Science and Philosophy in the Indian Buddhist Classics, Vol. 2

The Mind

Thupten Jinpa, Dechen Rochard, John D. Dunne, Thupten Jinpa

• Editorial: Wisdom Publications
• Año: 2020
• ISBN:
  9781614295006
• Categoría: Teología y religión
• Categoría: Budismo

The second volume in a prominent new series on Buddhism and science, directed by the Dalai Lama and previously covered by the BBC. Science and Philosophy in the Indian Buddhist Classics compiles classical Buddhist explorations of the nature of our material world, the human mind, logic, and phenomenology and puts them into context for the modern reader. This ambitious four-volume series—a major resource for the history of ideas and especially the history of science and philosophy—has been conceived by and compiled under the visionary supervision of His Holiness the Dalai Lama himself. It is his view that the exploratory thinking of great Indian masters in the first millennium CE still has much that is of interest to us today, whether we are Buddhist or not. These volumes make those insights accessible. This, the second volume in the series, focuses on the science of the mind. Readers are first introduced to Buddhist conceptions of mind and consciousness and then led through traditional presentations of mental phenomena to reveal a Buddhist vision of the inner world with fascinating implications for the contemporary disciplines of cognitive science, psychology, emotion research, and philosophy of mind. Major topics include: -The distinction between sensory and conceptual processes and the pan-Indian notion of mental consciousness -Mental factors—specific mental states such as attention, mindfulness, and compassion—and how they relate to one another -The unique tantric theory of subtle levels of consciousness, their connection to the subtle energies, or "winds, " that flow through channels in the human body, and what happens to each when the body and mind dissolve at the time of death -The seven types of mental states and how they impact the process of perception -Styles of reasoning, which Buddhists understand as a valid avenue for acquiring sound knowledge In the final section, the volume offers what might be called Buddhist contemplative science, a presentation of the classical Buddhist understanding of the psychology behind meditation and other forms of mental training. To present these specific ideas and their rationale, the volume weaves together passages from the works of great Buddhist thinkers like Asanga, Vasubandhu, Nagarjuna, Dignaga, and Dharmakirti. His Holiness the Dalai Lama's introduction outlines scientific and philosophical thinking in the history of the Buddhist tradition. To provide additional context for Western readers, each of the six major topics is introduced with an essay by John D. Dunne, distinguished professor of Buddhist philosophy and contemplative practice at the University of Wisconsin. These essays connect the traditional material to contemporary debates and Western parallels, and provide helpful suggestions for further reading.

1

The Nature of Mind

IN THE FIRST VOLUME of this series, we presented objects of knowledge in general, and physical entities in particular, including the process of arising and dissolution of the universe and living beings — this is the “objective” side. Now we will present the mind — the “subjective” side. In general mind or consciousness refers to inner experience. This includes feelings that are pleasant or painful, states of mind that are happy or miserable, emotional experiences such as fear of danger, anger toward those who inflict harm, affectionate attachment to close relatives, and compassion when observing suffering sentient beings. It includes sense consciousness — such as a visual consciousness that sees a vase filled with beautiful flowers, or an auditory consciousness that hears the sounds of music or singing. It also includes cognitions that remember previous experiences, as in “I remember this” or “I thought this,” and cognitions that consider reasons and think “If this is the case, then that must also be the case,” and so on. Whatever position one holds — that the mind is material or immaterial — in general what we call consciousness [2] is known to exist based on experience, so it does not necessarily need to be proved through reasoning. Nevertheless, there are many types of subtle mental states that must be proved through reasoning.

Someone may ask, “What is the difference between consciousness and physical things?” In general, matter and consciousness are differentiated by whether they are obstructive, established as clear and aware in nature, merely experiential in nature, and capable of knowing objects. Many earlier Buddhist masters identify the essential nature of consciousness as the opposite of obstructive physical things: lacking obstructivity, consciousness has the quality of clarity (in that external and internal things can appear to it), it has the quality of knowing its object, and it has the nature of mere experience.

Thus, when identifying the nature of the mind, the sūtras teach that the mind is difficult to catch hold of: being intangible, it is weightless; like a firebrand spinning around, it does not rest; like the constantly moving waves of the ocean, it is unstable; like a forest fire, it ignites all deeds of body and speech; like a great river, the mind forcefully draws along a vast number of internal movements of awareness; and so forth.

In general, the mind is the main factor involved in accomplishing the goals that living beings desire. The mind, unlike physical things, is difficult to identify. Yet if we train our mind, then in reliance on mindfulness, meta-awareness, heedfulness, and so on, we will attain both temporary [3] and final happiness. Therefore, in the Buddhist tradition, the system of analyzing the mind in great detail flourished from the earliest times. This is also the main reason why Buddhist texts have extensive explanations about psychology. For example, in the Buddha’s own Dhammapada it states:

Do not commit any evil,

practice supreme virtue,

thoroughly tame your own mind;

this is the teaching of the Buddha.¹⁸

Both the happiness and suffering that arise in relation to beings’ desired goals finally depend on the functioning of the mind — for it is owing to the force of having one’s mind tamed or not tamed that temporary or lasting happiness and suffering arise. The essence of the Buddha’s teaching is said to be the thorough taming of the mind. The Collection of Aphorisms also says:

Taming the mind is excellent.

A tamed mind leads to bliss.¹⁹

A tamed mind is the highest excellence, and it is on the basis of a well-tamed mind that happiness arises. [4] Engaging in the Bodhisattva’s Deeds also makes the same point:

“In this way, all fear and

immeasurable suffering

arise from the mind,”

so taught the Speaker of Truth.²⁰

Generally in the context of Buddhist texts, the terms cognition (which is the translation of the Sanskrit word buddhi), consciousness (the translation of jñā[na]), and awareness (the translation of samvitti) are all treated as coextensive or synonymous. The nature of cognition is stated to be awareness, and the nature of consciousness is said to be clear (or luminous)²¹ and aware. “Clear” here expresses the essential nature of consciousness, and “aware” expresses its function. “Clear” also indicates: (1) that consciousness is beyond the nature of matter, which is characterized as tangible and obstructive, so it is clear in nature; (2) that just as reflections appear in a mirror, any internal or external object whatsoever — good or bad, pleasant or unpleasant — can appear in consciousness, so consciousness is luminous in that it illuminates objects; and (3) that the essential nature of consciousness is not contaminated by the stains of mental afflictions such as attachment, so its nature is clear or luminous. Thus several meanings of the word clear are stated in the texts.

That consciousness is devoid of the property of obstructivity is explicitly stated in the sūtras. For example, the Teaching on the Undifferentiated Nature of the Sphere of Reality says: “Is this mind blue? Is it yellow?”²² Also [5] the Chapter on the Thirty-Three says: “The mind has no form, it cannot be pointed out, it has no obstructivity, and it is not representable.”²³ Passages such as these explain how the mind lacks color and shape, cannot be visually pointed out, and has no obstructivity.

As noted above, consciousness is posited to be luminously clear in that any internal or external object whatsoever — good or bad, pleasant or unpleasant — can appear in it. This is explained as follows. Just as sunlight or electric light illuminates forms, any external or internal phenomena can be illuminated by — that is, they can appear to — consciousness; it is what makes objects known or manifest. Yet the illumination of sunlight or electric light and the “luminous clarity” that is the essential nature of consciousness are utterly dissimilar, for sunlight and electric light illuminate only what is in their immediate vicinity and cannot illuminate other things. The way that consciousness illuminates objects is not restricted in that way.

Many Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna scriptures teach that afflictions such as attachment present within the mind are adventitious, and that the nature of the mind is luminous clarity. For example, a sutta of the Theravāda school in the Numerical Discourses says: “O bhikkhus, this mind of luminous clarity is afflicted due to adventitious afflictions. Ordinary beings who have not heard this do not thoroughly understand reality just as it is. Therefore, not having heard, ordinary beings do not cultivate their minds. [6] Thus I have spoken.”²⁴ The Perfection of Wisdom Sūtra in Eight Thousand Lines says: “Thus this mind is devoid of mind, for the mind’s nature is luminous clarity.”²⁵ And the Descent into Laṅkā Sūtra says: “The mind’s nature is luminous clarity.”²⁶

The Buddha Nature Sūtra says:

Just as where the most precious gold exists,

one completely purifies it then makes use of it,

likewise, I see all sentient beings continuously

being harmed for a long time by mental afflictions,

so I teach the Dharma as a means to purify

the nature of what are “adventitious afflictions.”²⁷

Also, Ornament for the Light of Wisdom That Engages the Object of All Buddhas Sūtra says: “Mañjuśrī, the mind is luminous clarity by nature, not afflicted by nature; therefore, since all the afflictions are adventitious, all the afflictions are removable. [7] Anything that is just luminous clarity by nature is unafflicted.”²⁸

Among the treatises, Maitreya’s Sublime Continuum says:

Like the purity of a jewel, space, or water,

it is always undefiled in nature.²⁹

Just as the nature of gold is not rusted, the nature of space is not clouded, and the nature of water is not muddied, so the nature of the mind is not stained. The same text states:

The luminously clear nature of the mind

is unchanging, like space, because

it does not become defiled by adventitious stains,

attachment, and so on, which arise from an improper way of thinking.³⁰

That is, just as empty space does not change by virtue of being inside different containers, so the ultimate nature of the mind, which is merely the lack of true existence of the mind, cannot change into something else on account of the afflictions such as attachment, which are adventitious stains. According to this text, therefore, the “nature of the mind” is the absence of true existence of the mind; [8] and the meaning of “adventitious stains” is that they do not exist truly as the essential nature of the mind, which is luminously clear and aware. Moreover, if the stains within the mind were truly existent, they would have to exist without depending on anything; hence, it would be impossible to remove them from the mind by cultivating their antidotes. However, since they lack true existence, it is possible to generate antidotes for the stains and remove them from the mind. The text cited above is arguing for all this.

Also, Dharmakīrti says in his Exposition of Valid Cognition:

The nature of the mind is luminous clarity;

the stains are adventitious.³¹

The stains of attachment and so on, which are the basic causes that give rise to suffering, can be removed in reliance on their antidotes; and since those stains do not impinge on the nature of the mind, the nature of the mind is luminous clarity, as discussed above.

Also, according to one interpretation, the line “The nature of the mind is luminous clarity” points to the fact that, just as reflections appear in a mirror, the quality of consciousness is that internal and external objects can appear to it. Moreover, those who accept reflexive awareness interpret the luminous clarity of mind as not just meaning that moments of consciousness illuminate their objects; instead, consciousness also illuminates itself, which is to say that it is by its very nature self-luminous.

Exposition of Valid Cognition says:

Therefore, according to us, the mind itself is luminous,

since it is by nature luminous clarity; [9]

and something else [namely, an object] is also luminous

in that it is illuminated by projecting its form into the mind.³²

The mind, the subjective, is luminous because it is by nature itself luminous clarity. Something else — namely an object such as a visible form — becomes the appearing object of that consciousness by means of something like the transference of its image — that is, visible form and so on — into that luminously clear consciousness. Therefore it is said that forms and so on clearly appear to that consciousness.³³ In that case, consciousness has both the quality of illuminating, in the sense of being illuminating itself, and the quality of illuminating its object, in the sense that the image (rnam pa) of the object appears. In some contexts, when “luminously clear” and “aware” are discussed, the mind may be additionally called “empty” in the sense of being naturally empty of obstructivity, for those texts identify the nature of consciousness as having three qualities — emptiness, luminous clarity, and awareness.

The second quality of consciousness mentioned above is awareness, which expresses the function of consciousness. Exposition of Valid Cognition says:

Consciousness has the attribute of apprehending its object;

it apprehends it in the way that it exists;

and by virtue of being existent, the nature of the object

is to produce consciousness.³⁴

Consciousness apprehends its object or operates by way of cognizing its object, [10] which must indicate that the foremost unique attribute of consciousness is to apprehend its object or to cognize its object.

Śāntarakṣita speaks about the essential nature of consciousness in terms of having the quality of cognizing its own nature, which is the opposite of the nature of matter or something having a material form. Ornament for the Middle Way says:

Consciousness arises in a way that is opposite

to anything in the nature of matter;

that which is nonmaterial in nature

is that which knows its own nature.³⁵

In the Ornament for the Middle Way Autocommentary related to this stanza, it says:

First, according to those who posit consciousness to be without a dualistic image [of object and subject], consciousness does not meet with an appearance of its object but is involved merely in cognizing itself. This means that, by its nature, it cannot experience an object other than itself. Consciousness is thus posited to have the nature of reflexive awareness because it is itself luminously clear by nature and because it is opposite to the nature of chariots and so on, which lack awareness. Since consciousness is reflexively aware of itself, it does not depend on some other cognizer [for consciousness itself to be known], unlike the case of blue and so on. Thus what we mean by awareness is that it is not unaware.³⁶ [11]

As for the meaning of those passages, Kamalaśīla’s Commentary on Difficult Points of the Ornament for the Middle Way says: “The concise meaning is as follows. The functioning of reflexive awareness is the very opposite of the nature of material things, such as chariots or groups of parts; that is, awareness does not depend on any other illuminator [in order to occur]; and with that function in place, one thus engages in activities.”³⁷

According to a literal reading of Śāntarakṣita’s root text and commentary and Kamalaśīla’s Commentary on Difficult Points of the Ornament for the Middle Way, they both uphold the position asserting reflexive awareness, in that they explain the essential nature of consciousness to be the opposite of physical phenomen...