Difference between revisions of "Svasaṃvedana"
m (Text replacement - "Category:Pali terminology" to "{{PaliTerminology}}") |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[File:Dignaga.JPG|thumb|250px|Indian philosopher [[Dignaga]]]] | [[File:Dignaga.JPG|thumb|250px|Indian philosopher [[Dignaga]]]] | ||
| − | In [[Buddhist Philosophy]], '''[[Svasaṃvedana]]''' (also [[Svasaṃvitti]]) is a term which refers to the [[self]]-reflexive nature of [[consciousness]]. Introduced by the [[Indian]] [[philosopher]] [[Dignaga]], it is an important [[doctrinal]] term in {{Wiki|Indian}} [[Mahayana]] [[thought]] and [[Tibetan Buddhism]]. It is also often translated as [[self]] {{Wiki|apperception}}. | + | In [[Buddhist Philosophy]], '''[[Svasaṃvedana]]''' (also [[Svasaṃvitti]]) is a term which refers to the [[self]]-reflexive [[nature]] of [[consciousness]]. Introduced by the [[Indian]] [[philosopher]] [[Dignaga]], it is an important [[doctrinal]] term in {{Wiki|Indian}} [[Mahayana]] [[thought]] and [[Tibetan Buddhism]]. It is also often translated as [[self]] {{Wiki|apperception}}. |
| − | [[Svasaṃvedana]] is at the [[root]] of a major [[doctrinal]] disagreement in [[Indian]] [[Mahayana Buddhism]]. While defended by the [[Yogacara]] thinkers such as [[Dharmakirti]] and the eclectic [[Santaraksita]], it was attacked by '[[Prasangika]] [[Madhyamika]]' thinkers such as [[Candrakirti]] and [[Santideva]]. Since in [[Mādhyamika]] [[thought]] all [[dharmas]] are [[empty]] of inherent [[essence]] ([[Svabhava]]), they argued that [[consciousness]] could not be an inherently reflexive [[ultimate reality]] since that would mean it was [[self]] validating and therefore not characterized by [[emptiness]]. | + | [[Svasaṃvedana]] is at the [[root]] of a major [[doctrinal]] disagreement in [[Indian]] [[Mahayana Buddhism]]. While defended by the [[Yogacara]] thinkers such as [[Dharmakirti]] and the eclectic [[Santaraksita]], it was attacked by '[[Prasangika]] [[Madhyamika]]' thinkers such as [[Candrakirti]] and [[Santideva]]. Since in [[Mādhyamika]] [[thought]] all [[dharmas]] are [[empty]] of [[inherent]] [[essence]] ([[Svabhava]]), they argued that [[consciousness]] could not be an inherently reflexive [[ultimate reality]] since that would mean it was [[self]] validating and therefore not characterized by [[emptiness]]. |
In [[Tibetan Buddhism]] there are various competing [[views]] regarding [[svasaṃvedana]] ([[Tibetan]]: [[Ranggi Rig pa]]). | In [[Tibetan Buddhism]] there are various competing [[views]] regarding [[svasaṃvedana]] ([[Tibetan]]: [[Ranggi Rig pa]]). | ||
| − | In the [[Nyingma school]]'s [[Dzogchen]] [[tradition]], [[svasaṃvedana]] is often called 'the very nature of [[mind]]' ([[sems kyi chos nyid]]) and {{Wiki|metaphorically}} referred to as '{{Wiki|luminosity}}' ([[gsal ba]]) or '[[clear light]]' ('[[od gsal]]). A common [[Tibetan]] {{Wiki|metaphor}} for this reflexivity is that of a [[lamp]] in a dark room which in the act of [[illuminating]] [[objects]] in the room also illuminates itself. [[Dzogchen]] [[meditative]] practices aim to bring the [[mind]] to direct [[realization]] of this luminous nature. In [[Dzogchen]] (as well as some [[Mahamudra]] [[traditions]]) [[Svasaṃvedana]] is seen as the {{Wiki|primordial}} [[substratum]] or ground ([[gdod ma'i gzhi]]) of [[mind]]. | + | In the [[Nyingma school]]'s [[Dzogchen]] [[tradition]], [[svasaṃvedana]] is often called 'the very [[nature]] of [[mind]]' ([[sems kyi chos nyid]]) and {{Wiki|metaphorically}} referred to as '{{Wiki|luminosity}}' ([[gsal ba]]) or '[[clear light]]' ('[[od gsal]]). A common [[Tibetan]] {{Wiki|metaphor}} for this reflexivity is that of a [[lamp]] in a dark room which in the act of [[illuminating]] [[objects]] in the room also illuminates itself. [[Dzogchen]] [[meditative]] practices aim to bring the [[mind]] to direct [[realization]] of this [[luminous]] [[nature]]. In [[Dzogchen]] (as well as some [[Mahamudra]] [[traditions]]) [[Svasaṃvedana]] is seen as the {{Wiki|primordial}} [[substratum]] or ground ([[gdod ma'i gzhi]]) of [[mind]]. |
| − | Following [[Je Tsongkhapa]]'s interpretation of the [[Prasaṅgika]] [[Madhyamaka]] [[view]], the [[Gelug]] school completely denies even the conventional and the [[ultimate]] {{Wiki|existence}} of reflexive [[awareness]]. This is one of [[Tsongkhapa]]'s "eight difficult points" that distinguish the [[Prasaṅgika]] [[view]] from others. The [[Nyingma]] [[philosopher]] [[Jamgon Ju Mipham Gyatso]] defended the conventional {{Wiki|existence}} of reflexive {{Wiki|awareness}} as per the [[Madhyamaka]] [[two truths]] [[doctrine]]. According to [[Mipham]], the [[Prasangika]] critique of reflexive {{Wiki|awareness}} only applied to it's [[ultimate]] inherent {{Wiki|reality}} and not it's conventional status. | + | Following [[Je Tsongkhapa]]'s interpretation of the [[Prasaṅgika]] [[Madhyamaka]] [[view]], the [[Gelug]] school completely denies even the [[Wikipedia:Convention (norm)|conventional]] and the [[ultimate]] {{Wiki|existence}} of reflexive [[awareness]]. This is one of [[Tsongkhapa]]'s "eight difficult points" that distinguish the [[Prasaṅgika]] [[view]] from others. The [[Nyingma]] [[philosopher]] [[Jamgon Ju Mipham Gyatso]] defended the [[Wikipedia:Convention (norm)|conventional]] {{Wiki|existence}} of reflexive {{Wiki|awareness}} as per the [[Madhyamaka]] [[two truths]] [[doctrine]]. According to [[Mipham]], the [[Prasangika]] critique of reflexive {{Wiki|awareness}} only applied to it's [[ultimate]] [[inherent]] {{Wiki|reality}} and not it's [[Wikipedia:Convention (norm)|conventional]] {{Wiki|status}}. |
{{W}} | {{W}} | ||
Revision as of 23:42, 16 September 2014
In Buddhist Philosophy, Svasaṃvedana (also Svasaṃvitti) is a term which refers to the self-reflexive nature of consciousness. Introduced by the Indian philosopher Dignaga, it is an important doctrinal term in Indian Mahayana thought and Tibetan Buddhism. It is also often translated as self apperception.
Svasaṃvedana is at the root of a major doctrinal disagreement in Indian Mahayana Buddhism. While defended by the Yogacara thinkers such as Dharmakirti and the eclectic Santaraksita, it was attacked by 'Prasangika Madhyamika' thinkers such as Candrakirti and Santideva. Since in Mādhyamika thought all dharmas are empty of inherent essence (Svabhava), they argued that consciousness could not be an inherently reflexive ultimate reality since that would mean it was self validating and therefore not characterized by emptiness.
In Tibetan Buddhism there are various competing views regarding svasaṃvedana (Tibetan: Ranggi Rig pa).
In the Nyingma school's Dzogchen tradition, svasaṃvedana is often called 'the very nature of mind' (sems kyi chos nyid) and metaphorically referred to as 'luminosity' (gsal ba) or 'clear light' ('od gsal). A common Tibetan metaphor for this reflexivity is that of a lamp in a dark room which in the act of illuminating objects in the room also illuminates itself. Dzogchen meditative practices aim to bring the mind to direct realization of this luminous nature. In Dzogchen (as well as some Mahamudra traditions) Svasaṃvedana is seen as the primordial substratum or ground (gdod ma'i gzhi) of mind.
Following Je Tsongkhapa's interpretation of the Prasaṅgika Madhyamaka view, the Gelug school completely denies even the conventional and the ultimate existence of reflexive awareness. This is one of Tsongkhapa's "eight difficult points" that distinguish the Prasaṅgika view from others. The Nyingma philosopher Jamgon Ju Mipham Gyatso defended the conventional existence of reflexive awareness as per the Madhyamaka two truths doctrine. According to Mipham, the Prasangika critique of reflexive awareness only applied to it's ultimate inherent reality and not it's conventional status.
