Difference between revisions of "The Philosophy of Mind Only by Dr. Peter Della Santina"
m (1 revision: Robo replace 16sept) |
|||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[File:Manjusri1GF.JPG|thumb|250px|]] | [[File:Manjusri1GF.JPG|thumb|250px|]] | ||
− | The Mind Only school and the [[Middle Way]] school are the philosophical backbone of the [[Mahayana]] tradition. There are several names by which the Mind Only school is known, the three most popular being Chittamatra (school affirming Mind Only), Vijnanavada (school affirming [[Consciousness]]), and Yogachara (school affirming the unity of [[Meditation]] and action). Yogachara refers to the union of the practice of [[Meditation]] (yoga) and conduct (achara). The Mind Only school arose as an independent and identifiable philosophical tradition in the fourth century C.E. | + | The [[Mind Only school]] and the [[Middle Way]] school are the [[philosophical]] backbone of the [[Mahayana]] [[tradition]]. There are several names by which the [[Mind Only school]] is known, the three most popular being [[Chittamatra]] (school [[affirming]] [[Mind Only]]), [[Vijnanavada]] (school [[affirming]] [[Consciousness]]), and [[Yogachara]] (school [[affirming]] the {{Wiki|unity}} of [[Meditation]] and [[action]]). [[Yogachara]] refers to the union of the [[practice]] of [[Meditation]] ([[yoga]]) and conduct ([[achara]]). The [[Mind Only school]] arose as an {{Wiki|independent}} and identifiable [[philosophical]] [[tradition]] in the fourth century C.E. |
− | Two brothers, [[Asanga]] and [[Vasubandhu]], played a central role in the formulation and popularization of the philosophy of this school. They were born in Northwest [[India]], in what is now Pakistan. Through their writings and skill as teachers and debaters, they popularized the Mind Only philosophy within a relatively short time. Both started out as realistic pluralists, and in addition to his many works on the Mind Only philosophy, [[Vasubandhu]] is well known for his Abhidharmakosha, a collection of [[Abhidharma]] philosophy written from the standpoint of the Vaibhashika school. | + | Two brothers, [[Asanga]] and [[Vasubandhu]], played a central role in the formulation and popularization of the [[philosophy]] of this school. They were born in [[Northwest]] [[India]], in what is now {{Wiki|Pakistan}}. Through their writings and skill as [[teachers]] and [[debaters]], they popularized the [[Mind Only]] [[philosophy]] within a relatively short time. Both started out as {{Wiki|realistic}} [[Wikipedia:plural|pluralists]], and in addition to his many works on the [[Mind Only]] [[philosophy]], [[Vasubandhu]] is well known for his [[Abhidharmakosha]], a collection of [[Abhidharma]] [[philosophy]] written from the standpoint of the [[Vaibhashika]] school. |
− | These two great scholars were converted to [[Mahayana]] and together produced a large number of works defining, categorizing, and setting forth the Mind Only philosophy. [[Asanga]] is famous for his Stages of the [[Bodhisattva]] Path (Bodhisattvabhumi), Compendium of the [[Abhidharma]] (Abhidharmasamuchchaya), written from the [[Mahayana]] or Mind Only viewpoint, and many commentaries on major works of the Mind Only school. [[Vasubandhu]] is renowned for his short treatises on Cognition Only and a treatise explaining the three natures of the Mind Only philosophy. | + | These two great [[scholars]] were converted to [[Mahayana]] and together produced a large number of works defining, categorizing, and setting forth the [[Mind Only]] [[philosophy]]. [[Asanga]] is famous for his Stages of the [[Bodhisattva]] [[Path]] ([[Bodhisattvabhumi]]), Compendium of the [[Abhidharma]] ([[Abhidharmasamuchchaya]]), written from the [[Mahayana]] or [[Mind Only]] viewpoint, and many commentaries on major works of the [[Mind Only school]]. [[Vasubandhu]] is renowned for his short treatises on [[Cognition]] Only and a treatise explaining the [[three natures]] of the [[Mind Only]] [[philosophy]]. |
− | [[Asanga]]'s commentaries to a number of important texts of the Mind Only school are attributed by the [[Mahayana]] tradition to [[Lord]] [[Maitreya]]. Although modern scholars have attempted to identify [[Maitreya]] with a historical personality, the [[Mahayana]] tradition has no [[Doubt]] that [[Maitreya]] is the future [[Buddha]], now residing in Tushita [[Heaven]]. The major works of the Mind Only school attributed to him include the Distinction of the Middle from the Extremes (Madhyantavibhaga) and the Ornament of the [[Mahayana]] (Mahayanasutralankara). They are said to have been transmitted by [[Maitreya]] to [[Asanga]], who wrote them down and added commentaries. It is in this sense that a large portion of the textual foundation of the Mind Only philosophy is attributed to the future [[Buddha]] [[Maitreya]]. | + | [[Asanga]]'s commentaries to a number of important texts of the [[Mind Only school]] are attributed by the [[Mahayana]] [[tradition]] to [[Lord]] [[Maitreya]]. Although {{Wiki|modern}} [[scholars]] have attempted to identify [[Maitreya]] with a historical [[personality]], the [[Mahayana]] [[tradition]] has no [[Doubt]] that [[Maitreya]] is the {{Wiki|future}} [[Buddha]], now residing in [[Tushita]] [[Heaven]]. The major works of the [[Mind Only school]] attributed to him include the [[Distinction of the Middle from the Extremes]] ([[Madhyantavibhaga]]) and the Ornament of the [[Mahayana]] ([[Mahayanasutralankara]]). They are said to have been transmitted by [[Maitreya]] to [[Asanga]], who wrote them down and added commentaries. It is in this [[sense]] that a large portion of the textual foundation of the [[Mind Only]] [[philosophy]] is attributed to the {{Wiki|future}} [[Buddha]] [[Maitreya]]. |
− | Like the [[Middle Way]] philosophy, the Mind Only philosophy has its origin in the earliest tradition of [[Buddhism]]. For example, even according to the [[Theravada]] canon, The [[Buddha]] declared that mind is the creator of all things and referred to the luminous and pure nature of [[Consciousness]]. The [[Body]] of [[Mahayana]] sutras includes many discourses, like [[The Lankavatara Sutra]], that deal at some length with the fundamental principles of the Mind Only philosophy. A long and weighty textual tradition thus precedes the emergence of the Mind Only tradition as an independent philosophical school. | + | Like the [[Middle Way]] [[philosophy]], the [[Mind Only]] [[philosophy]] has its origin in the earliest [[tradition]] of [[Buddhism]]. For example, even according to the [[Theravada]] [[canon]], The [[Buddha]] declared that [[mind]] is the creator of all things and referred to the {{Wiki|luminous}} and [[pure]] [[nature]] of [[Consciousness]]. The [[Body]] of [[Mahayana]] [[sutras]] includes many [[discourses]], like [[The Lankavatara Sutra]], that deal at some length with the fundamental {{Wiki|principles}} of the [[Mind Only]] [[philosophy]]. A long and weighty textual [[tradition]] thus precedes the [[emergence]] of the [[Mind Only]] [[tradition]] as an {{Wiki|independent}} [[philosophical]] school. |
− | In addition to these textual anticipations in the canons of the Hinayana and [[Mahayana]] traditions, we find conceptual antecedents of the Mind Only philosophy in the course of the development of Buddhist thought. We all know that mind has been extremely important in [[Buddhism]] from the beginning. We need only remember The [[Buddha]]'s affirmation of the creative role of the mind to realize what a central place mind has in Buddhist thought, or look at the thirty-seven factors conducive to [[Enlightenment]] to be struck by how many of them have to do with the mind. | + | In addition to these textual anticipations in the canons of the [[Hinayana]] and [[Mahayana]] [[traditions]], we find {{Wiki|conceptual}} antecedents of the [[Mind Only]] [[philosophy]] in the course of the [[development]] of [[Buddhist]] [[thought]]. We all know that [[mind]] has been extremely important in [[Buddhism]] from the beginning. We need only remember The [[Buddha]]'s [[affirmation]] of the creative role of the [[mind]] to realize what a central place [[mind]] has in [[Buddhist]] [[thought]], or look at the thirty-seven factors conducive to [[Enlightenment]] to be struck by how many of them have to do with the [[mind]]. |
[[File:Bodhisena.jpg|thumb|250px|]] | [[File:Bodhisena.jpg|thumb|250px|]] | ||
− | The central importance of mind continued in the Vaibhashika and Sautrantika schools, two realistic and pluralistic schools that flourished prior to the emergence of the [[Middle Way]] and Mind Only schools. The Vaibhashika took its name from commentaries composed during the Fourth Buddhist [[Council]], in the first century C.E. It is perhaps the most atomistic, realistic, and pluralistic of the Indian schools, and is even more pluralistic and realistic than the [[Theravada school]] of Sri Lanka. The Vaibhashikas advocated the [[Doctrine]] of the two natures of factors (dharmas)--the phenomenal nature and the eternal nature. This eternal nature has sometimes been likened to Plato's [[Doctrine]] of ideas in Greek philosophy. | + | The central importance of [[mind]] continued in the [[Vaibhashika]] and [[Sautrantika schools]], two {{Wiki|realistic}} and pluralistic schools that flourished prior to the [[emergence]] of the [[Middle Way]] and [[Mind Only]] schools. The [[Vaibhashika]] took its [[name]] from commentaries composed during the Fourth [[Buddhist]] [[Council]], in the first century C.E. It is perhaps the most atomistic, {{Wiki|realistic}}, and pluralistic of the [[Indian]] schools, and is even more pluralistic and {{Wiki|realistic}} than the [[Theravada school]] of [[Sri Lanka]]. The [[Vaibhashikas]] advocated the [[Doctrine]] of the two natures of factors (dharmas)--the [[phenomenal]] [[nature]] and the [[eternal nature]]. This [[eternal nature]] has sometimes been likened to [[Plato's]] [[Doctrine]] of [[ideas]] in {{Wiki|Greek philosophy}}. |
− | The Sautrantika takes its name from the fact that it wanted to return to the original teachings of The [[Buddha]] contained in the sutras. This is the school that rejected the authenticity of the [[Abhidharma]]. The Sautrantikas are interesting philosophically because they emphasized the role of conceptualization, or discrimination (vikalpa). They rejected the independent, objective reality of many of the factors the Vaibhashikas accepted, ascribing these dharmas to the functioning of discrimination or imagination. This goes some way toward the standpoint of the Mind Only school, which eventually denied the objective reality of all objects and affirmed the sole reality of mind. | + | The [[Sautrantika]] takes its [[name]] from the fact that it wanted to return to the original teachings of The [[Buddha]] contained in the [[sutras]]. This is the school that rejected the authenticity of the [[Abhidharma]]. The [[Sautrantikas]] are [[interesting]] [[philosophically]] because they emphasized the role of [[conceptualization]], or {{Wiki|discrimination}} ([[vikalpa]]). They rejected the {{Wiki|independent}}, [[objective]] [[reality]] of many of the factors the [[Vaibhashikas]] accepted, ascribing these [[dharmas]] to the functioning of {{Wiki|discrimination}} or [[imagination]]. This goes some way toward the standpoint of the [[Mind Only school]], which eventually denied the [[objective]] [[reality]] of all [[objects]] and [[affirmed]] the sole [[reality]] of [[mind]]. |
− | In addition, the Sautrantikas formulated a very interesting theory of [[Perception]]. They believed that we never really know external objects directly and that what we perceive--what we take to be an external object (for example, the cup in front of me)--is a mental reflection or representation of that object, so that the process of [[Perception]] is the process of perceiving mental reflections of external objects. The Sautrantikas claimed that these mental representations are the effects of external objects. Consequently, they held that we know of the existence of external objects by inference. The mental images or reflections of an external object are evidence of that object's existence, although we cannot know it directly. | + | In addition, the [[Sautrantikas]] formulated a very [[interesting]] {{Wiki|theory}} of [[Perception]]. They believed that we never really know external [[objects]] directly and that what we perceive--what we take to be an [[external object]] (for example, the cup in front of me)--is a [[mental]] {{Wiki|reflection}} or [[representation]] of that [[object]], so that the process of [[Perception]] is the process of perceiving [[mental]] reflections of external [[objects]]. The [[Sautrantikas]] claimed that these [[mental]] {{Wiki|representations}} are the effects of external [[objects]]. Consequently, they held that we know of the [[existence]] of external [[objects]] by {{Wiki|inference}}. The [[mental images]] or reflections of an [[external object]] are {{Wiki|evidence}} of that object's [[existence]], although we cannot know it directly. |
− | This theory is very similar to John Locke's representative theory of [[Perception]]. What I find important about this view is that if it is accepted, it leaves the status of the external [[World]] in a very precarious position, since we would never know objects in themselves but only the objectified contents of our [[Consciousness]]. By thus emphasizing the role of conceptualization or imagination, this philosophical development of the Sautrantikas anticipates the full-fledged mentalist philosophy of the Mind Only school, which claims that the apparently real objects of the [[World]] are none other than mind. | + | This {{Wiki|theory}} is very similar to John Locke's representative {{Wiki|theory}} of [[Perception]]. What I find important about this view is that if it is accepted, it leaves the {{Wiki|status}} of the external [[World]] in a very precarious position, since we would never know [[objects]] in themselves but only the objectified contents of our [[Consciousness]]. By thus {{Wiki|emphasizing}} the role of [[conceptualization]] or [[imagination]], this [[philosophical]] [[development]] of the [[Sautrantikas]] anticipates the full-fledged {{Wiki|mentalist}} [[philosophy]] of the [[Mind Only school]], which claims that the apparently real [[objects]] of the [[World]] are none other than [[mind]]. |
− | There are a number of lines along which the Mind Only philosophy developed its [[Doctrine]] of the primacy of [[Consciousness]]. Its adherents were convinced that objects depend on mind for their nature and being. First, the school put forward the view that a single object appears differently to different [[Sentient beings]]. This argument is worked out with respect to The [[Six Realms]] of existence. For example, a cup of milk appears to us as milk, but it would appear as nectar to the gods, as molten iron to [[Hell]] beings, and as pus or blood to hungry ghosts. A single object appears differently to different beings in [[Samsara]] according to their respective [[Karma]]. In other words, an object appears in different forms according to the conditioned, subjective state of the mind. We can see this even without reference to The [[Six Realms]]. For example, a woman may appear as an object of sexual attraction to a man, a heap of meat to a wolf, and a skeleton to an [[Arhat]]. This is the first argument the Mind Only school used in support of its subjectivist view of experience. | + | There are a number of lines along which the [[Mind Only]] [[philosophy]] developed its [[Doctrine]] of the primacy of [[Consciousness]]. Its {{Wiki|adherents}} were convinced that [[objects]] depend on [[mind]] for their [[nature]] and being. First, the school put forward the view that a single [[object]] appears differently to different [[Sentient beings]]. This argument is worked out with [[respect]] to The [[Six Realms]] of [[existence]]. For example, a cup of milk appears to us as milk, but it would appear as [[nectar]] to the [[gods]], as molten {{Wiki|iron}} to [[Hell]] [[beings]], and as pus or {{Wiki|blood}} to [[hungry ghosts]]. A single [[object]] appears differently to different [[beings]] in [[Samsara]] according to their respective [[Karma]]. In other words, an [[object]] appears in different [[forms]] according to the [[conditioned]], [[subjective]] [[state]] of the [[mind]]. We can see this even without reference to The [[Six Realms]]. For example, a woman may appear as an [[object]] of {{Wiki|sexual}} [[attraction]] to a man, a heap of meat to a {{Wiki|wolf}}, and a skeleton to an [[Arhat]]. This is the first argument the [[Mind Only school]] used in support of its subjectivist view of [[experience]]. |
[[File:Manjusuri 3265.jpg|thumb|250px|]] | [[File:Manjusuri 3265.jpg|thumb|250px|]] | ||
− | Second, the Mind Only school made extensive use of the analogy of dreaming, arguing that in [[Dreams]] the mind creates and projects a [[World]] which, for all intents and purposes, it experiences as real as long as the dream state prevails. If we look at [[Vasubandhu]]'s Twenty Verses on Cognition Only we can see how he rejects several objections to this argument by analogy. For example, opponents of this view said that dream experience is not collective the way waking experience is, to which [[Vasubandhu]] countered that we do experience events in common with the other figures in a given dream. Opponents also said that dream experience is not effective and does not have the [[Power]] to bring about real effects, yet [[Vasubandhu]] showed, by using the example of nocturnal emission, that this is not so. In short, if we look closely at dream experience, we will be forced to admit that, as long as we are in a dream state, there are no reasonable grounds on which we can distinguish it from waking experience. | + | Second, the [[Mind Only school]] made extensive use of the analogy of [[Wikipedia:Dream|dreaming]], arguing that in [[Dreams]] the [[mind]] creates and projects a [[World]] which, for all intents and purposes, it [[experiences]] as real as long as the [[dream state]] prevails. If we look at [[Vasubandhu]]'s Twenty Verses on [[Cognition]] Only we can see how he rejects several objections to this argument by analogy. For example, opponents of this view said that [[dream]] [[experience]] is not collective the way waking [[experience]] is, to which [[Vasubandhu]] countered that we do [[experience]] events in common with the other figures in a given [[dream]]. Opponents also said that [[dream]] [[experience]] is not effective and does not have the [[Power]] to bring about real effects, yet [[Vasubandhu]] showed, by using the example of nocturnal emission, that this is not so. In short, if we look closely at [[dream]] [[experience]], we will be forced to admit that, as long as we are in a [[dream state]], there are no reasonable grounds on which we can distinguish it from waking [[experience]]. |
− | It is interesting to note that this analogy has received some support in recent years from the evidence of experiments in the field of sensory deprivation. These experiments place volunteers in situations where they are cut off from all sensory stimuli; some subjects then begin to create, out of their own minds, an entire three-dimensional [[Universe]]. It would follow that the Mind Only argument developed on the analogy of dream experience has a certain amount of cogency. | + | It is [[interesting]] to note that this analogy has received some support in recent years from the {{Wiki|evidence}} of experiments in the field of sensory deprivation. These experiments place volunteers in situations where they are cut off from all sensory {{Wiki|stimuli}}; some [[subjects]] then begin to create, out of their [[own]] [[minds]], an entire three-dimensional [[Universe]]. It would follow that the [[Mind Only]] argument developed on the analogy of [[dream]] [[experience]] has a certain amount of cogency. |
− | Third, the Mind Only school rejected the independent existence of objects by exposing the infinite divisibility of matter. This is another early conceptual conclusion reached by the Buddhist tradition that has recently been confirmed by scientific discoveries. Mind Only philosophers argued that the notion of an atom--an irreducible unit of matter--is impossible. They argued this on the grounds of the necessity of the combination or collection of atoms in order to produce a mass, an extended material object. | + | Third, the [[Mind Only school]] rejected the {{Wiki|independent}} [[existence]] of [[objects]] by exposing the [[infinite]] divisibility of {{Wiki|matter}}. This is another early {{Wiki|conceptual}} conclusion reached by the [[Buddhist tradition]] that has recently been confirmed by [[scientific]] discoveries. [[Mind Only]] [[philosophers]] argued that the notion of an atom--an irreducible unit of matter--is impossible. They argued this on the grounds of the necessity of the combination or collection of [[atoms]] in order to produce a {{Wiki|mass}}, an extended material [[object]]. |
− | The atom was thought to be unitary and indivisible, and was therefore held to be without parts, yet it was thought that objects (like a cup or a table) are collections of atoms that [[Form]] extended objects. Objects acquire mass through the collecting together of countless atoms in an assembly. If atoms are indivisible and without parts, then it will be impossible for them to assemble together. However, if atoms assemble, as they must, to [[Form]] extended material objects, then each atom must have at least six distinguishable parts: an upper part, a lower part, and an eastern, southern, western, and northern part. | + | The {{Wiki|atom}} was [[thought]] to be unitary and indivisible, and was therefore held to be without parts, yet it was [[thought]] that [[objects]] (like a cup or a table) are collections of [[atoms]] that [[Form]] extended [[objects]]. [[Objects]] acquire {{Wiki|mass}} through the collecting together of countless [[atoms]] in an assembly. If [[atoms]] are indivisible and without parts, then it will be impossible for them to assemble together. However, if [[atoms]] assemble, as they must, to [[Form]] extended [[material objects]], then each {{Wiki|atom}} must have at least six distinguishable parts: an upper part, a lower part, and an eastern, southern, [[western]], and northern part. |
− | By means of this argument, [[Vasubandhu]] and other Mind Only philosophers established the concept of the infinite divisibility of the atom. This conclusion has been verified by modern physics, so once again we have an early analytical conception that has been confirmed experimentally by discoveries of modern science. The atom as well as its components have been shown to be reducible to even smaller components, and we have finally arrived at a point in time when there is precious little evidence of any ultimate element of matter. | + | By means of this argument, [[Vasubandhu]] and other [[Mind Only]] [[philosophers]] established the {{Wiki|concept}} of the [[infinite]] divisibility of the {{Wiki|atom}}. This conclusion has been verified by {{Wiki|modern}} [[physics]], so once again we have an early analytical {{Wiki|conception}} that has been confirmed experimentally by discoveries of {{Wiki|modern science}}. The {{Wiki|atom}} as well as its components have been shown to be reducible to even smaller components, and we have finally arrived at a point in time when there is [[precious]] little {{Wiki|evidence}} of any [[Wikipedia:Absolute (philosophy)|ultimate]] [[element]] of {{Wiki|matter}}. |
[[File:Manjusuri 3463.jpg|thumb|250px|]] | [[File:Manjusuri 3463.jpg|thumb|250px|]] | ||
− | Through these arguments rejecting the existence of material objects, Mind Only philosophers established the relativity of subject and object, the identity of the objects of [[Consciousness]] with [[Consciousness]] itself. They revealed what we might call the nonduality of the subject and object of [[Consciousness]]--of [[Consciousness]] and its contents. | + | Through these arguments rejecting the [[existence]] of [[material objects]], [[Mind Only]] [[philosophers]] established the [[relativity]] of [[subject]] and [[object]], the [[Wikipedia:Identity (social science)|identity]] of the [[objects]] of [[Consciousness]] with [[Consciousness]] itself. They revealed what we might call the [[nonduality]] of the [[subject]] and [[object]] of [[Consciousness]]--of [[Consciousness]] and its contents. |
− | I want now to touch upon a conception which appears in [[The Lankavatara Sutra]] and to which [[Vasubandhu]] devoted one of his more famous works, the Exposition of the Three Natures. This is a [[Doctrine]] very important to Mind Only philosophy, namely, the [[Doctrine]] of the three natures, or levels, of reality: (1) the illusory or imputed nature (parikalpita), (2) the dependent or relative nature (paratantra), and (3) the perfected or accomplished nature (parinishpanna). | + | I want now to {{Wiki|touch}} upon a {{Wiki|conception}} which appears in [[The Lankavatara Sutra]] and to which [[Vasubandhu]] devoted one of his more famous works, the [[Exposition of the Three Natures]]. This is a [[Doctrine]] very important to [[Mind Only]] [[philosophy]], namely, the [[Doctrine]] of the [[three natures]], or levels, of [[reality]]: (1) the [[illusory]] or [[imputed]] [[nature]] ([[parikalpita]]), (2) the dependent or [[relative]] [[nature]] ([[paratantra]]), and (3) the perfected or accomplished [[nature]] ([[parinishpanna]]). |
− | These three natures may be likened respectively to (a) the mistaken belief that water exists in a mirage; (b) the appearance itself of the mirage, dependent on atmospheric causes and conditions; and (c) the empty nature of the mirage, inasmuch as it is conditioned, relative, and dependent on causes and conditions. The belief that water exists in the mirage is utterly false and is similar to the illusory nature. The simple appearance of the mirage relative to causes and conditions is similar to the dependent nature. The empty character of the mirage, inasmuch as it is dependent and conditioned, is similar to the perfected nature. | + | These [[three natures]] may be likened respectively to (a) the mistaken [[belief]] that [[water]] [[exists]] in a [[mirage]]; (b) the [[appearance]] itself of the [[mirage]], dependent on atmospheric [[causes and conditions]]; and (c) the [[empty]] [[nature]] of the [[mirage]], inasmuch as it is [[conditioned]], [[relative]], and dependent on [[causes and conditions]]. The [[belief]] that [[water]] [[exists]] in the [[mirage]] is utterly false and is similar to the [[illusory]] [[nature]]. The simple [[appearance]] of the [[mirage]] [[relative]] to [[causes and conditions]] is similar to the [[dependent nature]]. The [[empty]] [[character]] of the [[mirage]], inasmuch as it is dependent and [[conditioned]], is similar to the perfected [[nature]]. |
− | It is necessary to draw particular attention to the second of the three natures, the dependent nature, because it is this nature that is central in the Mind Only philosophy, insofar as it is concerned with liberation and emancipation. The dependent nature is identical with mind, and particularly with the storehouse [[Consciousness]], which we discussed in our consideration of [[The Lankavatara Sutra]] (see Chapter 17). What this means is that in this dependent nature we have, on the one hand, the potential to produce the illusory prison of [[Samsara]] and, on the other, the potential for the liberation of [[Nirvana]]. I have said that the storehouse [[Consciousness]] was termed by the Tibetans 'the all-base [[Consciousness]],' and that in that sense it is the root of [[Samsara]] and [[Nirvana]]. Here, too, we can see, on the one hand, how the dependent nature, if it is objectified by discrimination of an external object, results in the fabrication by mind of an external [[World]], which is [[Samsara]]. If the mind discriminates an external object--bifurcates this dependent nature into subject and object--then we have the creation of the illusory nature, that is to say, the imposition of false ideas (such as the idea of the existence of water in a mirage, or of the self and other): in a word, we have [[Samsara]]. | + | It is necessary to draw particular [[attention]] to the second of the [[three natures]], the [[dependent nature]], because it is this [[nature]] that is central in the [[Mind Only]] [[philosophy]], insofar as it is concerned with [[liberation]] and {{Wiki|emancipation}}. The [[dependent nature]] is [[identical]] with [[mind]], and particularly with the [[storehouse]] [[Consciousness]], which we discussed in our [[consideration]] of [[The Lankavatara Sutra]] (see [[Chapter]] 17). What this means is that in this [[dependent nature]] we have, on the one hand, the potential to produce the [[illusory]] {{Wiki|prison}} of [[Samsara]] and, on the other, the potential for the [[liberation]] of [[Nirvana]]. I have said that the [[storehouse]] [[Consciousness]] was termed by the [[Tibetans]] 'the all-base [[Consciousness]],' and that in that [[sense]] it is the [[root]] of [[Samsara]] and [[Nirvana]]. Here, too, we can see, on the one hand, how the [[dependent nature]], if it is objectified by {{Wiki|discrimination}} of an [[external object]], results in the [[fabrication]] by [[mind]] of an external [[World]], which is [[Samsara]]. If the [[mind]] discriminates an external object--bifurcates this [[dependent nature]] into [[subject]] and object--then we have the creation of the [[illusory]] [[nature]], that is to say, the imposition of false [[ideas]] (such as the [[idea]] of the [[existence]] of [[water]] in a [[mirage]], or of the [[self]] and other): in a [[word]], we have [[Samsara]]. |
− | On the other hand, if this dependent nature, which is identical with the storehouse [[Consciousness]], is purified of discriminating thought and the [[Emptiness]] of subject and object is realized, then the storehouse [[Consciousness]] results in the perfected nature; it results in freedom. The dependent nature is therefore the central nature of the three. If played upon by discrimination, it becomes [[Illusion]], [[Samsara]]; if played upon by the [[Knowledge]] of the abandonment of duality, it becomes [[Nirvana]]. | + | On the other hand, if this [[dependent nature]], which is [[identical]] with the [[storehouse]] [[Consciousness]], is [[purified]] of discriminating [[thought]] and the [[Emptiness]] of [[subject]] and [[object]] is [[realized]], then the [[storehouse]] [[Consciousness]] results in the perfected [[nature]]; it results in freedom. The [[dependent nature]] is therefore the central [[nature]] of the three. If played upon by {{Wiki|discrimination}}, it becomes [[Illusion]], [[Samsara]]; if played upon by the [[Knowledge]] of the [[abandonment]] of [[duality]], it becomes [[Nirvana]]. |
[[File:M-bud10.jpg|thumb|250px|]] | [[File:M-bud10.jpg|thumb|250px|]] | ||
− | It is interesting to note that this dependent nature is also the source of the phenomenalizing activity of the enlightened beings. In other words, the dependent nature, or storehouse [[Consciousness]], supplies the potential for the emanation of all forms, the forms of the terrestrial dimension and those of the celestial dimension--the heavenly Bodhisattvas like [[Manjushri]] and [[Avalokiteshvara]], who work for the enlightenment of all [[Sentient beings]]. | + | It is [[interesting]] to note that this [[dependent nature]] is also the source of the phenomenalizing [[activity]] of the [[enlightened beings]]. In other words, the [[dependent nature]], or [[storehouse]] [[Consciousness]], supplies the potential for the [[emanation]] of all [[forms]], the [[forms]] of the terrestrial [[dimension]] and those of the [[celestial]] dimension--the [[heavenly]] [[Bodhisattvas]] like [[Manjushri]] and [[Avalokiteshvara]], who work for the [[enlightenment]] of all [[Sentient beings]]. |
− | You will recall that, in the example of the mirage, it is the notion of the existence of water that belongs to the illusory nature; the mere appearance of the mirage as a pure, conditioned phenomenon belongs to the dependent nature. We might interpret this in terms of experience--that is, the experience of subject and object as different. The notion that an external object exists independent of [[Consciousness]], or mind, belongs to the realm of the illusory nature, whereas the appearance of phenomena without the mistaken notions of their objectivity and independence belongs to the dependent nature. | + | You will recall that, in the example of the [[mirage]], it is the notion of the [[existence]] of [[water]] that belongs to the [[illusory]] [[nature]]; the mere [[appearance]] of the [[mirage]] as a [[pure]], [[conditioned]] [[phenomenon]] belongs to the [[dependent nature]]. We might interpret this in terms of experience--that is, the [[experience]] of [[subject]] and [[object]] as different. The notion that an [[external object]] [[exists]] {{Wiki|independent}} of [[Consciousness]], or [[mind]], belongs to the [[realm]] of the [[illusory]] [[nature]], whereas the [[appearance]] of [[phenomena]] without the mistaken notions of their objectivity and {{Wiki|independence}} belongs to the [[dependent nature]]. |
− | This dependent nature is thus intrinsically pure and can function in an altruistic way for the liberation of others. It is in this sense that the three natures in the Mind Only system correspond to the three dimensions of [[Buddhahood]]: the illusory nature corresponds to the terrestrial dimension, the dependent nature to the celestial dimension, and the perfected nature to the transcendental dimension. Therefore, when [[Buddhas]] appear as objective historical personalities, this is the appearance of the dependent nature--in the guise of subject-object duality--in the sphere of the illusory nature. When [[Buddhas]] appear free from the duality of subject and object, in the ideal [[Form]] of celestial Bodhisattvas like [[Manjushri]] and [[Avalokiteshvara]], this is an appearance of the celestial dimension, of the dependent nature free from the [[Illusion]] of subject-object duality. | + | This [[dependent nature]] is thus intrinsically [[pure]] and can function in an {{Wiki|altruistic}} way for the [[liberation]] of others. It is in this [[sense]] that the [[three natures]] in the [[Mind Only]] system correspond to the three {{Wiki|dimensions}} of [[Buddhahood]]: the [[illusory]] [[nature]] corresponds to the terrestrial [[dimension]], the [[dependent nature]] to the [[celestial]] [[dimension]], and the perfected [[nature]] to the [[transcendental]] [[dimension]]. Therefore, when [[Buddhas]] appear as [[objective]] historical personalities, this is the [[appearance]] of the dependent nature--in the guise of subject-object duality--in the [[sphere]] of the [[illusory]] [[nature]]. When [[Buddhas]] appear free from the [[duality]] of [[subject]] and [[object]], in the {{Wiki|ideal}} [[Form]] of [[celestial]] [[Bodhisattvas]] like [[Manjushri]] and [[Avalokiteshvara]], this is an [[appearance]] of the [[celestial]] [[dimension]], of the [[dependent nature]] free from the [[Illusion]] of subject-object [[duality]]. |
− | I would like to conclude by underlining what I believe to be the very close correspondence between the philosophies of Mind Only and the [[Middle Way]]. You will recall that we have the conceptions of [[Samsara]] and [[Nirvana]] in the [[Middle Way]] philosophy, just as we do in the whole of Buddhist thought. In addition, we have two pedagogical concepts--those of conventional [[Truth]] and ultimate [[Truth]], which refer respectively to [[Samsara]] and [[Nirvana]]. | + | I would like to conclude by underlining what I believe to be the very close [[correspondence]] between the [[philosophies]] of [[Mind Only]] and the [[Middle Way]]. You will recall that we have the conceptions of [[Samsara]] and [[Nirvana]] in the [[Middle Way]] [[philosophy]], just as we do in the whole of [[Buddhist]] [[thought]]. In addition, we have two pedagogical concepts--those of [[Wikipedia:Convention (norm)|conventional]] [[Truth]] and [[Wikipedia:Absolute (philosophy)|ultimate]] [[Truth]], which refer respectively to [[Samsara]] and [[Nirvana]]. |
− | What is it in the philosophy of the [[Middle Way]] that mediates between conventional [[Truth]] and ultimate [[Truth]], between [[Samsara]] and [[Nirvana]]? How is it that eventually we have an identity, or non-differentiation, of [[Samsara]] and [[Nirvana]] professed in the [[Middle Way]] school? If we look at the [[Middle Way]] philosophy, we find that interdependent origination is the principle that unites conventional and ultimate [[Truth]], [[Samsara]] and [[Nirvana]]. In the Mulamadhyamakakarika, [[Nagarjuna]] says that if we take interdependent origination as the relationship between cause and effect, we have [[Samsara]], but if we take interdependent origination as non-causal--as [[Emptiness]]--we have [[Nirvana]]. The link between cause and effect, between [[Karma]] and its consequences, is conceptualization or imagination. [[Nagarjuna]] says clearly that imagination is responsible for the connection between cause and effect. This, in general, is the scheme we find in the [[Middle Way]] school. | + | What is it in the [[philosophy]] of the [[Middle Way]] that mediates between [[Wikipedia:Convention (norm)|conventional]] [[Truth]] and [[Wikipedia:Absolute (philosophy)|ultimate]] [[Truth]], between [[Samsara]] and [[Nirvana]]? How is it that eventually we have an [[Wikipedia:Identity (social science)|identity]], or non-differentiation, of [[Samsara]] and [[Nirvana]] professed in the [[Middle Way]] school? If we look at the [[Middle Way]] [[philosophy]], we find that [[interdependent origination]] is the [[principle]] that unites [[Wikipedia:Convention (norm)|conventional]] and [[Wikipedia:Absolute (philosophy)|ultimate]] [[Truth]], [[Samsara]] and [[Nirvana]]. In the [[Mulamadhyamakakarika]], [[Nagarjuna]] says that if we take [[interdependent origination]] as the relationship between [[cause and effect]], we have [[Samsara]], but if we take [[interdependent origination]] as non-causal--as [[Emptiness]]--we have [[Nirvana]]. The link between [[cause and effect]], between [[Karma]] and its {{Wiki|consequences}}, is [[conceptualization]] or [[imagination]]. [[Nagarjuna]] says clearly that [[imagination]] is responsible for the connection between [[cause and effect]]. This, in general, is the scheme we find in the [[Middle Way]] school. |
− | When we look at the Mind Only philosophy, we see that it runs parallel to that of the [[Middle Way]]. The conventional [[Truth]] in the [[Middle Way]] philosophy is similar to the illusory nature of Mind Only philosophy, and in both systems this corresponds to cause and effect, to [[Samsara]]. The ultimate [[Truth]] in the [[Middle Way]] philosophy is similar to the perfected nature in the Mind Only philosophy, and in both systems this corresponds to [[Emptiness]], nonduality, non-origination, and [[Nirvana]]. What in the [[Middle Way]] school is interdependent origination--the link between [[Samsara]] and [[Nirvana]]--is the dependent nature in the Mind Only school. | + | When we look at the [[Mind Only]] [[philosophy]], we see that it runs parallel to that of the [[Middle Way]]. The [[Wikipedia:Convention (norm)|conventional]] [[Truth]] in the [[Middle Way]] [[philosophy]] is similar to the [[illusory]] [[nature]] of [[Mind Only]] [[philosophy]], and in both systems this corresponds to [[cause and effect]], to [[Samsara]]. The [[Wikipedia:Absolute (philosophy)|ultimate]] [[Truth]] in the [[Middle Way]] [[philosophy]] is similar to the perfected [[nature]] in the [[Mind Only]] [[philosophy]], and in both systems this corresponds to [[Emptiness]], [[nonduality]], [[non-origination]], and [[Nirvana]]. What in the [[Middle Way]] school is [[interdependent]] origination--the link between [[Samsara]] and [[Nirvana]]--is the [[dependent nature]] in the [[Mind Only school]]. |
− | Mind is of the utmost importance to both interdependent origination and the dependent nature. Mind is the essence of both. In both systems we have the conventional, samsaric, illusory reality on the one hand, and the ultimate, nirvanic, perfected reality on the other; mediating between the two is the principle of relativity, the principle of dependence, which is of the essence of mind. In Chapter 20 we will further explore the parallelism between the [[Middle Way]] philosophy and the Mind Only philosophy. We will then try to apply the combined vision of these philosophies to the practice of the [[Mahayana]] path. | + | [[Mind]] is of the utmost importance to both [[interdependent origination]] and the [[dependent nature]]. [[Mind]] is the [[essence]] of both. In both systems we have the [[Wikipedia:Convention (norm)|conventional]], [[samsaric]], [[illusory]] [[reality]] on the one hand, and the [[Wikipedia:Absolute (philosophy)|ultimate]], [[nirvanic]], perfected [[reality]] on the other; mediating between the two is the [[principle]] of [[relativity]], the [[principle]] of [[dependence]], which is of the [[essence of mind]]. In [[Chapter]] 20 we will further explore the parallelism between the [[Middle Way]] [[philosophy]] and the [[Mind Only]] [[philosophy]]. We will then try to apply the combined [[vision]] of these [[philosophies]] to the [[practice]] of the [[Mahayana]] [[path]]. |
− | [Taken from Peter Della Santina., The Tree of Enlightenment. (Taiwan: The Corporate Body of the Buddha Educational Foundation, 1997), pp. 167-176]. | + | [Taken from [[Peter Della Santina]]., The [[Tree of Enlightenment]]. ([[Taiwan]]: The Corporate [[Body]] of the [[Buddha]] Educational Foundation, 1997), pp. 167-176]. |
{{R}} | {{R}} | ||
[http://www.buddhismtoday.com/english/philosophy/maha/004-mind.htm /www.buddhismtoday.com] | [http://www.buddhismtoday.com/english/philosophy/maha/004-mind.htm /www.buddhismtoday.com] |
Revision as of 18:15, 20 March 2015
The Mind Only school and the Middle Way school are the philosophical backbone of the Mahayana tradition. There are several names by which the Mind Only school is known, the three most popular being Chittamatra (school affirming Mind Only), Vijnanavada (school affirming Consciousness), and Yogachara (school affirming the unity of Meditation and action). Yogachara refers to the union of the practice of Meditation (yoga) and conduct (achara). The Mind Only school arose as an independent and identifiable philosophical tradition in the fourth century C.E.
Two brothers, Asanga and Vasubandhu, played a central role in the formulation and popularization of the philosophy of this school. They were born in Northwest India, in what is now Pakistan. Through their writings and skill as teachers and debaters, they popularized the Mind Only philosophy within a relatively short time. Both started out as realistic pluralists, and in addition to his many works on the Mind Only philosophy, Vasubandhu is well known for his Abhidharmakosha, a collection of Abhidharma philosophy written from the standpoint of the Vaibhashika school.
These two great scholars were converted to Mahayana and together produced a large number of works defining, categorizing, and setting forth the Mind Only philosophy. Asanga is famous for his Stages of the Bodhisattva Path (Bodhisattvabhumi), Compendium of the Abhidharma (Abhidharmasamuchchaya), written from the Mahayana or Mind Only viewpoint, and many commentaries on major works of the Mind Only school. Vasubandhu is renowned for his short treatises on Cognition Only and a treatise explaining the three natures of the Mind Only philosophy.
Asanga's commentaries to a number of important texts of the Mind Only school are attributed by the Mahayana tradition to Lord Maitreya. Although modern scholars have attempted to identify Maitreya with a historical personality, the Mahayana tradition has no Doubt that Maitreya is the future Buddha, now residing in Tushita Heaven. The major works of the Mind Only school attributed to him include the Distinction of the Middle from the Extremes (Madhyantavibhaga) and the Ornament of the Mahayana (Mahayanasutralankara). They are said to have been transmitted by Maitreya to Asanga, who wrote them down and added commentaries. It is in this sense that a large portion of the textual foundation of the Mind Only philosophy is attributed to the future Buddha Maitreya.
Like the Middle Way philosophy, the Mind Only philosophy has its origin in the earliest tradition of Buddhism. For example, even according to the Theravada canon, The Buddha declared that mind is the creator of all things and referred to the luminous and pure nature of Consciousness. The Body of Mahayana sutras includes many discourses, like The Lankavatara Sutra, that deal at some length with the fundamental principles of the Mind Only philosophy. A long and weighty textual tradition thus precedes the emergence of the Mind Only tradition as an independent philosophical school.
In addition to these textual anticipations in the canons of the Hinayana and Mahayana traditions, we find conceptual antecedents of the Mind Only philosophy in the course of the development of Buddhist thought. We all know that mind has been extremely important in Buddhism from the beginning. We need only remember The Buddha's affirmation of the creative role of the mind to realize what a central place mind has in Buddhist thought, or look at the thirty-seven factors conducive to Enlightenment to be struck by how many of them have to do with the mind.
The central importance of mind continued in the Vaibhashika and Sautrantika schools, two realistic and pluralistic schools that flourished prior to the emergence of the Middle Way and Mind Only schools. The Vaibhashika took its name from commentaries composed during the Fourth Buddhist Council, in the first century C.E. It is perhaps the most atomistic, realistic, and pluralistic of the Indian schools, and is even more pluralistic and realistic than the Theravada school of Sri Lanka. The Vaibhashikas advocated the Doctrine of the two natures of factors (dharmas)--the phenomenal nature and the eternal nature. This eternal nature has sometimes been likened to Plato's Doctrine of ideas in Greek philosophy.
The Sautrantika takes its name from the fact that it wanted to return to the original teachings of The Buddha contained in the sutras. This is the school that rejected the authenticity of the Abhidharma. The Sautrantikas are interesting philosophically because they emphasized the role of conceptualization, or discrimination (vikalpa). They rejected the independent, objective reality of many of the factors the Vaibhashikas accepted, ascribing these dharmas to the functioning of discrimination or imagination. This goes some way toward the standpoint of the Mind Only school, which eventually denied the objective reality of all objects and affirmed the sole reality of mind.
In addition, the Sautrantikas formulated a very interesting theory of Perception. They believed that we never really know external objects directly and that what we perceive--what we take to be an external object (for example, the cup in front of me)--is a mental reflection or representation of that object, so that the process of Perception is the process of perceiving mental reflections of external objects. The Sautrantikas claimed that these mental representations are the effects of external objects. Consequently, they held that we know of the existence of external objects by inference. The mental images or reflections of an external object are evidence of that object's existence, although we cannot know it directly.
This theory is very similar to John Locke's representative theory of Perception. What I find important about this view is that if it is accepted, it leaves the status of the external World in a very precarious position, since we would never know objects in themselves but only the objectified contents of our Consciousness. By thus emphasizing the role of conceptualization or imagination, this philosophical development of the Sautrantikas anticipates the full-fledged mentalist philosophy of the Mind Only school, which claims that the apparently real objects of the World are none other than mind.
There are a number of lines along which the Mind Only philosophy developed its Doctrine of the primacy of Consciousness. Its adherents were convinced that objects depend on mind for their nature and being. First, the school put forward the view that a single object appears differently to different Sentient beings. This argument is worked out with respect to The Six Realms of existence. For example, a cup of milk appears to us as milk, but it would appear as nectar to the gods, as molten iron to Hell beings, and as pus or blood to hungry ghosts. A single object appears differently to different beings in Samsara according to their respective Karma. In other words, an object appears in different forms according to the conditioned, subjective state of the mind. We can see this even without reference to The Six Realms. For example, a woman may appear as an object of sexual attraction to a man, a heap of meat to a wolf, and a skeleton to an Arhat. This is the first argument the Mind Only school used in support of its subjectivist view of experience.
Second, the Mind Only school made extensive use of the analogy of dreaming, arguing that in Dreams the mind creates and projects a World which, for all intents and purposes, it experiences as real as long as the dream state prevails. If we look at Vasubandhu's Twenty Verses on Cognition Only we can see how he rejects several objections to this argument by analogy. For example, opponents of this view said that dream experience is not collective the way waking experience is, to which Vasubandhu countered that we do experience events in common with the other figures in a given dream. Opponents also said that dream experience is not effective and does not have the Power to bring about real effects, yet Vasubandhu showed, by using the example of nocturnal emission, that this is not so. In short, if we look closely at dream experience, we will be forced to admit that, as long as we are in a dream state, there are no reasonable grounds on which we can distinguish it from waking experience.
It is interesting to note that this analogy has received some support in recent years from the evidence of experiments in the field of sensory deprivation. These experiments place volunteers in situations where they are cut off from all sensory stimuli; some subjects then begin to create, out of their own minds, an entire three-dimensional Universe. It would follow that the Mind Only argument developed on the analogy of dream experience has a certain amount of cogency.
Third, the Mind Only school rejected the independent existence of objects by exposing the infinite divisibility of matter. This is another early conceptual conclusion reached by the Buddhist tradition that has recently been confirmed by scientific discoveries. Mind Only philosophers argued that the notion of an atom--an irreducible unit of matter--is impossible. They argued this on the grounds of the necessity of the combination or collection of atoms in order to produce a mass, an extended material object.
The atom was thought to be unitary and indivisible, and was therefore held to be without parts, yet it was thought that objects (like a cup or a table) are collections of atoms that Form extended objects. Objects acquire mass through the collecting together of countless atoms in an assembly. If atoms are indivisible and without parts, then it will be impossible for them to assemble together. However, if atoms assemble, as they must, to Form extended material objects, then each atom must have at least six distinguishable parts: an upper part, a lower part, and an eastern, southern, western, and northern part.
By means of this argument, Vasubandhu and other Mind Only philosophers established the concept of the infinite divisibility of the atom. This conclusion has been verified by modern physics, so once again we have an early analytical conception that has been confirmed experimentally by discoveries of modern science. The atom as well as its components have been shown to be reducible to even smaller components, and we have finally arrived at a point in time when there is precious little evidence of any ultimate element of matter.
Through these arguments rejecting the existence of material objects, Mind Only philosophers established the relativity of subject and object, the identity of the objects of Consciousness with Consciousness itself. They revealed what we might call the nonduality of the subject and object of Consciousness--of Consciousness and its contents.
I want now to touch upon a conception which appears in The Lankavatara Sutra and to which Vasubandhu devoted one of his more famous works, the Exposition of the Three Natures. This is a Doctrine very important to Mind Only philosophy, namely, the Doctrine of the three natures, or levels, of reality: (1) the illusory or imputed nature (parikalpita), (2) the dependent or relative nature (paratantra), and (3) the perfected or accomplished nature (parinishpanna).
These three natures may be likened respectively to (a) the mistaken belief that water exists in a mirage; (b) the appearance itself of the mirage, dependent on atmospheric causes and conditions; and (c) the empty nature of the mirage, inasmuch as it is conditioned, relative, and dependent on causes and conditions. The belief that water exists in the mirage is utterly false and is similar to the illusory nature. The simple appearance of the mirage relative to causes and conditions is similar to the dependent nature. The empty character of the mirage, inasmuch as it is dependent and conditioned, is similar to the perfected nature.
It is necessary to draw particular attention to the second of the three natures, the dependent nature, because it is this nature that is central in the Mind Only philosophy, insofar as it is concerned with liberation and emancipation. The dependent nature is identical with mind, and particularly with the storehouse Consciousness, which we discussed in our consideration of The Lankavatara Sutra (see Chapter 17). What this means is that in this dependent nature we have, on the one hand, the potential to produce the illusory prison of Samsara and, on the other, the potential for the liberation of Nirvana. I have said that the storehouse Consciousness was termed by the Tibetans 'the all-base Consciousness,' and that in that sense it is the root of Samsara and Nirvana. Here, too, we can see, on the one hand, how the dependent nature, if it is objectified by discrimination of an external object, results in the fabrication by mind of an external World, which is Samsara. If the mind discriminates an external object--bifurcates this dependent nature into subject and object--then we have the creation of the illusory nature, that is to say, the imposition of false ideas (such as the idea of the existence of water in a mirage, or of the self and other): in a word, we have Samsara.
On the other hand, if this dependent nature, which is identical with the storehouse Consciousness, is purified of discriminating thought and the Emptiness of subject and object is realized, then the storehouse Consciousness results in the perfected nature; it results in freedom. The dependent nature is therefore the central nature of the three. If played upon by discrimination, it becomes Illusion, Samsara; if played upon by the Knowledge of the abandonment of duality, it becomes Nirvana.
It is interesting to note that this dependent nature is also the source of the phenomenalizing activity of the enlightened beings. In other words, the dependent nature, or storehouse Consciousness, supplies the potential for the emanation of all forms, the forms of the terrestrial dimension and those of the celestial dimension--the heavenly Bodhisattvas like Manjushri and Avalokiteshvara, who work for the enlightenment of all Sentient beings.
You will recall that, in the example of the mirage, it is the notion of the existence of water that belongs to the illusory nature; the mere appearance of the mirage as a pure, conditioned phenomenon belongs to the dependent nature. We might interpret this in terms of experience--that is, the experience of subject and object as different. The notion that an external object exists independent of Consciousness, or mind, belongs to the realm of the illusory nature, whereas the appearance of phenomena without the mistaken notions of their objectivity and independence belongs to the dependent nature.
This dependent nature is thus intrinsically pure and can function in an altruistic way for the liberation of others. It is in this sense that the three natures in the Mind Only system correspond to the three dimensions of Buddhahood: the illusory nature corresponds to the terrestrial dimension, the dependent nature to the celestial dimension, and the perfected nature to the transcendental dimension. Therefore, when Buddhas appear as objective historical personalities, this is the appearance of the dependent nature--in the guise of subject-object duality--in the sphere of the illusory nature. When Buddhas appear free from the duality of subject and object, in the ideal Form of celestial Bodhisattvas like Manjushri and Avalokiteshvara, this is an appearance of the celestial dimension, of the dependent nature free from the Illusion of subject-object duality.
I would like to conclude by underlining what I believe to be the very close correspondence between the philosophies of Mind Only and the Middle Way. You will recall that we have the conceptions of Samsara and Nirvana in the Middle Way philosophy, just as we do in the whole of Buddhist thought. In addition, we have two pedagogical concepts--those of conventional Truth and ultimate Truth, which refer respectively to Samsara and Nirvana.
What is it in the philosophy of the Middle Way that mediates between conventional Truth and ultimate Truth, between Samsara and Nirvana? How is it that eventually we have an identity, or non-differentiation, of Samsara and Nirvana professed in the Middle Way school? If we look at the Middle Way philosophy, we find that interdependent origination is the principle that unites conventional and ultimate Truth, Samsara and Nirvana. In the Mulamadhyamakakarika, Nagarjuna says that if we take interdependent origination as the relationship between cause and effect, we have Samsara, but if we take interdependent origination as non-causal--as Emptiness--we have Nirvana. The link between cause and effect, between Karma and its consequences, is conceptualization or imagination. Nagarjuna says clearly that imagination is responsible for the connection between cause and effect. This, in general, is the scheme we find in the Middle Way school.
When we look at the Mind Only philosophy, we see that it runs parallel to that of the Middle Way. The conventional Truth in the Middle Way philosophy is similar to the illusory nature of Mind Only philosophy, and in both systems this corresponds to cause and effect, to Samsara. The ultimate Truth in the Middle Way philosophy is similar to the perfected nature in the Mind Only philosophy, and in both systems this corresponds to Emptiness, nonduality, non-origination, and Nirvana. What in the Middle Way school is interdependent origination--the link between Samsara and Nirvana--is the dependent nature in the Mind Only school.
Mind is of the utmost importance to both interdependent origination and the dependent nature. Mind is the essence of both. In both systems we have the conventional, samsaric, illusory reality on the one hand, and the ultimate, nirvanic, perfected reality on the other; mediating between the two is the principle of relativity, the principle of dependence, which is of the essence of mind. In Chapter 20 we will further explore the parallelism between the Middle Way philosophy and the Mind Only philosophy. We will then try to apply the combined vision of these philosophies to the practice of the Mahayana path.
[Taken from Peter Della Santina., The Tree of Enlightenment. (Taiwan: The Corporate Body of the Buddha Educational Foundation, 1997), pp. 167-176].