ways people have used the texts in question. The biography also provides a frame of reference for including all voices that contribute to the text’s life. This is especially helpful as all of these texts receive interpretation from academics, religious teachers, and those of varied affiliation. Such scholarship does not always have a forum to be brought together in one conversation. As such, the biography of a text offers a vehicle for just this, including a multiplicity of uses and interpretations over time and across space.

Biography gives the contemporary student some access to the accumulated research and translations. The biography unfolds over time; for the Mind Only Verses the text has traveled from 4th century India unto the present day across the continent, across diverse cultures and times from India to China to Tibet to America and further reaches. Each time and location has played a part in the text’s life. New translation and scholarship does not mean the old is unfit, or without purpose. Richard H. Davis comments upon this aptly in The Bhagavad Gita: A Biography, “a new translation does not require the death of old ones. It simply adds to the expansive life of the original text.” In examining these views and translations I have sought to answer questions

Davis raises:

Does the translator seek to maintain primarily the stylistic character of the Sanskrit original order to produce a literary rendering inappropriate English? What kind of audience does the translator in vision for the work? Does the translator consider the task as rendering the meaning of the work in its time of composition or as it might take a new significance in contemporary times? What personal motivation or subjective reasons does the translator bring to the task of translating

As I turn to interpreters and translators of the Mind Only Verses I have sought to answer these questions as context for those voices included in this work.

This biography is not only that of a text. A text cannot live on its own. It must first be authored, and then those who study, translate, comment upon, and teach it, continue to give the text life. As such this particular biography features both the Mind Only Verses and some of the translators, commentators, and Buddhist teachers who have enlivened it through their study and teaching. In particular, this work includes contributions from religious studies, Buddhist philosophy, Buddhist theology, and

Buddhist traditions. It also draws forth logical and contemplative elements in each of these fields of study. Religious studies scholars frequently emphasize Vasubandhu’s soteriological goal and overlook the importance of the mind-only arguments. Studies in Buddhist philosophy take the mind-only arguments seriously because western philosophy discusses similar arguments in idealism. However, they give less attention to Vasubandhu’s soteriological goal, ceasing all afflictions and living non-dualistically because soteriological aims lie outside western philosophy. Contemporary inheritors of Vasubandhu’s Buddhist practice present views that resemble the developmental approach for which I argue, views that seriously employ the mind-only view within the context of non-duality and the goal of liberation.

Vasubandhu’s Mind Only Verses, and a host of other texts have often been interpreted through a western philosophic lens that privileges itself and European normativity. Students of western philosophy have often viewed Yogacara and mind-only though an idealist hermenuetic. Idealism has two common interpretations: ontological idealism, which asserts that only mental phenomenon exist and there is no substantial physical reality, and epistemological idealism, which asserts that while physical reality may exist, one can only know the mind’s experience of it, thus physical phenomena are unknowable. The comparison to idealism is not wrong to make but the scholar must consider the dynamics of western superiority and colonialism. One could just as well view idealists Hegel, Kant, Berkeley, and Hume as Yogacarins, or Cittamatrins. This13 being said, comparing the Mind Only Verses to idealism useful, there are clear similarities and comparing them offers a helpful way to begin a conversation. Let us continue the conversation and research such that it does not end there.

Formally methodology cannot be separated from my overall experience studying Yogacara and related teachings. In this regard I have benefited from studying with Geoffrey Shugen Arnold, Judith Simmer-Brown, Phil Stanley, Amelia Hall, Lama Tenpa Gyaltsen, and from innumerable other sources. This biography is by no means comprehensive. I emphasize a few translations and interpretations of the Mind Only Verses to provide a way to begin to understand these texts. There is a far greater range of translations, many more commentators, and from a greater variety of historical periods and locals. I hope to render a more complete biography in the future that includes the sociological, anthropological, and broader historical aspects of the Mind Only Verses, as well as a more comprehensive study of its translations and interpretations.

Finally, here is an overview: Chapter One features my translation of Trimsika- vijnapti-kdrikd. Thirty Verses on Perception. Chapter Two features the historical context of the Mind Only Verses in India, China, and Tibet. This begins in India where Vasubandhu lived, studied, wrote, and taught, and discusses the origins of the Yogacara school of Mahayana Buddhism. Next, I draw out the Samkhya influence on The Mind Only Verses informed by Gerald James Larson’s ClassicalSamkhya. Next I follow the Mind Only Verses to China and look at Xuanzang’s Cheng Weishi Lun informed by DanLusthaus’ Buddhist Phenomenology. Following this, I turn to Tibetan Buddhism, Shentong, and the Third Karmapa informed by Karl Brunnholzl’s Luminous Heart. Chapter Three examines the Mind Only Verses in the 20th Century. I observe how they are understood in the Religious Studies textual tradition, by Edward Conze in Buddhist Thought in India and Stefan Anacker in Seven Works of Vasubandhu, and show how mind-only is part of the process of living non-dualistically. Informed by this I perform a close reading of the Thirty Verses on Perception, verses 26-30 that discuss the stages of Vasubandhu’s path and the place of mind-only within it. I next turn to Mark Siderits’ Buddhist Philosophy and present Vasbandhu’s primary arguments for mind-only. After this I draw out mind-only in a modern context with examples provided by Mark Siderits and Jonathan C. Gold’s Paving the Great Way which reveal virtues of seriously considering mind-only. Chapter Four brings forth two of Vasubandhu’s contemporary dharma inheritors, Thich Nhat Hanh and Dzogchen Ponlop Rinpoche, and explores how their presentation of mind-only makes sense of the ambiguities often encountered in the Mind Only Verses and how following each step of Vasubandhu’s process may explain their stance on mind-only and that it is a pivotal step not to be taken lightly. I then conclude a few final remarks.

Translating Thirty Verses on Perception

As for my translation of Thirty Verses on Perception, I have consulted a number of renditions: Seven Works of Vasubandhu Stefan Anacker; Ch’eng Wei-Shih Lun: Doctrine of Mere-Conciousness by Hsiian Tsang (pinyin Xuanzang) by Wei Tat; Vasubandhu’s Vijhapti-Matrata-Siddhi: With Sthiramati 's Commentary by K. N. Chatteijee; “Only Knowing: Commentary on Vasubandhu’s Trimsika-Karika” by Anzan Hoshin; and Inside Vasubandhu’s Yogacara: A Practitioner’s Guide by Ben Connelly. Anacker, Connely, and Hoshin aided in my understanding the flow and broad meaning of the Trims. Tat and Chatterjee’s work helped to elucidate individual terms, and hone in on particularly pesky passages and phrases. As general references, I have relied upon M. Monier Williams’ Sanskrit-English Dictionary, and Franklin Edgerton’s Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Dictionary, as well as sanskritdictionary.com and spokensanskrit.org.

The text of Trimsikdkarika that I have included uses the Gretil romanized text and I resolved discrepancies between it and the text of the Digital Sanskrit Buddhist Canon The text I translated is the Digital Sanskrit Buddhist Canon and checked this against Stefan Anacker’s in Seven Works of Vasubandhu. I have endeavored to use as few Sanskrit terms as possible while preserving the philosophic and doctrinal argument. My intent in this is to render the text that is philosophically satisfying and still points towards this text’s application in contemplative practice. This follows Vasubandhu’s lead as a contemplative-philosopher and continues this theme within the biography, i.e. uniting the philosophic with the religious, the logical with the contemplative.

The translation process gave rise to questions that in turn gave rise to new sections of the biography. From the beginning, I wondered why Vasubandhu taught mind-only? What place did it have in Yogacara? Before my more in-depth study, I felt content with a view that “there are outer objects, it’s just that I will only ever know my own perceptions of them.” Yet I wondered if I was missing an opportunity by jumping to this conclusion? And this is perhaps the chief value for me. I care for preserving the process of inquiry and the opportunity for internal revolution, and I caution all readers to not reach a conclusion too quickly. (Perhaps I may express that as a joke to my advisor, Dr. Simmer-Brown, about the glimpse 's length!)

This translation has only occurred due to my receiving Sanskrit instruction from Andrew Schelling, L.S. Summer, Loriliai Biernacki, and Ben Williams. (I must also mention my spouse’s patience as I memorized Sanskrit paradigms by chanting them.) Additionally, I further thank Loriliai Biernacki for drawing my attention to the Samkhya influence on the text.Chapter One: Thirty Verses on Perception

trimsikavijnaptikarikah

namah sarvabuddhabodhisattvebhyah2^

Thirty Verses on Perception Homage to all Buddhas and bodhisattvas.

atmadharmopacaro hi vividho yah pravartate I

vijhana pariname 'sau parinamah sa ca tridha II 1 //

1. Self and object, these varied figures of speech proliferate

in the evolution of consciousness that occurs in a threefold manner:

vipako mananakhyas ca vijhaptir visayasya ca I tatralayakhyam vijhanam vipakah sarvabljakam II2 //

2. Maturation, cogitation (manas), and the perception of the sense domains.

Maturation is the storehouse consciousness, also called “the source of all.”

asamviditakopadisthana vijhaptikam ca tat I

sada sparsamanaskaravitsahjhacetananvitam II 3 //

3. This hold for perception is not conscious.

It always accompanied by contact, attention, sensation, name, and volition. upeksa vedana tatranivrtavyakrtam ca tat I

tatha sparsadayas tac ca vartate srotasaughavat II 4 //

4. Its mental factor of sensation is indifferent, unimpeded, and undefined.

The same is true for the other mental factors of contact, [[[attention]], name, and volition.] Its quality is that of a flowing stream.� tasya vyavrtir arhatve tad asritya pravartate I tad alambam manonama vijfidnam manandtmakam II 5 //

5. The storehouse is circumvented upon having reached Arhatship.

Dependent upon the storehouse, manas, the cogitating consciousness has the quality of thinking. klesais caturbhih sahitam nivrtdvydkrtaih sadd I atmadrstydtmamohdtmamdndtmasnehasamjhitaih II 6 //

6. It is always united with four impeding yet indeterminate afflictions: self-view, self-ignorance, self-pride, and self-love. yatrajas tanmayair anyaih sparsadyais cdrhato na tat I na nirodhasamdpattau marge lokottare na ca II 7 //

7. Wherever manas is born, so too are the mental factors contact, attention, sensation, name, and volition. Manas does not exist for an Arhat, in the attainment of cessation, or in paths beyond the worldly. dvitiyah parindmo 'yam trtiyah sadvidhasya yd I visayasyopalabdhih sd kusalakusaladvaya II 8 //

8. Such is the second evolution. The third is the perception of the six sense domains and is virtuous, non-virtuous, or neither. sarvatragair viniyataih kusalais caitasair asau I samprayuktd tathd kiesair upaklesais trivedana II 9 //

9. volition. The six sense domains are joined with the all-pervading mental factors, virtuous mental factors, afflictions, further afflictions, and the three sensations. adyah sparsddayas chandadhimoksasmrtayah saha I samadhidhibhyam niyatah sraddhdtha hrir apatrapd II 10 //

10. First are contact, attention, sensation, name, and volition. The determinate virtuous mental states are aspiration, resolve, mindfulness, concentration, and knowledge. alobhdditrayam viryam prasrabdhih sdpramadikd I ahimsd kusaldh klesa ragapratighamiidhayah H \ \ II

11. Virtuous mental factors are trust, conscience, humility, absence of greed [[[anger]] and ignorance] energy, confidence, carefulness, and non-harming. manadrgvicikitsds ca krodhopaiiahane punah / mraksah praddsa irsydrtha matsaryam saha mdyayd 11 12 //

12. The afflictions are passion, loathing, bewilderment, conceit, views, and doubt. The further afflictions are anger, hatred, hypocrisy, covetousness, envy, stinginess, duplicity, sathyam mado 'vihimsa hrir atrapa styanam uddhavah I asraddhamatha kausidyam pramado musita smrtih 11 13//

13. Deceit, arrogance, vengefulness, shamelessness, immodesty, obstinance, restlessness, mistrust, laziness, negligence, forgetfulness, viksepo 'samprajanyam ca kaukrtyam middhameva ca I vitarkas ca vicar as cety upaklesd dvaye dvidha II 14 //

14. Distraction, and unawareness. The final two pairs are indeterminate: regret and lethargy, imagination and deliberation. pahcanam mulavijhane yathapratyayam udbhavah I vijnananarn saha na vd tarahgandm yatha jale II15//

15. The five [[[sense]] consiousnesses] arise in the root consciousness in accord with conditions. Their arising occurs simultaneously or sequentially just like waves in water. manovijnanasambhutih sarvaddsamjnikad rte I samapattidvaydn middhan murchanad apy acittakat II 16//

16. Mind consciousness is always present except in non-conscious states of the two absorptions free of thought, or when stupefied, fainted, or unconscious. vijnanaparinamo 'yam vikalpo yad vikalpyate I tena tan nasti tenedam sarvam vijhaptimdtrakam // 17 //

17. The evolution of consciousness is an imagined distinction, what is distinguished in this way does not exist and therefore all of this is perception-only. sarvabijam hi vijhdnam parinamas tathd tatha I yaty anyo ‘nyavasdd yena vikalpah sa sa jdyate // 18 //

18. The source of all is consciousness [and it] evolves according to this manner of mutual influence through which corresponding discrimination [of self and object] appears. karmano vasand grahadvayavdsanayd saha I ksine purvavipdke ‘nyad vipakam janayanti tat II 19 //

19. While previous maturation exhausts, residual karma together with residual two-fold grasping produces further maturation. yena yena vikalpena yad yad vastu vikalpyate I parikalpita evdsau svabhdvo na sa vidyate II 20 //

20. Whatever object is distinguished by whatever means of discrimination is only the imagined nature. The self-nature [of such an object] cannot be found. paratantrasvabhavastu vikalpah pratyayodbhavah I nispannas tasya purvena sada rahitata tu yd //

21 //

21. The dependent nature is a conceptual distinction that arises according to conditions. However, the perfected nature is [[[dependent nature]]] having ever been free from the previous [[[imagined]] nature], ata eva sa naivanyo nananyah paratantratah I anityatadivad vacyo nadrste ‘smin sa drsyate II 22 //

22. For this very reason, it is neither other nor non-other than the dependent nature. It is to be spoken of as like impermanence etc. when this [perfected nature] is not seen neither is the other [the dependent nature], trividhasya svabhavasya trividhdm nihsvabhdvatdm I sandhaya sarvadharmdndm desita nihsvabhdvatd 11 23 //

23. The three natures are possessed of three-fold lack of self-nature [which is] united with the point that all phenomenon are without self-nature. prathamo laksanenaiva nihsvabhavo ‘parah punah I na svayambhdva etasyetyapara nihsvabhdvatd II 24 //

24. The first lack of self-nature is by its characteristic alone. The next is that which has no self-existence. The final lack of self-nature dharmanam paramdrthas ca sayatas tathata ‘pi sah I sarvakalam tathabhdvat saiva vijhaptimatrata II 25 //

25. Is the ultimate truth of phenomena, which is also suchness, and because of this absence throughout time, is perception only.yavad vijnaptimatratve vijiianam navatisthati I grdhadvayasydnnsayas tavan na vinivartate II26 //

26. To the extent that mind does not abide in perception only, just so, subtle propensities of two-fold grasping will not be abandoned. vijhaptimdtram evedamity api hynpalambhatah I sthdpayannagratah kificit tanmdtre ndvatisthate II27 //

27. Indeed, even from the perception “Just this is perception only,” placing anything before one, one does not abide in this only. yaddlambanam jndnarn naivopalabhate tadd I sthitam vijndnamdtratve grdhyabhave tadagrahdt II 28 //

28. When a cognition does not perceive an object then because of non-grasping, it stands in perception-only, nothing grasped. acitto ‘nnpalambho ‘san jhanam lokottaram ca tat I dsrayasya pardvrttir dvidha dausthnlyahdnitah 11 29 //

29. Without thought, without sense-object, this knowledge is beyond worldly; it is revolution of the base resulting from the relinquishment of the two afflictions. sa evandsravo dhdtnr acintyah knsalo dhrnvah I stikho vimuktikdyo 'san dharmakhyo 'yam mahamuneh // 30 //

30. Afflictions ceased, this is thus the non-conceptual source, constant beneficial ground, joyful, the liberation body, the dharma body of the great sage. trimsikavijfiaptikdrikdh samaptdh I krtiriyam acdrya vasnbandhoh I

The Thirty Verses on Perception are concluded.

A composition of the teacher VasubandhuChapter Two: Historical Context, The Mind Only Verses in India, China, and Tibet

Yogacara, The Mind Only Verses in India

The Mind Only Verses are contained in the canon of the Yogacara school of Mahayana Buddhism. The Yogacara school finds its earliest expression in the Samdhinirmocana Sutra, a Sanskrit text of unknown origins from the third century CE. Around the late fourth century CE, Vasubandhu received the Samdhinirmocana Sutra from Asanga. Legend has it that Asanga was likely a brother, cousin, or of some relation to Vasubandhu, and had received further Yogacara teachings through a direct transmission from Maitreya, the Mahayana Buddha of the future. Receiving the Samdhinirmocana proved to be a turning point in Vasubandhu’s life. Until this time Vasubandhu professed a foundational Buddhist, Sautrantika

view, as espoused in his Abhidharmakosa. He went on to construct an entire philosophical exegesis of the Yogacara view presented within the Samdhinirmocana Sutra. Jonathan C. Gold locates passages in the eighth chapter as having played this pivotal role in Vasubandhu’s philosophy, an exchange in which Maitreya asks the Buddha, “Lord, as to the appearances of forms.. .which are established as natures reflected in the mind-are they too nondifferent from the mind? He [the Buddha] replied: Maitreya, they are no different. Fools with erroneous ideas do not know these reflections to be, as they are, only appearance, and so they think wrongly.” The phrase “only appearance” arises from this passage, and characterizes a prominent feature of Yogacara, that all forms and24 appearance are only appearance, or cittamatra, i.e. mind only. Vasubandu, Asanga, Maitreya, and their corpus of texts, serve as the origin of the Yogacara school.

Many regard citta-matra, mind-only, and vijnapti-matra, perception-only, as synonymous, both as concepts and as names of the distinct Mahayana Buddhist school. Vasubandhu uses citta-matra in Vimsatiika and vijnapti-matra in both Vimsatiika and Trimsika Karika. Within these works it is difficult to discern if the two terms are synonymous, or distinct. Citta, mind, is a broader category than a vijnapti, a mental imputation or aspect within the mind. Is it different to say everything is mere mind compared to mere imputation?

This is a relevant question in reading Vimsatika and Trimsika. I shall not offer a concrete answer here, rather I encourage one to keep it in consideration. Of additional concern is the name of the Mahayana Buddhist school Yogacara, (literally yoga-practice) a frequently cited name of the Mind Only school, and sometime name of the Buddhist practice related to Mind Only. While Vasubandhu does not use the term Yogacara in Vimsatika or Trimsika, the term is often used to describe the body of texts written by Vasubandhu, Asanga and Maitreya, and carried forth by their descendents.

In the twentieth century, Erich Frauwallner popularized a thesis that there were two Vasubandhus, one being the author of the Abhidharmakosa, and the other a later Mahayanist and author of the Mind Only Verses. While this theory garnered attention for some time, many scholars, Dan Lusthaus, Jonathan Gold, Stefan Anacker, and others observe consistency in the rhetorical and philosophic style that recurs through Vasubandhu’s works, and as such it serves as strong evidence for there only having been one Vasubandhu. Furthermore, Frauwallner later recanted this thesis. He decided it wasnot founded well enough. Frauwallner’s thesis arose at a time when literary critics received praise and

attention for arguing for the non-existence, or multiple authorship of great thinkers of history, including Shakespeare, Socrates, Confucius, the list goes on. Mere hints have received wider attention than the evidence merits. Thus, this work only discusses one Vasubandhu, and takes him to be the author of the Abhidharmakosa and the Mind Only Verses. Yogacara develops in contradistinction to the Vaibhasika and Madhyamika schools of the era. The Vaibhasika school maintained the selflessness of persons as taught in early Buddhism, but reified the existence of external objects, for example that the color blue exists independently as an ultimate dharma (i.e. object or phenomenon) because one may

observe “blueness” in meditative equipoise, this is to say that “blueness” survives the analysis of a Vaibhasika examination. In this way, Vaibhasika spoke of such phenomena as ultimately existing. Vasubandhu critiques this realist view. In addition, Vasubandhu “was contrasting his Yogacara interpretation of emptiness with that of Madhyamaka,” and his “teaching of impression only intimates the emptiness of all dharmas without lapsing into the nihilism of saying that no dharmas whatever exist.” A close reading of Vasubandhu’s

Twenty Verses confirms this; he writes that “there is entry into the selflessness of all events [[[phenomenon]]], and not by a denial of their existence.” One can see in this the critique of Madhyamaka. Vasubhandu critiqued both the Vaibhasika reification of external entities, and Madhyamaka’s possible nihilistic tendencies.

Samkhya Influence on The Mind Only Verses

Beyond the Buddhist context of Vasubandhu’s Mind Only Verses lies the context of Indian religion-philosophy of the time. Vasubandhu’s teacher Buddhamitra debated Samkhya sages in the 5th century CE. Samkhya is a religion-philosophy of India that appears in some form as early as the 9th century BCE in the Upanisads, recurs though a variety of texts, the Mahabharata, the Yogcisutrcis, and finds distilled expression in the Samkhyakarika, a text that was likely influenced by Vasubandhu and Buddhamitra’s debate with Samkhya sages.

Samkhya refers to “numbering” or “enumeration” as a means of analysis, which in practice leads to moksa, liberation from suffering. Suffering is removed by cultivating discriminating knowledge, vijhana. This knowledge distinguishes between Self, purusa, and World, prakrti Self is the person or mind that experiences the world, and is synonymous with the knower, jhad° World is the original cause of both physical material and the primordial substance that created it. World, manifest and not-yet- manifest, exists as fundamentally separate from Self. Self can disrupt or illuminate not- yet-manifest World and give rise to all manifestation, physical as well as mental phenomenon, and in this system they are both of one substance. This process is evolution, pan nelma, and is how the not-yet-manifest evolves to be manifest. A prominant aspect of Samkhya influence is the relationship between Self and World. In this relationship, there is a single substance, World, within which is embedded the multitude of Self, selves, soul-beings. Self and World are fundamentally separate from one another.- Beings experience suffering because of ignorance as to the identity of Self and World. The purpose of life is for Self to delight, know (vijnana), and liberate itself.

An account describes Buddhamitra losing a debate to the Samkhya sage Vindhyavasa who then received a great deal of money from the King of Ayodhya, Vikramaditya. Hearing of his teacher’s defeat, Vasubandhu intended to challenge Vindhyavasa but the Samkhya sage had died. Instead, Vasubandhu wrote Paramarthasaptati as a critique of Samkhya philosophy, since Samkhya was a prominent school during Vasubandhu’s life. He had need to defend his position against Samkhya critique and in turn critiqued Samkhya. It is reasonable to propose that Vasubandhu felt further need to persuade Samkhya proponents because he had much to gain from successful debate: notoriety, royal patronage, and of course the experience that comes from debate.

Samkhya Self-and-World offered a way of describing the mind/body, mind/matter relationship that many in Vasubandhu’s era found compelling. Parinama in Samkhya is the manifestation of World as mental and physical phenomenon, and Self s role in this process. Samkhya concentrates less on how Self and World interact, but rather what happens when they do. Yet Self and World are a strict dualism in Samkhya. They may have immediate proximity, but never contact one another. How do Self and World interact when they are fundamentally different? This poses a challenge for the Samkhya sages to address, and as such it is a vulnerable place for Vasubandhu’s non-dual attack. Furthermore, the

challenge of describing this mind/matter relationship may well have been one of the reasons Vasubandhu made arguments for mind-only. Mind-only offers an elegant explanation to this issue, if all phenomenon and mind-only and there is nothing outside of that, then a split between mind and matter no longer exists because they are of a single substance. Yet if all this is mind-only, and the distinction subject and object, Self and World is only mind misappropriating itself, how does consciousness work?

This question and the Samkhya influence may explain Vasubandhu’s emphasis on parinama, “transformation,” “manifestation,” or “evolution,” in the Trimsika. Dan Lusthaus also locates Samkhya as the source of Vasubandhu’s parinama. Lusthaus summarizes the Trimsika as a discussion of vijnana-parinama, the evolution of consciousness. For Vasubandhu, parinama is a three-fold evolution—the maturation of karmic seeds in the all-base consciousness, the cogitating consciousness that is always thinking, and the perception of the six sense domains. This three-fold evolution describes how consciousness deludes itself into identifying with grasper and grasped, subject and object. The concepts that evolve are not separate from mind and so the relationship in mind-only is strictly non-dual. There never was separation between grasper and grasped, and Vasubandhu explains the means by which consciousness creates these false imaginations.

This Samkhya use of vijnana differs from Vasubandhu’s use of vijnana, mundane “consciousness.” Vasubandhu may have deployed the same term as a critique of what Samkhya regards as liberative knowledge as compared to his own assertion that liberative knowledge is abandoning all notions of subject and object, grasper and grasped. Examining the Samkhya context provides ways of understanding the conversation in which Vasubandhu and the Mind Only Verses participate. The conversation explains the importance of parinama, how consciousness evolves from non-dual mind, and how this challenges Samkhya parinama of how Self interacting with World gives rise to manifestation.

Xuanzang, China, and the Cheng Weishi Lun

The Mind Only Verses find their way to China in the saddlebags of 6th century pilgrim Xuanzang, (Hsiian-tsang in Wade-Giles transliteration.) Xuanzang set out for India to find sections of missing text from the Ten Stages Sutra, (the Dasabhumf)-5 He spent fifteen in years studying with various masters in India, many at the great vihara, Nalanda University. As he studied at Nalanda, he discovered discrepancies between Chinese and Indian Buddhism. He then sought to reconcile disagreements between the Chinese understanding and that which was then taught at Nalanda, which had a strong Yogacara emphasis at the time. When Xuanzang returned to China, he concentrated on translating texts, among them, the Trimsikakdrikd along with ten Indian commentaries. In 559 CE, Xuanzang wove excerpts from these commentaries with the Trimsikakdrikd to create the encyclopedic Cheng Weishi Lun, “Doctrine of Mere-Consciousness.” The Cheng Weishi Liin serves as the basis of the Chinese mind-only school, Weishi, established by Xuanzang and his successor Kuiji.

Xuanzang’s need to travel to India reflected a fundamental question for Chinese Buddhism of the sixth and seventh centuries: if there is only one buddhadharma, why does it appear in so many contradictory schools and teachings? The Cheng Weishi Lun can be seen as Xuanzang’s work to understand the multiplicity of interpretations of mind- only and the Trimsika. In translating the Trims and its commentaries, Xuanzang does not render a line by line translation, he elucidates points less clear in the Trims and interpolates selections from the previously mentions ten commentaries. Though the liberties taken also help Xuanzang execute a meter of five-character semi-verses. The commentaries do not appear in equal measure, and at times it is difficult to discern which commentary belongs to which commentator. Not all the original commentaries have survived. Sthiramati’s commentary, Trimsikd-vijhapti-bhasya, had been lost for a number of centuries and re-discovered in the early twentieth century by Sylvain Levy. This has aided scholars is discerning precisely how Xuanzang used the commentaries. Thus, in some ways Xuanzang preserved and offered a range of understanding the Trims, and in another sense he authored new ambiguities.

Lusthaus observes that the logico-epistimological turn that came to dominate India, particularly in the works of DharmakTrti and Dignaga, never occurred in China. Rather, China continued to emphasize a psychologic “descriptive and prescriptive examination of mind.” Consequently the Trims and Cheng Weishi Lun retain a more psychological emphasis. Xuanzang’s translation of the Trimsikakarika and his Cheng Weishi Lun found its way to Japan, Korea, and Vietnam amongst other areas of East-Asia. Xuanzang had immense influence on Yogacara Buddhism and is responsible for the eventual spreading of the Trims throughout the region, and the ten Indian commentaries interpolated into Cheng Weishi Lun ensured there was continued discussion.

Tibetan Buddhism, Shentong, and the Third Karmapa

The Mind Only Verses find a place of importance in Tibet through their inclusion in the Yogacara/Madhyamaka synthesis of Santaraksita and his disciple Kamalasila. This work began in India, but Santaraksita later migrated to Tibet and established the first Buddhist monastery in Samye, (bsam yas). This continued Nalanda’s Buddhist scholastic tradition, and Santaraksita’s practice of including of differing philosophic views in dialectic, which became standard practice in Tibetan Buddist philosophy. Third Karmapa Rangjung Dorje continues Santaraksita’s Yogacara/Madhyamaka synthesis.

Rangjung Doije was the third incarnation of a lineage of teachers in the Tibetan Buddhist Kagyii school, and the Kagyii school features a number of prominent Yogacarins over the centuries including the Seventh Karmapa Chortra Gyamtso, and Jamgon Kongtrul Lodro Taye. These teachers follow in the lineage of Maitreya, Asanga, and Vasubandhu, who are taken together as founders. Later scholars describe the Yogacara/Madhyamaka synthesis as Shentong Madhyamaka (zhentongf though Karl Brunnholzl notes that Rangjung Dope himself never himself used this term.

Rangjung Doije includes classical teachings of Yogacara, the three natures, the eight consciousnesses, and the luminous nature of mind in The Profound Inner Reality (Tib. zab mo nangdori), and uses the Trims to teach the six sense bases, the all-base consciousness, and the duality that results from viewing these as grasper and grasped. While the Trims is cited specifically, the Vims is not present. One could infer its influence, especially considering that Santaraksita included a range of philosophic views, in his dialectic forms. However, the seeming absence of the Vims and its relation to the Trims in Shentong Madhyamaka is an area for continued study.

In carrying forth the Trims in The Profound Inner Reality, Rangjung Dorje continues Vasubandhu’s assertion that grasping at duality is at the heart of delusion and a fundamental issue. The existence of subject and object appear as mere projection, “Referents and apprehenders appear as two./ [[[Mind]]] itself projects onto itself and grasps [at that].” Elucidating this point further, Rangjung Dorje instructs that, “Those who do not know that all phenomenon are mind, despite these consciousnesses being their own minds, entertain the thought that objects—outer objects—are produced by subtle particles or hidden entities. In order to demonstrate that this is not the case, the manner in which [[[mind]]] itself projects [the aspects of subject and object] onto itself and grasps [at them as self and other] is to be taught.” Rangjung Dorje echos Vasubandhu’s description and concerns over substantializing outer objects and seeing them as projections.

Rangjung Doije also teaches that seeing objects as projections, mind only, is a provisional teaching with the non-duality of grasper and grasped taught as the ultimate teaching. Citing the Bodhicittavivarana, he says, “The teaching of the sage that/ ‘All of these are mere mind’/ is for the sake of removing the fear of childish beings/ And not [meant] in terms of true reality.” Thus while mind-only is taught, it is for “childish beings.” Mind-only is provisional teaching, a means of letting go of grasping at duality, and it is part of a process with the goal of non-duality. Rangjung Doije does not teach mind only as an ontological reality, or as ultimate truth. This being said, it does not mean the

Rangjung Dorje diminishes mind-only or regards it as in-effective. It is a teaching for childish beings and the childish are all those who have not yet entered the path of seeing and reached the status of a noble. Many beings are childish, and this need not be viewed as derogatory to either the childish beings, or the mind-only teachings. This being said, Rangjung Dorje does not emphasize the arguments for mind-only but rather the soteriological goal of the path. This is one of two modus operandi seen in understanding the mind-only verses, either emphasized mind-only as a view, or the soteriological nondual goal of practice. There is much to expand upon and further elucidate in regard to the Mind Only Verses in India, China, and Tibet, however, this is but & glimpse of such things.Chapter Three: The Mind Only Verses in the 20th Century

Religious Studies, Philosophy, and Vasubandhu's Soteriological Goal

In the 20th century the Mind Only Verses and Yogacara drew the attention of western scholars, and with this arose a great deal of discussion that has continued in the academy ever since.

Edward Conze, born in 1904, is not a prominent interpreter of the Mind Only Verses specifically; however, he was “one of the pioneering Buddhologists of the twentieth century,” especially in his interpretation of Mahayana Buddhism. He published more than 250 books and articles. He single handedly translated most of the Prajhdparamita, Perfection of Wisdom literature. Though he never traveled to Asia, he began studying Buddhism at the age of 41, having felt inspired by D.T. Suzuki’s scholarship on Japanese Buddhism and Zen. He eventually identified as a Buddhist, but partook in no formal relations with Buddhist groups, societies, or teachers. In this way Conze represents a unique period in the Mind Only Verses biography, and that of Buddhist studies in the west. Many scholars born in Conze’s era declined any travel to Asia, and never corroborated their work or understanding with a Buddhist teacher, or anyone who personally represented the tradition. Rather, it was an age where the word of36 those with male gender, colonial identity, and European heritage prevailed without question. One can applaud their accomplishments and critique their limitations.

Conze was an independent scholar, largely self-taught, who took issues with others both professionally and personally. He identified as a Buddhist and critiqued other Buddhists while at once never having studied with Buddhist teachers, and interpreted Buddhism though western perennial philosophy. As a result, it makes sense that Conze’s read of the Trims and Yogacara would try to normalize, and render familiar, that which might seem strange. Conze reads Vasubandhu’s arguments for the non-existence of outer objects as an initial step towards the soteriological goal of dissolving dualistic views. Conze regards the experience of mind-only as an early stage of realization. He argues that rival schools and philosophers over-emphasize the arguments for mind-only and relish in debate that is “no more than a stepping stone to better things.” For Conze, mind-only serves as expedient means on the path; it is not important later, but philosophically minded persons focus on mind-only arguments and ignore its expedient purpose.

Stefan Anacker, born in 1939, emphasizes a nuanced Vasubandhu in his dissertation, Vasubandhu: Three Aspects, which draws out Vasubandhu’s contributions as a logician, scholastic, and contemplative.83 Anacker also emphasizes Vasubandhu as an author and scholar in contrast to the practice in India that often ignored authors andfocused on schools. Anacker regarded Vasubandhu’s works as relevant to the present. He sought to use as few Sanskrit terms as possible and then provide an English-Sanskrit- Tibetan glossary. Anacker studied with Tibetan Buddhist Rinpoches, and scholars in Japan, India, Switzerland and the United States and expresses that “I have learned something from everyone I have met.” I include this because it is interesting that Anacker studied with a variety of teachers and expressed gratitude and humility for his understanding while Conze was more or less self-taught and treated his colleagues with animosity and contention. It makes one wonder if learning from a greater variety of other scholars increases one’s humility? And then wonder what effect this has on scholarship?

Anacker even appreciated collaborators with whom he disagreed, such as his colleague Wei Tat. Anacker decribes Wei Tat’s Ch ’eng Wei-Shih Lun: Doctrine of Mere-Consciousness as looking at Vasubandhu from the view of analytical philosophy. He sets his approach to Vasubandhu in contrast,

My own approach varies, and in fact my entire point of view is totally different. On this matter, Mr. Tat and I have had long discussions, and yet neither has been able to convince the other, and the manner of our differences perhaps demonstrates something rather curious about the present state of our societies. Both of us are actually rejecting the most prized values of our respective cultures. It is my opinion that Vasubandhu cannot be understood at all within the strict confines of analytic philosophy, as to me he is not only one of India’s great dialecticians and scholastics, but also one of her foremost contemplatives.

Anacker does not name his own approach, but he clearly values Vasubandhu’s contemplative aspects, and he analyzes Vasubandhu and the Trims from the historical Indian context, and specifically the contemplative context in which it was written. I appreciate Anacker’s statement about he and Tat each “rejecting the most prized values of our respective cultures,” and the implicit irony of the Chinese scholar using a hermeneutic of western analytic philosophy compared to the American scholar looking through an imagined contemplative hermeneutic. Anacker summarizes the end of Vasubandhu’s project where “in the last analysis all mental constructions crumble before a great liberating contemplation” This and the previous clues suggest that Anacker undertook his own scholarship, in part, as some kind of contemplative practice. Neither is Wei Tat is without contemplative consideration.

Tat recounts that personal inquiry inspired his study. In his preface to Ch ’eng Wei-Shih Lun, he reflects on his childhood “While the outer world... appeared to be constantly changing and constantly evolving, my inner world appeared to be a terra incognita.” Out of desire to understand the mind, Tat studied western philosophy and Chinese classics. Tat studied with both scholars and monastics in China, and Indian swamis as well. Prior to the Ch ’eng Wei-Shih Lun, he was known for An Exposition of the I-Ching. A dialectic manner of studying Vasubandhu and the Mind Only Verses comes to the fore in the relationship between Anacker and Tat. Anacker and Tat inform one another, both in their scholarly stance, but also in the implications of the respective cultures. In this relationship, the west no longer singularly imposes its own hermeneutic on the Mind Only Verses, but rather a multiplicity of hermeneutics are used when observing scholarship across the continents and cultures.

Despite the differences between Anacker and Conze, they both prioritize soteriological goal view of the Mind Only Verses over the mind-only view. Stefan Anacker reads the works of Vasubandhu as an evolving and reflexive project that makes arguments in order to dismantle views of truly existent objects which are later undone by experiencing non-duality such that the philosopher-practitioner has been freed from dualistic thought and experiences asraya-paravrtti, “revolution at the base” as Anacker parses the phrase. Anacker observes this process across the works of Vasubandhu, that of establishing arguments that will later be undone by subsequent arguments. Jonathan Gold calls this strategy

Buddhist causal framing, it describes a provisional causal story that may lack substantial truth from an ultimate perspective. Gold provides the example that “the Buddha never affirms the self within the frame in which he affirms the aggregates.. .the Buddhist teachings are always true within their particular frame of reference.” Similarly when Vasubandhu argues for mind-only in Vimsatika he does so emphatically and with a consistent causal story, and he later contextualizes mind-only as a means to non-duality. In terms of the ontological implications for mind-only, citta-matra, Anacker reads Vimsatika’s argument as not concluding that consciousness alone creates the whole universe,

but rather that consciousness alone creates an “object-of-consciousness,” a vijnapti, which is an internal metal phenomenon, sometimes called an aspect, or mental imputation, and outer objects may be inferred from the vijnapti." This view is similar to the aforementioned epistemological idealism, which asserts that one can only know the mind’s experience of physical reality, but this need not negate the existence of physical phenomenon. This view of mind-only assists a read that emphasizes Vasubandhu’s soteriological goal. Because the mind-only claim is less radical, one’s attention is less drawn away from the purpose on mind-only in the path. Let us turn to Trims verses 26- 30 wherein Vasubandhu clarifies the role of mind-only in the path of the Mind Only Verses.

Reading the stages of Vasubandhu’s Mind Only Path

Trimsika lines twenty-six through thirty describe mind-only’s relationship to the the path Vasubandhu taught, and the soteriological goal. I have provided a commentary to these verses based on my translation process and informed by Anacker and Conze.

Twenty-Six

To the extent that mind does not abide in vijnapti-matra, Just so, subtle propensities of grasping at two-ness will not be abandoned. To abide in vijnapti-matra is to successfully abandon the subtle propensities, anusaya, (also called latent predispositions), that continue to create perceptions to two-ness, duality, wherein consciousness reifies subject and object as distinct and discrete entities.

Twenty-Seven

Indeed, even “Just this is vijnapti-matra,” or to apprehend Placing anything before one, one does not abide in this only. Here Vasubandhu cautions one to not objectify anything whatsoever. As long as any object, a self-conscious awareness that sees an object, a subject, or even “this is vijnapti- matra,” does not yet see that to which Vasubandhu points.

Twenty-Eight

“When mind, non-dependent, does not seize, then It stands in vijnapti-matra, from this non-grasping, there is nothing to be grasped. When mind neither grasps or objectifies anything whatsoever, even an observing subject, then one abides in vijnapti-matra. In this way, vijnapti-matra destroys concepts of outer objects while it also destroying concepts of an inner subject and thus elicits non-dual awareness. When outer objects are negated the inner subject is negated and there is no self and no seeing of outer objects. Non-duality negates both object and subject and these methods are for the alleviation of suffering, the accomplishment of the Buddhist Path. Conze translates this verse as “First the Yogin breaks down the external object, and then also the thought which seizes upon it. Since the object does not exist, so also the consciousness which grasps it; in the absence of a cognizable object there can also be no cognizer.” Conze concludes the intention behind this is to see the illusory nature of both the object, and the subject that cognizes, and thus leads not to a new subject/object dualism, but rather an extra-ordinary experience beyond dualistic perception. Thus this verse is the crux of Vasubandhu’s citta-matra project. Vasubandhu’s method requires vijnapti-matra awareness, and abiding within this awareness where outer object is negated, one abandons the subtle predispositions that continue to condition dualistic awareness, and abide in non-dual awareness, awareness that is

Twenty-Nine

Without thought, without perception, this is beyond-worldly knowledge; It is revolution of the base and the relinquishment of the two afflictions. This is the non-dual state free of afflictions, (i.e. klesas), and subtle propensities, (anusaya). I have used Anacker’s “revolution of the base” for asraya-paravrtti. The paravrtti simplifies to para, surpassing, or “other shore,” a, is a negation, and vrtti means concealment, covering or surrounding. Asraya means base, resting or dependent upon. In the context of citta-matra this is understood as the alaya vijnana, the all-base- consciousness. One may also understand asraya-paravrtti as completely uncovering any sense of a thing, object or consciousness depended upon, and thus asraya-paravrtti may serve as a synonym for non-duality. Additionally, asraya-paravrtti is the undoing of paravrttti, the process that creates parinama. Thus asraya-paravrtti is the overturning of the parinama process, thus revolution captures the undoing of the evolution, parinama, of conceptual consciousness that initially created the false sense of dualism. Vasubandhu then goes on to describe this experience as the culmination of the Buddhist path:

Thirty

Afflictions ceased, this is thus the non-conceptual source, constant beneficial Ground, joyful, the liberation body, the dharma body of the great sage.

In this way, vijnapti-matra serves as the means of reaching non-duality. As Conze says it is a step in a process. Vijnapti-matra does not exist for its own sake outside of the Buddhist path and thus only writing on Vasubandhu’s citta-matra arguments obscures their relationship to non-dual experience and the accomplishment of the Buddhist path. However, while Vasubandhu’s goal is non-duality and the accomplishment of the Buddhist path, he views vijnapti-matra as an exceedingly important way to achieve this goal. Commentators who leap to the non-dual end of Vasubandhu’s process ignore the importance of the citta-matra/vijnapti-matra view. Let us next seriously take up the key arguments for the vijnapti-matra view itself, outside the context of non-dual awareness, and discover what fruits grow from such a consideration.

Buddhist Philosophy and the Arguments for Mind Only

Mark Siderits presents a serious consideration for vijnapti-matra. Siderits points out that much of philosophy occurs as a conversation, making assertions, receiving challenges, refining a response, even if these exchanges occur across decades or centuries, the discipline functions as a conversation. In this sense, to place Buddhist philosophy in conversation with western philosophy is to do philosophy. Siderits values that philosophy as a discipline concerns itself more with questions as to how arguments are made, and how they are understood critically, rather than only concerning itself with providing answers. The result of his approach helps one to appreciate and engage in the arguments for citta-matra, appreciate the process of examining the view, and to discover “what reason there might be to believe it.” The conversation Siderits facilitates thus has similarity to those between Samkhya and Yogacara in India, to the ten Indian commentaries cited in the Cheng Weishi Lun, and to Santaraksita and Rangjung Dorje’s practice of placing Madhyamaka in conversation with Yogacara.

Turning to the Vimsatika, Vasubandhu begins: “This is vijnapti-matra just as nonexistent objects arise for/ One with dimmed vision who sees non-existent net-like apparitions.” Vasubandhu first argues that all this is vijnapti-matra because completely unreal phenomena arise within our vision, these net-like apparitions seen by one with cataracts. This statement alone will not convince anyone, nor is this Vasubandhu’s intention. Vasubandhu’s tactic, as Siderits describes it, is to raise single instances where perception creates the object of mind, and does so clearly without a physical referent object separate from mind. This strategy occurs regularly in Indian philosophy, one begins with a broad statement and forces the opponent to object and define their position which can then be argued against in increasing detail.

The opponent objects to this example because faulty vision does not explain why objects appear only in specific places and not everywhere. To this, Vasubandhu says “Limitation of place is fulfilled as in a dream”, because we experience objects restricted to a particular time and place in a dream. The opponent also asks why an appearance arises for all in the proximity of a particular place, for example everyone by a river sees a river, this is “limitation to a unique sense-phenomenon.” Vasubandhu says that this is not a limitation, that “Non-1 imitation to a unique sense-phenomenon is fulfilled like hungry ghosts who all see rivers of pus.” Ordinary beings all view a river of water as a river of water, but hungry ghosts view it as a river of pus, this is “non-limitation to a sense-phenomenon”; the phenomenon is not limited to a particular sensory experience.

Vasubandhu continues with an example of beings in hell and their relationship to injurious hell-guardians, and that this too is like a dream and vijnapti-matra. “Actions have effects like injuries in a dream, as all beings in hell/ Oppressed by hell-guardians seen in hell.”113 Vasubandhu explains that hell-guardians do not experience the torments of hell, and it is easier to explain hell-guardians as manifestation of mind rather than as physically existent beings. The hell-guardians cannot be the same as the beings in hell

or they too would experience the pains of hell. If hell-guardians experienced the same pain they would not differ from the beings in hell and would have no capacity to instill fear or inflict pain and torture upon the beings in hell. In summary, Vasubandhu argues for citta- matra because sense perceptions can be faulty, dreams explain restriction of time and place, and experiences of different realms (be it hungry ghosts or hell), are best explained through production from mind, i.e. that mind produces this “external” and “internal” phenomenon, rather than one’s karma creating such things like physical beings, e.g. hellguardians.

Mind Only in a Modern Context

Employing the vijnapti-matra view, Siderits offers a compelling example, describing the scene from Macbeth, wherein Lady Macbeth attempts to wash blood off her hands, she asks “Will these hand’s ne’re be clean?” when the audience sees that her hands have no blood upon them. Past karmic experience conditioned Lady Macbeth to see blood on her hands, “so there must be at least some causal laws connecting past desires with present impressions by way of triggering conditions,” and with this Siderits provides an example of the legitimacy of vijnapti-matra from a non-Buddhist source.

Jonathan Gold offers a helpful example of vijnapti-matra through exploring evolutionary psychology, that is to say how the evolution of the brain shapes the construction of human experience. He compares this to Vasubandhu’s example of beings in a hell realm, and to shared hallucinations. Gold writes that “evolutionary causal processes in deep time therefore provide a modern translation of what Vasubandhu means when he says that beings in hell experience the same hallucination together because of the similarity of their endless karmic conditioning.” Gold observes that evolutionary causal processes lead humans to view rocks as solid when in fact a variety of sub-atomic particles can pass through rock, and thus rock is not solid, even though we perceive it as if it were solid. We view rocks as solid because it is useful for us to view them as solid, however this view is

entirely constructed from the mind, our experience of the rock’s solidity is vijnapti-matra, because the rock’s existence as permeably by sub-atomic particles differs from our perception of it as solid. Similarly, Gold examines our experience of air; we view it as empty when it is full of matter, it is demonstrably not empty, yet we view it as empty. This experience of air arises from millennia of human experience that has shaped our perceptions. Our shared experience, which is synonymous to karma, is similar enough that all humans view permeable rock as solid and substantial air as being empty. With this, Gold challenges the validity of conventional experience and offers an excellent example of citta-matra, “we must explain why it is that the rock appears solid when it is not, and the air appears as empty space, when it is not.” Thus, Gold offers us a clear, and

current example of how earnestly applying Vasubandhu’s arguments and examples reveals real ways that our experience is vijnapti -matra. One misses these helpful and considerate insights when leaping past citta-matra to the goal of non-duality. To follow Vasubandhu’s citta-matra project, one must emphatically study the arguments, because if only undertaken casually, it is easy to dismiss citta-matra. These contemporary examples help us to understand why Vasubandhu may have uniquely valued citta-matra as a means to non-dual liberation.

Chapter Four: Buddhist Inheritors of the Mind Only Verses

Let us now turn to selected contemporary inheritors of Vasubandhu’s works on citta-matra, Thich Nhat Hanh, a Vietnamese Zen lineage holder, and Karma Sungrap Ngedon Tenpa Gyaltsen, a.k.a. Dzogchen Ponlop Rinpoche. While historical evidence cannot trace a direct unbroken lineage from Vasubandhu to Hanh or Ponlop, these Buddhist teachers come as close as one can find to direct inheritors of Vasubandhu’s Mind Only Verses. They have both innovated ways of teaching and understanding mind- only for contemporary western students.

Thich Nhat Hanh

Thich Nhat Hanh, Thay to his students, is a Vietnamese Zen Buddhist teacher, peace activist, and founder of “Engaged Buddhism.” Thay is among the originators of the western mindfulness movement, and teaches mindfulness par excellence. He has lived exiled from Vietnam since the late 1960’s, and while he travels globally, his current home is Plum Village in France. Zen claims Vasubandhu as a patriarch it its lineage, and Thay deliberately studied Vasubandhu’s Vimsatika and Trimsikdkdrikd. He memorized these texts as a novice monastic and currently teaches these texts through his own rendering offifty verses in Understanding Our Mind. How does Thay present Vasubandhu and mind-only? First he clarifies that it is mistaken to label mind-only idealism and thus distances his view from western philosophy. Thay writes in verse eleven that “Store consciousness contains all49 phenomenon in the cosmos,” an unequivocal mind-only view. Thay describes sense consciousness in verses twenty-eight to thirty, and does so without reference to outer objects.

Verses thirty-one to forty describe dharmata, the nature of reality, in a very mind- only language. Verse thirty-one reads, “Consciousness always includes subject and object./ Self and other, inside and outside, are all creations of the conceptual mind.” Thay describes the appearance of subject and object and corollary dualities, and then states these are created by the mind. Conceptual mind creates these dualities. He goes on to describe space, time, and the external world similarly, “Space, time, and the four great elements are all manifestations of consciousness.” Thay, like Vasubandhu, uses mind- only as part of the path to non-duality, which Hanh describes as interbeing, “When the true nature of interdependence is seen, the truth of interbeing is realized.” For Thay, mind-only is not the goal, but an essential step in realizing the truth of interbeing. In Hanh’s presentation we see the same emphatic deployment of a mind-only view where mind constructs dualities yet Hahn does not deny outer objects as Vimsatika does. Like the Trimsika, they both deploy mind-only for the purpose of seeing non-duality.

Dzogchen Ponlop Rinpoche

Dzogchen Ponlop Rinpoche is a lineage holder in the Tibetan Buddhist Nyingma and Kagyii traditions which includes both Mahamudra and Dzogchen practices. He wasborn in Sikkhim in 1965 and moved to the west in the 1980’s. He is a tnlkii, the 7th reincarnation of the Nyingma Dzogchen Ponlop lineage, and was raised by and studied with the 16th Karmapa. Rinpoche established NTtartha Institute, and Nalandabodhi. He teaches citta-matra in the Mind Only Tenet System, a comprehensive course on citta- matra as part of his NTtartha Institute’s curriculum, an adaptation of the Kagyii monastic curriculum for Rumtek Monastery in Sikkhim.

Rinpoche conveys a stanch mind-only view when he teaches that “it is important to realize that all appearances are, ultimately speaking, aspects of the nature of our own mind. They do not exist in a manner that is independent of our minds.” Rinpoche’s ‘74/Z appearances are mind,” is synonymous with Vasubandhu’s "This is vijnapti-matra.” The this and the all are anything that arises in the mind, and for Rinpoche these appearances “do not exist in a manner that is independent of our minds.” No object or appearance possesses existence that can be separated from mind. The mind-only view plays a pivotal role in Rinpoche’s presentation, he presents it with surprising emphasis: Beings that see clearly,

“[d]o not see solidly existing phenomenon that are separate from the nature of mind.” While Rinpoche does not argue against the mere existence of any exterior objects, he draws one’s attentions to mind and mind’s inseparability from the experience of objects. Rinpoche also presents mind-only as a means to see the illusory quality of both subject and object, he writes, “We see a self that is fabricated by thought and thus we see a fabricated world, similar to the state of a dream.” Rinpoche, like Vasubandhu, also compares experience to a dream. He directs one’s attention in noticing the dream-like fabricated world to noticing the dreamlike fabricated self, just as Vasubandhu uses mind-only to first see the world is insubstantial and mere mind, then see that the self is insubstantial and mere mind, and finally the complete non-duality between them where one abandons grasping at any duality.

Thay and Rinpoche convey strongly identifiable mind-only views. Yet neither writes from an exclusively mind-only perspective because they use the efficacy of this view within the context of Buddhist practice and the soteriological goal of living non- dualistically and ending suffering, just as Vasubandhu describes in Vimsatika and Trimsika, the Mind Only Verses. In this way, Thay and Rinpoche include views expressed in both Vims and Trims, teachings that challenge one to view all perception as mind, and these teachings serve the non-dual goal of the Buddhist path. Their expositions for understanding mind-only teachings offer a hermeneutic tailored for contemporary western students. This innovation is thus an important part of the Mind Only Verses life.

Concluding Remarks

Mind-Only and Never-Ceasing Inquiry

One may easily dismiss the arguments of “mind-only” because the view appears contrary to our everyday experience. One can rest in the seeming certainty of an external world and objects. However in doing so one misses the inquiry and transformative project that mind-only offers. The teaching of mind-only has the potential to disrupt how we experience the world, as an external dimensional environment within which we move and manipulate objects. Unless a person wants to engage the arguments of mind-only, one will not, this is to say that one must choose to challenge the commonly held view that there is a physical external tangible reality before one’s eyes. To deeply engage arguments that challenge this assumption is roughly akin to holding one’s hand upon a stove and experiencing the burning sensation. Most are not inclined to inflict such an aversive experience upon themselves. Because of this, Vasubandhu emphasizes the importance of the mind-only arguments even though the view is not the ultimate view. Following each step of Vasubandhu’s path explains the emphasis he placed on mind- only, and why this view plays a pivotal role. It also explains why mind-only itself is not the goal and but part of the process in the Mind Only Verses.

When mind-only is examined in isolation, it can become a mere exercise in debate, but when in the context of Vasubandhu’s broader project, it plays crucial role in loosening fixed views about an external reality that one normally takes for granted as objectively real. It is here that one encounters Vasubandhu’s developmental process wherein first one cultivates a view of mind-only wherein outer objects are seen to be insubstantial, then the inner subject is seen as equally insubstantial, and finally one lives non-dualistically, not grasping at any conceptions of inner and outer, subject and object, and thus achieves the goal of liberation. Contemporary students of the Mind Only Verses benefit from the diversity of commentaries, from translators who passed these teachings on to diverse Asian cultures, from western scholars of Buddhist philosophy who emphasize mind-only arguments, from religious studies scholars who emphasize the non-dual soteriological goal, to contemporary dharma teachers who apply Vasubandhu’s writings to Buddhist practice. While the diversity of views may confuse and obscure, they also illuminate different facets of the Mind Only Verses Vasubandhu’s unique qualities as a philosopher, Buddhist teacher, logician, and contemplative. It is my hope that “Glimpses of a Biography” will help readers of the Mind Only Verses understand and appreciate mind-only, and the value of the inquiry implicit in engaging the arguments seriously, (while also understanding that this is part of a process.) “Glimpses of a Biography” has facilitated the inclusion of voices from India, China, and Tibet, and from religious studies, Buddhist philosophy, and Buddhist traditions in the modern western context. It has provided a forum for these views to come into proximity with one another, and for a reader to survey some of the range found therein. Regardless

of the discipline, Vasubandhu’ sMind Only Verses draw out concerns from religion and philosophy, faith and reason, head and heart. It is my hope that glimpses brings forth logic and contemplation, and that these are not opposed to one another. Mind Only Verses challenges the student of philosophy, argument, and Buddhist practice. As such, Vasubandhu’s Mind Only Verses offers much to Buddhist54 practitioners, to the intellectually curious, and to those who have a passion for inquiry into fundamental questions. While I have made an argument for the role mind-only plays in the Vasubandhu's Mind Only Verses, this is only to add to the conversation, and by no means to end it. No text is monolithic and all those who have studied and taught the Mind Only Verses tell part of the life story of this text. There is reciprocal influence between a text and those who

study it. The text changes those who study it, and those who study the text change how that text is perceived, they thus change the text, hence the inclusion of both the text, and those who have studied it. Each of new contribution adds to the richness and vitality of the Mind Only Verses, and so it is well that one encounters the Mind Only Verses from the perspectives of idealism, logic, Buddhist Philosophy, Religious Studies, Buddhist practice, its rivalry with Samkhya, and from its historical context and contemporary interpretations. The biography facilitates a discussion that can include all those voices, times and places that have enlivened iheMind Only Verses. The life of the text contains varies from time to time and place to place, much like our own lives. As one aspires to not singularly characterize other human beings, so let us not singularly characterize texts. Rather, let us survey the life, and let that inform our understanding through an inquiry that never ceases.Acknowledgements: This work relies upon all those who have studied, taught, and practiced the Mind Only Verses for over sixteen hundred years, and all those who studied, taught, and practiced buddhadharma prior to that.

I thank my advisor Judith Simmer-Brown for her teaching and mentorship over these last three years, and to Amelia Hall for her tutelage in the first paper that would lead to this new incarnation. I also thank my dharma teacher Geoffrey Shugen Arnold Sensei, and finally my wife Annie. None of this would have happened without her encouragement to undertake a new course of study, and her support for three years while I have pursued this endeavor. Thank you love.

Bibliography:

Anacker, Stefan. Seven Works of Vasubandhu. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1984. Anacker, Stefan. Vasubandhu: Three Aspects. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms, 1981.

Bastian, Edward W. “Obituary: Edward Conze.” The Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 2, no. 2, 1979. Brunnholzl, Karl. Center of the Sunlit Sky: Madhyamaka in the Kagyii Tradition. Ithaca: Snow Lion Publications, 2004. Brunnholzl, Karl. Luminous Heart: The ThirdKarmapa on Consciousness, Wisdom, and Buddha Nature. Ithaca: Snow Lion Publications, 2009.

Connelly, Ben. Inside Vasubandhu’s Yogacara: A Practitioner’s Guide. Somerville, MA: Wisdom Publications, 2016. Conze, Edward. Buddhist Thought in India. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1973. Davis, Richard H. The Bhagavad Gita: A Biography. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2015.

Digital Sanskrit Buddhist Canon. “Trimsikavijnaptikarikah.” (Accessed February 2, 2018). Dzogchen Ponlop Rinpoche. “Reincarnation.” (Accessed March 23, 2018). Foucault, Michel. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York: Vintage Books, 1977.

Gold, Jonathan C. Paving the Great Way: Vasubandhu’s Unifying Buddhist Philosophy. New York: Columbia University Press, 2015. Gold, Jonathan C. “No Outside No Inside: Duality, Reality, and Vasubandhu’s Invisible Elephant” Asian Philosophy 16, no. 1, 2006. Gretil. “Trimsikavijnaptikarikah.” (Accessed March 10, 2018). Hanh, Thich Nhat. Understanding Our Mind. Berkeley: Parallax Press, 2006.

Hsiian Tsang. Ch’eng Wei-Shih Lun: Doctrine of Mere-Consciousness. Wei Tat trans. Hong Kong: Dai Nippon Printing Co., 1973. Jackson, Roger. “Review of The Memoirs of a Modern Gnostic (Parts I and II), by Edward Conze.” The Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 4, no. 2, 1981. Larson, Gerlad James. Classical Samkhya 6th printing 2017. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1969.57 Lusthaus, Dan. Buddhist Phenomenology: A Philosophic Investigation ofYogacara Buddhism and the Ch 'eng Wei-shih tun. London: RoutledgeCurzon, 2002.

Oxford Bibliographies, “Vasubandhu” (by Roy Tzohar), (accessed April 10, 2018). Plum Village Mindfulness Practice Center, “Thich Nhat Hanh Biography,” (accessed March, 23, 2018). Ponlop, Dzogchen. Mind Beyond Death. Boston: Snow Lion Publications, 2007.

Siderits, Mark. Buddhism as Philosophy: An Introduction. England: Ashgate Publishing, 2007. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “Santaraksita” (by James Blumenthal), (accessed April 28, 2018). Vasubandhu's Vijhapti-Matrata-Siddhi: With Sthiramati 's Commentary. K. N. Chatterjee trans. Varanasi: Vani Vihar Press, 1980.

Additional References:

Brunnholzl, Karl. An Overview of the Five Texts ofMaitreya. Poland: Marpa Institute, 2014. Buddhist Yoga: A Comprehensive Course. Translated by Thomas Cleary, Boston: Shambhala Publications, 1999.

Carpenter, Amber D. Indian Buddhist Philosophy: Metaphysics as Ethics. London and New York: Routledge, 2014. Gyaltsen, Tenpa. Mind Only Tenet System Sourcebook. USA: NTthartha Institute, 2012.

Hoshin, Anzan “Only Knowing: Commentary on Vasubandhu’s Trimsika-Karika” White Wind Zen Community, (translated by Anzan Hoshin and Tory Cox), (accessed April 19, 2017). Siderits, Mark and Shoryu Katsura. Ndgdrjuna’s Middle Way: Mulamadhyamakakarika. Boston: Wisdom Publications, 2013.

Source

Vasubandhu’s Mind Only Verses,

Introduction

Introduction

Methodology and Biography

Translating Thirty Verses on Perception

Yogacara, The Mind Only Verses in India

Samkhya Influence on The Mind Only Verses

Xuanzang, China, and the Cheng Weishi Lun

Tibetan Buddhism, Shentong, and the Third Karmapa

Religious Studies, Philosophy, and Vasubandhu's Soteriological Goal

Reading the stages of Vasubandhu’s Mind Only Path

Buddhist Philosophy and the Arguments for Mind Only

Mind Only in a Modern Context

Thich Nhat Hanh

Dzogchen Ponlop Rinpoche

Concluding Remarks

Mind-Only and Never-Ceasing Inquiry

Bibliography:

Source

Navigation menu

Personal tools

Namespaces

Variants

Views

More

Search

Navigation

Categories

Tools