Difference between revisions of "A textual introduction to Ācārya Vasuvandhu’s Vijñapti-mātratā-siddhi Viṃśatikā"
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
| − | A textual introduction to Acarya | + | A textual introduction to [[Acarya]] [[Vasubandhu]]’s [[Vijnapti-matrata-siddhi]] [[Vimsatika]] |
| − | Suyog Prajapati, | + | Suyog [[Prajapati]], |
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
| − | Vijnapti-matrata-siddhi, literally the proof (or validity) of mind and cognition only, is a collection of Sanskrit verses aimed at giving impetus to the | + | [[Vijnapti-matrata-siddhi]], literally the [[proof]] (or validity) of [[mind]] and [[cognition]] only, is a collection of [[Sanskrit]] verses aimed at giving impetus to the “[[mind-only]]” [[philosophy]] of the [[Yogacara School]]. It was composed by the great [[Indian teacher]], [[Acarya]] [[[Vasuvandhu]] while at the court of [[King]] [[Vikramaditya]] of [[Ayodhya]]. Based on various sources and genealogies ([[lineage]] histories, rather) the [[Japanese]] [[scholar]] [[Takakusu]] has affixed the period of A. [[Vasuvandhu]] in between 420-500 CE. |
| − | Vasubandhu was born in Purusapur of Gandhara region to a Kausika-Gotriya Brahmana family. He is the second among three brothers, who were also equally important for the development of the Buddhist philosophical schools. The eldest, Arya Asanga, was a great proponent of Vijnanavada while the youngest, Virincivatsa, was a Sarvastivadin pandit. Vasuvandhu was originally an exponent of Sarvastivada as well. | + | [[Vasubandhu]] was born in Purusapur of [[Gandhara]] region to a Kausika-Gotriya [[Brahmana]] [[family]]. He is the second among three brothers, who were also equally important for the [[development]] of the [[Buddhist philosophical schools]]. The eldest, [[Arya Asanga]], was a great proponent of [[Vijnanavada]] while the youngest, Virincivatsa, was a [[Sarvastivadin]] [[pandit]]. [[Vasuvandhu]] was originally an exponent of [[Sarvastivada]] as well. |
| − | In fact, according to Winternitz, all three brothers were Sarvastivadins, but later they were inclined to other aspects of Buddha’s teachings. As per Buston, Vasuvandhu was ordained and trained under Acarya Samghamitra. Other sources say his teacher was Buddhamitra (Paramartha) or Manoratha (Hieun Tsang). | + | In fact, according to Winternitz, all three brothers were [[Sarvastivadins]], but later they were inclined to other aspects of [[Buddha’s teachings]]. As per [[Buston]], [[Vasuvandhu]] was [[ordained]] and trained under [[Acarya]] [[Samghamitra]]. Other sources say his [[teacher]] was [[Buddhamitra]] ([[Paramartha]]) or [[Manoratha]] ([[Hieun Tsang]]). [[Kumarajiva]] (383-412 CE) and [[Paramartha]] (499-569 CE) have both written {{Wiki|independent}} {{Wiki|biographies}} on [[Vasuvandhu]]; only the [[latter]] is found as a {{Wiki|Chinese}} translation. |
| − | Preliminary education of Vasuvandhu is said to have taken place in | + | Preliminary [[education]] of [[Vasuvandhu]] is said to have taken place in Kasmir and as a youth he moved to [[Ayodhya]], which was then a great [[Buddhist]] centre. There he was [[initiated]] into “[[Hinayana]]” and later composed the [[Wikipedia:Masterpiece|magnum opus]] [[Abhidharmakosa]] along with its commentaries [[Abhidharmakosa-bhasya]], in the process strengthening the [[Vaibhasika]]- [[Sarvastivada]] viewpoints. |
| − | In his later years, due to the influence of his older brother, Asanga, he converted to Yogacara and also wrote compendiums in support of this doctrine. In total, he created at least thirty-two refined texts. Among them the Vijnapti-matrata-siddhi stands out as a masterpiece, highlighting the citta-matra way. | + | In his later years, due to the influence of his older brother, [[Asanga]], he converted to [[Yogacara]] and also wrote compendiums in support of this [[doctrine]]. In total, he created at least thirty-two refined texts. Among them the [[Vijnapti-matrata-siddhi]] stands out as a masterpiece, highlighting the [[citta-matra]] way. |
| Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
| − | The Vijnapti-matrata-siddhi comprises two main tomes (or prakaranas), namely — the Vimsatika and the Trimsika. While Vasuvandhu wrote both these sections, the commentary for the Trimsika written by Acarya SthTramati is the more popular one. In the Vimsatika, the theory that “only the mind it true” is explained logically while in the Trimsika various analyses of the mind (vijnana) are presented. | + | The [[Vijnapti-matrata-siddhi]] comprises two main tomes (or prakaranas), namely — the [[Vimsatika]] and the [[Trimsika]]. While [[Vasuvandhu]] wrote both these [[sections]], the commentary for the [[Trimsika]] written by [[Acarya]] SthTramati is the more popular one. In the [[Vimsatika]], the {{Wiki|theory}} that “only the [[mind]] it true” is explained [[logically]] while in the [[Trimsika]] various analyses of the [[mind]] ([[vijnana]]) are presented. |
| − | At the time when there was much activity in the world of philosophy in India, the Vijnanavadins were concerned with differentiating their views from those of the other religious thinkers in India. They had to stand firm on the Buddhist doctrine of the supreme nature of the mind and also on not accepting the Supreme Being (Isvara). Vasuvandhu, through his text, and especially through the Vimsatika, attempts to thread his way between dualism, on the one hand, and theistically based idealism, on the other, by appealing to the notion of karma | + | At the time when there was much [[activity]] in the [[world]] of [[philosophy]] in [[India]], the [[Vijnanavadins]] were concerned with differentiating their [[views]] from those of the other [[religious]] thinkers in [[India]]. They had to stand firm on the [[Buddhist doctrine]] of the supreme [[nature of the mind]] and also on not accepting the [[Supreme Being]] ([[Isvara]]). [[Vasuvandhu]], through his text, and especially through the [[Vimsatika]], attempts to thread his way between [[dualism]], on the one hand, and theistically based [[idealism]], on the other, by appealing to the notion of [[karma]] |
| − | The Vimsatika (meaning “twenty lines”) has in fact twenty-two verses while the Trimsika has thirty verses. As the main text for the Yogdcara-Vijhanavada school Vimsatika elaborates the illusory nature of the mind through Vasuvandhu’s terse statements as well as his autocommentaries. He deduces the trueness of only the mind by heavily drawing examples from the dream-like state and the non-universality and selflessness (nairatma) of both the object or phenomenon (dharma) and the subject (pudgala). | + | The [[Vimsatika]] (meaning “twenty lines”) has in fact twenty-two verses while the [[Trimsika]] has thirty verses. As the main text for the Yogdcara-Vijhanavada school [[Vimsatika]] elaborates the [[illusory nature]] of the [[mind]] through [[Vasuvandhu’s]] terse statements as well as his autocommentaries. He deduces the trueness of only the [[mind]] by heavily drawing examples from the dream-like [[state]] and the non-universality and [[selflessness]] ([[nairatma]]) of both the [[object]] or [[phenomenon]] ([[dharma]]) and the [[subject]] ([[pudgala]]). |
| − | The Vimsatika — a short analysis | + | The [[Vimsatika]] — a short analysis |
| − | Vasuvandhu begins the Vimsatika with the assertion that the mind is real and that the objects we think we see in the external world are unreal. He gives example of a person with defective vision (timira roga) seeing things in ways different than the ordinary. | + | [[Vasuvandhu]] begins the [[Vimsatika]] with the [[assertion]] that the [[mind]] is real and that the [[objects]] we think we see in the [[external world]] are unreal. He gives example of a [[person]] with defective [[vision]] ([[timira]] [[roga]]) [[seeing]] things in ways different than the ordinary. |
| − | Next, he presents three objections and also gives a commentary. The first is regarding the indeterminacy of time and place in real-world observation. The second is regarding how the eye-disorder can be explained and the third regarding the functionality of ones perception. If only the mind is true then anything arising in the mind should manifest itself anywhere. Vasuvandhu explains this paradoxical situation by saying that the rule for time and place is proven to be like a dream. | + | Next, he presents three objections and also gives a commentary. The first is regarding the indeterminacy of time and place in real-world observation. The second is regarding how the eye-disorder can be explained and the third regarding the functionality of ones [[perception]]. If only the [[mind]] is true then anything [[arising]] in the [[mind]] should [[manifest]] itself anywhere. [[Vasuvandhu]] explains this {{Wiki|paradoxical}} situation by saying that the {{Wiki|rule}} for time and place is proven to be like a [[dream]]. |
| − | In a dream we can see objects in a definite place (and time). But they are not real at all. We “see” in a dream in spite of our eyes remaining shut and in spite of remaining in our bed we experience visiting other places. They are all just the results of our mind. The same can be said about the so-called real world. | + | In a [[dream]] we can see [[objects]] in a definite place (and time). But they are not real at all. We “see” in a [[dream]] in spite of our [[eyes]] remaining shut and in spite of remaining in our bed we [[experience]] visiting other places. They are all just the results of our [[mind]]. The same can be said about the so-called real [[world]]. |
| − | What we see and experience as good or bad, happiness or sadness in the outer-world are the “dream-like” states resulting from the defilements in our mind. An object is considered real only if it performs a certain task. If our home and the imaginary Gandharvanagara are considered the same, the results of our mind, they differ in the fact that the latter cannot perform the task of providing us refuge, while the former can. But both are byproducts of the mind. | + | What we see and [[experience]] as good or bad, [[happiness]] or [[sadness]] in the outer-world are the “dream-like” states resulting from the [[defilements]] in our [[mind]]. An [[object]] is considered real only if it performs a certain task. If our home and the [[imaginary]] [[Gandharvanagara]] are considered the same, the results of our [[mind]], they differ in the fact that the [[latter]] cannot perform the task of providing us [[refuge]], while the former can. But both are byproducts of the [[mind]]. |
| − | From the eighth verse to the tenth Vasuvandhu discusses why the Buddha then sometimes explains the external world as real. He adjudicated that the Buddha did so only as per the context. If no expositions were made on the phenomenon (dhctlu, dharma, skandha etc) then people would not make efforts to do good karma. They would lean towards nihilism. The Buddha discoursed about the process of cognition and the sense-objects/senses and their correlations despite them being unreal, so as to make a bridge towards the understanding of pudgala-nairatma (non-existence of | + | From the eighth verse to the tenth [[Vasuvandhu]] discusses why the [[Buddha]] then sometimes explains the [[external world]] as real. He adjudicated that the [[Buddha]] did so only as per the context. If no [[expositions]] were made on the [[phenomenon]] (dhctlu, [[dharma]], [[skandha]] etc) then [[people]] would not make efforts to do [[good karma]]. They would lean towards [[nihilism]]. The [[Buddha]] discoursed about the [[process of cognition]] and the sense-objects/senses and their correlations despite them being unreal, so as to make a bridge towards the [[understanding]] of [[pudgala-nairatma]] ([[non-existence]] of [[atman]]) and [[dharma-nairatma]] ([[non-existence]] of [[objects]]). |
| − | In the sixteenth verse he explains that when our sense organs perceive the outer-world, our mind analyses instantaneously and when that happens the sensed object becomes the past. The interval is infinitesimally transient, so what our mind cognates and what we think of as the present (live) object has in fact changed in that very instance. So moment-by-moment, the reality (as seen or sensed) is not real. Further, he objects the direct evidence and its validity asking if our first-hand observations are in fact just illusions of the mind. | + | In the sixteenth verse he explains that when our [[sense organs]] {{Wiki|perceive}} the outer-world, our [[mind]] analyses instantaneously and when that happens the [[sensed]] [[object]] becomes the {{Wiki|past}}. The {{Wiki|interval}} is infinitesimally transient, so what our [[mind]] cognates and what we think of as the {{Wiki|present}} (live) [[object]] has in fact changed in that very instance. So moment-by-moment, the [[reality]] (as seen or [[sensed]]) is not real. Further, he [[objects]] the direct {{Wiki|evidence}} and its validity asking if our first-hand observations are in fact just [[illusions]] of the [[mind]]. |
| − | He answers this discrepancy by again giving the example of dream. In a dream we “see” and | + | He answers this discrepancy by again giving the example of [[dream]]. In a [[dream]] we “see” and “[[feel]]” an [[object]] for “real”, but it is not so, although they constitute direct {{Wiki|evidence}} ([[pratyaksa]] [[pramana]]). When we wake up, we realize that they were all through the [[mind]]. In fact all of our observations in day-to-day [[life]] and the [[state]] we are in are all dream-like. The [[defilements]] and [[afflictions]] we possess are keeping us from being fully awake and comprehending the [[true nature]] i.e. [[attaining]] [[samyak-sambodhi]]. |
| − | In the last five verses, Vasuvandhu talks about the Yogi-pratyaksa, the direct evidence from the point of view of an exalted practitioner (one doing yoga-sadhatia i.e. Yogi). He justifies that if the mind works well, no sensual perceptions are needed. Whether asleep or in an awakened state the mind and mind alone is prominent. All other | + | In the last five verses, [[Vasuvandhu]] talks about the [[Yogi-pratyaksa]], the direct {{Wiki|evidence}} from the point of view of an [[exalted]] [[practitioner]] (one doing [[yoga-sadhatia]] i.e. [[Yogi]]). He justifies that if the [[mind]] works well, no {{Wiki|sensual}} [[perceptions]] are needed. Whether asleep or in an [[awakened state]] the [[mind]] and [[mind]] alone is prominent. All other [[ayatamas]] ([[sense]] [[spheres]]) have to work in [[unison]] with the [[mind]] for their proper functioning. |
| − | He also explains how the Buddha, kalyanamitra, family, enemies etc. function, despite being unreal. In the dream our tasks (karma) have no results (phala). But in the awakened state they do. In dream and all the dream-like states, all consciousness (yijfiapti) arises due to middhd (sloth) and ignorance. | + | He also explains how the [[Buddha]], [[kalyanamitra]], [[family]], enemies etc. function, despite being unreal. In the [[dream]] our tasks ([[karma]]) have no results ([[phala]]). But in the [[awakened state]] they do. In [[dream]] and all the dream-like states, all [[consciousness]] (yijfiapti) arises due to middhd ([[sloth]]) and [[ignorance]]. |
| − | They arise in a susupta (latent) manner. In the real world all our tasks are guided solely by vijnapti. So while in dream out interaction with the world may not produce any result, the interactions guided by consciousness in the real world do produce genuine results. | + | They arise in a susupta (latent) manner. In the real [[world]] all our tasks are guided solely by [[vijnapti]]. So while in [[dream]] out interaction with the [[world]] may not produce any result, the interactions guided by [[consciousness]] in the real [[world]] do produce genuine results. |
| − | Vasuvandhu concludes by stating that he tried proving the | + | [[Vasuvandhu]] concludes by stating that he tried proving the “[[mind-only]]” through [[logic]] alone. But in order to fully comprehend this, words and [[thoughts]] are not enough. [[Yoga]] (practice) is needed. When this [[reality]] is fully understood and [[realized]] then one in fact becomes the [[Buddha]]. |
| Line 79: | Line 79: | ||
| − | Here, in brief, the general introduction to the contents and structure of the main Vijnanavadia text, Vijnapti-matrata-siddhi, by Acarya Vasuvandhu has been presented along with his short biography. Through twenty-two succinct statements, he has given validity to the mind-only philosophy. By comparing our day-to-day activities with the tasks we perform in our dream he has tried to explain about the illusory nature of this world. | + | Here, in brief, the general introduction to the contents and {{Wiki|structure}} of the main Vijnanavadia text, [[Vijnapti-matrata-siddhi]], by [[Acarya]] [[Vasuvandhu]] has been presented along with his short {{Wiki|biography}}. Through twenty-two succinct statements, he has given validity to the [[mind-only]] [[philosophy]]. By comparing our day-to-day [[activities]] with the tasks we perform in our [[dream]] he has tried to explain about the [[illusory nature]] of this [[world]]. |
| − | Our perception of what we consider the real world has been equated to the sight of a person with visual defects. According to him, ultimately it comes down not to the functionality of the sense faculties but to the nature of the mind. | + | Our [[perception]] of what we consider the real [[world]] has been equated to the [[sight]] of a [[person]] with [[visual]] defects. According to him, ultimately it comes down not to the functionality of the [[sense faculties]] but to the [[nature of the mind]]. |
| − | A distinction between the real and unreal has also been given through the usage of karma. That which generates karma is real and has a genuine control of the mind. One can experience actual reality only when one is fully awakened leaving out all mental defilements and ignorance. This is possible only sincere practice. As per Vasuvandhu, only through habitual practice can the true nature of the world be perceived by the mind and once that stage is reached the practitioner becomes a Buddha. | + | A {{Wiki|distinction}} between the real and unreal has also been given through the usage of [[karma]]. That which generates [[karma]] is real and has a genuine control of the [[mind]]. One can [[experience]] actual [[reality]] only when one is [[fully awakened]] leaving out all [[mental defilements]] and [[ignorance]]. This is possible only {{Wiki|sincere}} practice. As per [[Vasuvandhu]], only through habitual practice can the [[true nature]] of the [[world]] be [[perceived]] by the [[mind]] and once that stage is reached the [[practitioner]] becomes a [[Buddha]]. |
Latest revision as of 19:45, 5 February 2020
A textual introduction to Acarya Vasubandhu’s Vijnapti-matrata-siddhi Vimsatika
Suyog Prajapati,
About the writer
Vijnapti-matrata-siddhi, literally the proof (or validity) of mind and cognition only, is a collection of Sanskrit verses aimed at giving impetus to the “mind-only” philosophy of the Yogacara School. It was composed by the great Indian teacher, Acarya [[[Vasuvandhu]] while at the court of King Vikramaditya of Ayodhya. Based on various sources and genealogies (lineage histories, rather) the Japanese scholar Takakusu has affixed the period of A. Vasuvandhu in between 420-500 CE.
Vasubandhu was born in Purusapur of Gandhara region to a Kausika-Gotriya Brahmana family. He is the second among three brothers, who were also equally important for the development of the Buddhist philosophical schools. The eldest, Arya Asanga, was a great proponent of Vijnanavada while the youngest, Virincivatsa, was a Sarvastivadin pandit. Vasuvandhu was originally an exponent of Sarvastivada as well.
In fact, according to Winternitz, all three brothers were Sarvastivadins, but later they were inclined to other aspects of Buddha’s teachings. As per Buston, Vasuvandhu was ordained and trained under Acarya Samghamitra. Other sources say his teacher was Buddhamitra (Paramartha) or Manoratha (Hieun Tsang). Kumarajiva (383-412 CE) and Paramartha (499-569 CE) have both written independent biographies on Vasuvandhu; only the latter is found as a Chinese translation.
Preliminary education of Vasuvandhu is said to have taken place in Kasmir and as a youth he moved to Ayodhya, which was then a great Buddhist centre. There he was initiated into “Hinayana” and later composed the magnum opus Abhidharmakosa along with its commentaries Abhidharmakosa-bhasya, in the process strengthening the Vaibhasika- Sarvastivada viewpoints.
In his later years, due to the influence of his older brother, Asanga, he converted to Yogacara and also wrote compendiums in support of this doctrine. In total, he created at least thirty-two refined texts. Among them the Vijnapti-matrata-siddhi stands out as a masterpiece, highlighting the citta-matra way.
About the text
The Vijnapti-matrata-siddhi comprises two main tomes (or prakaranas), namely — the Vimsatika and the Trimsika. While Vasuvandhu wrote both these sections, the commentary for the Trimsika written by Acarya SthTramati is the more popular one. In the Vimsatika, the theory that “only the mind it true” is explained logically while in the Trimsika various analyses of the mind (vijnana) are presented.
At the time when there was much activity in the world of philosophy in India, the Vijnanavadins were concerned with differentiating their views from those of the other religious thinkers in India. They had to stand firm on the Buddhist doctrine of the supreme nature of the mind and also on not accepting the Supreme Being (Isvara). Vasuvandhu, through his text, and especially through the Vimsatika, attempts to thread his way between dualism, on the one hand, and theistically based idealism, on the other, by appealing to the notion of karma
The Vimsatika (meaning “twenty lines”) has in fact twenty-two verses while the Trimsika has thirty verses. As the main text for the Yogdcara-Vijhanavada school Vimsatika elaborates the illusory nature of the mind through Vasuvandhu’s terse statements as well as his autocommentaries. He deduces the trueness of only the mind by heavily drawing examples from the dream-like state and the non-universality and selflessness (nairatma) of both the object or phenomenon (dharma) and the subject (pudgala).
The Vimsatika — a short analysis
Vasuvandhu begins the Vimsatika with the assertion that the mind is real and that the objects we think we see in the external world are unreal. He gives example of a person with defective vision (timira roga) seeing things in ways different than the ordinary.
Next, he presents three objections and also gives a commentary. The first is regarding the indeterminacy of time and place in real-world observation. The second is regarding how the eye-disorder can be explained and the third regarding the functionality of ones perception. If only the mind is true then anything arising in the mind should manifest itself anywhere. Vasuvandhu explains this paradoxical situation by saying that the rule for time and place is proven to be like a dream.
In a dream we can see objects in a definite place (and time). But they are not real at all. We “see” in a dream in spite of our eyes remaining shut and in spite of remaining in our bed we experience visiting other places. They are all just the results of our mind. The same can be said about the so-called real world.
What we see and experience as good or bad, happiness or sadness in the outer-world are the “dream-like” states resulting from the defilements in our mind. An object is considered real only if it performs a certain task. If our home and the imaginary Gandharvanagara are considered the same, the results of our mind, they differ in the fact that the latter cannot perform the task of providing us refuge, while the former can. But both are byproducts of the mind.
From the eighth verse to the tenth Vasuvandhu discusses why the Buddha then sometimes explains the external world as real. He adjudicated that the Buddha did so only as per the context. If no expositions were made on the phenomenon (dhctlu, dharma, skandha etc) then people would not make efforts to do good karma. They would lean towards nihilism. The Buddha discoursed about the process of cognition and the sense-objects/senses and their correlations despite them being unreal, so as to make a bridge towards the understanding of pudgala-nairatma (non-existence of atman) and dharma-nairatma (non-existence of objects).
In the sixteenth verse he explains that when our sense organs perceive the outer-world, our mind analyses instantaneously and when that happens the sensed object becomes the past. The interval is infinitesimally transient, so what our mind cognates and what we think of as the present (live) object has in fact changed in that very instance. So moment-by-moment, the reality (as seen or sensed) is not real. Further, he objects the direct evidence and its validity asking if our first-hand observations are in fact just illusions of the mind.
He answers this discrepancy by again giving the example of dream. In a dream we “see” and “feel” an object for “real”, but it is not so, although they constitute direct evidence (pratyaksa pramana). When we wake up, we realize that they were all through the mind. In fact all of our observations in day-to-day life and the state we are in are all dream-like. The defilements and afflictions we possess are keeping us from being fully awake and comprehending the true nature i.e. attaining samyak-sambodhi.
In the last five verses, Vasuvandhu talks about the Yogi-pratyaksa, the direct evidence from the point of view of an exalted practitioner (one doing yoga-sadhatia i.e. Yogi). He justifies that if the mind works well, no sensual perceptions are needed. Whether asleep or in an awakened state the mind and mind alone is prominent. All other ayatamas (sense spheres) have to work in unison with the mind for their proper functioning.
He also explains how the Buddha, kalyanamitra, family, enemies etc. function, despite being unreal. In the dream our tasks (karma) have no results (phala). But in the awakened state they do. In dream and all the dream-like states, all consciousness (yijfiapti) arises due to middhd (sloth) and ignorance.
They arise in a susupta (latent) manner. In the real world all our tasks are guided solely by vijnapti. So while in dream out interaction with the world may not produce any result, the interactions guided by consciousness in the real world do produce genuine results.
Vasuvandhu concludes by stating that he tried proving the “mind-only” through logic alone. But in order to fully comprehend this, words and thoughts are not enough. Yoga (practice) is needed. When this reality is fully understood and realized then one in fact becomes the Buddha.
Conclusion
Here, in brief, the general introduction to the contents and structure of the main Vijnanavadia text, Vijnapti-matrata-siddhi, by Acarya Vasuvandhu has been presented along with his short biography. Through twenty-two succinct statements, he has given validity to the mind-only philosophy. By comparing our day-to-day activities with the tasks we perform in our dream he has tried to explain about the illusory nature of this world.
Our perception of what we consider the real world has been equated to the sight of a person with visual defects. According to him, ultimately it comes down not to the functionality of the sense faculties but to the nature of the mind.
A distinction between the real and unreal has also been given through the usage of karma. That which generates karma is real and has a genuine control of the mind. One can experience actual reality only when one is fully awakened leaving out all mental defilements and ignorance. This is possible only sincere practice. As per Vasuvandhu, only through habitual practice can the true nature of the world be perceived by the mind and once that stage is reached the practitioner becomes a Buddha.
