I think it might be useful to again talk about the basic teachings of the six kinds of consciousness. The first level in the development of consciousness (vijñana) is the interaction between two kinds of materiality—the field, visaya; and the organ, indriya. This is the portal to the birth of sense consciousness. Once the consciousness is born, that which is the field for the organ, becomes the object for the consciousness. For example, electromagnetic radiation, the material field for the eye organ, becomes the object of eye consciousness. The eye organ interacts with electromagnetic radiation, or you could say that eye sensitivity plays in the field of light. When consciousness arises, it relates to this field as its object of awareness. The organ has more direct contact with the object than consciousness does because consciousness is separated from the object by the organ. However, in a sense, all three—organ, object and consciousness—are in contact. Consciousness, vijñana dependently co-arises with the field and the organ. At this level of development we’re talking about the birth of sense consciousness.
Q: Why is vijñana called the resultant? Aren’t the field and organ also resultants?
Tenshin Anderson: They are. The field, electromagnetic radiation also arose by dependent co-arising, and the things that are sensitive to electromagnetic radiation co-dependently arose. The birth of consciousness doesn’t just depend on the interaction between the field and the organ. Those aren’t the only things that cause the birth of vijñana. The history of the universe which gave rise to electromagnetic radiation and gave rise to physical sensitivities also caused the birth of consciousness. However, I am only talking about the door where we can witness the birth of consciousness. Throughout the whole universe, there are many causes, from beginningless time, for the arising of consciousness. But at the moment it arises, there is a door where organ and field interact. If they didn’t interact, even though all those other causes are there, consciousness would not be born. The organ and field are just the last two that are necessary, the linchpins for consciousness. If they weren’t also caused by innumerable causes and conditions, they would be ultimate realities. Then you would have ultimate realities coming together to produce something, but as soon as they produced something, they wouldn’t be ultimate realities anymore; they would be in a causal relationship. Once consciousness is born in relationship to the organs and field, the organ and field change. Before, they were fields and organs; now they are “doors of arrival” of consciousness.
The sense consciousnesses are said to be direct experience. However, there is no concept involved and there’s no objective knowledge of this direct experience. This level of experience is going on all the time, but is not objectively known to us. An example of this is the sense awareness of the physicality of light. There is no objective knowledge of this physicality, but there is a physical sense awareness which we experience and which affects us in a given moment. Eye consciousness at the direct sensory level is something that dependently co-arises with the field of light and the eye organ. It is a direct sense experience of physical light. “Seeing” is not the light, is not the organ, and is not the consciousness. “Seeing” is the interplay, the interdependence of organ, field and consciousness. It is something that happens at the moment that consciousness is born together with the organ and field. Before consciousness is born there is no “seeing;” there is just the eye organ responding in the field. The birth of consciousness is a dependently co-produced phenomenon. Consciousness is a dependently co-produced thing and “seeing” at a direct sensory level is dependently co-produced. Thus consciousness, organ and field have no inherent nature; nor does “seeing” as a direct sensory experience. Seeing at the next level, objective knowledge, is awareness of concepts (e.g. color) and it also dependently co-arises. It arises from the interdependence of mind-consciousness, mind organ and mind objects.
Q: Could you say one more time what “seeing” is ?
TA: There are two kinds of seeing—seeing as direct sensory experience of light and seeing as conceptual experience of the idea of light. First there is an awareness of an actual material object, electromagnetic radiation. This is the realm of the direct experience of different wave lengths of radiation which are not yet categorized as blue, etc. Although they’re not yet called blue, and so on, the radiation is being responded to by the organ, and this interaction of organ and field gives rise to direct sense consciousness. The direct experience of light will later be categorized under the concept of blue and known as “blue.”
At the level of direct sense experience we don’t say “I see.” There’s no “I” there. There’s no objective knowledge. This is direct experience with no way of knowing it. There’s just immediate mental and physical response to color. The organ, the field and consciousness are all dependently co-produced, and seeing is dependently co-produced. There’s nothing you can actually get hold of called seeing, other than the interaction of these three. You can’t get hold of one of the three as separate from the others.
The next level of seeing is entirely mental. Here, the just deceased sense consciousness becomes an important condition for the arising of mano-vijñana, mind consciousness. The mind consciousness is born of the interaction of the mind-organ and the field of mind-objects. The just deceased sense consciousness plays the role of mind-organ (manas). There are five sense consciousnesses—eye consciousness, ear consciousness, nose consciousness, tongue consciousness, and body consciousness. Having passed away, a sense consciousness, together with some mind object, (some concept of color such as “blue”) become conditions for the birth of mind consciousness. The interaction between mind-consciousness, mind-organ (the just deceased sense consciousness) and a mind object causes objective knowledge of colors.
Mind consciousness in its all-embracing function is just the total impression created by all the mental factors and objects co-arising with it. In this sense, the consciousness is receptive. It is what is impressed, the effect or resultant of all the co-existing dharmas. Imagining consciousness as a landscape of impressions of many things, the mind organ functions by separating the impression from all the things impressing it. It functions as a kind of carrier of the duality between the impressed (mind consciousness) and the impresser (mental factors). This is why this kind of consciousness is called vijñana, “knowledge of difference.” Its causes are embedded in it so its quality of being is determined by what is impressed upon it. Since mind consciousness is nothing but the sum total of impressions, it has no inherent existence.
The realm of mental objects is called the dharma dhatu. The mental organ is called manas. Mind consciousness arises at the door where the mental organ and the mental object meet. The mental object is one of the elements of the dharma dhatu at any given moment. Mind consciousness is a resultant and it is dependently co-produced. The mental object is a concept which is known by this consciousness. We are no longer speaking of the realm of direct sensory experience. Our experience is now comprised of mental objects, and mental objects are concepts. Mind consciousness knows concepts. This is objective consciousness, or what we usually call “knowing” something. When we have a direct sensory experience of blue, this can lead to a conceptual experience of blue. Then we say “that’s blue,” but we are really speaking of something in our mind-object field.
Q: Is it correct to say that mind consciousness, mano vijñana dhatu is the same as vijñana, but it functions at a different level?
TA: Mind consciousness is one of the six vijñanas in the six vijñana system of early Buddhism. It’s one of the eight vijñanas in the eight vijñana system of Yogacara. It is basically the same kind of thing as the sense consciousnesses. The way the sense consciousnesses operate is incorporated into the paradigm of mental consciousness. However, mind consciousness is aware of mental things and not physical things. Even when it thinks it’s aware of a physical thing, it’s actually aware of a concept of it. It’s the same model—it’s born the same way—namely by the interaction between the ability of the mind (rather than the ability of sense organs) to respond to mental objects.
Q: Could you explain that once more?
TA: Sense consciousness arises from some difference. There’s the field, for example, sound waves, that tends to hit and isn’t very responsive. Then there’s the organ, the ear, which is responsive. Sound waves hit and ear drums respond. (The ability to respond is what we call the organ.) There’s a difference between these two kinds of materiality and there’s an interaction between them which is a condition for the dependent co-arising of sense consciousness, which is the awareness and discrimination of the difference. The capacity of the sense consciousness to discriminate difference incorporates the story of how consciousness arises in dependence on difference. Now we have discriminating consciousness which is essentially related to difference. The mental object and mental consciousness are shadowy conceptual renditions of the physical organ and field. Through the interaction of mind consciousness, mind organ, and mind object, a conceptual version of the physical world dependently co-arises. This mind consciousness discriminates a difference at the mental level which recapitulates a difference at the physical level. When that happens, the mind has realized within itself the capacity of an organ. What does this mental organ do? It finds something to respond to. Since it’s mental and extremely subtle, it can respond to mind objects, which are concepts—of the physical world and of the mental world. The totality of things it can respond to become its field. When these concepts interact with the mind organ, this interaction becomes a condition which is traditionally called the door of arrival, (ayatana), for the birth of the very subtle mind consciousness. This is a creation myth for mind consciousness, the story of its dependent co-arising.
The capacity of the mind to act as an organ for itself is called manas. Manas is also the ability of the mind to reflect itself. The field for the organ manas is called dharma dhatu. Dharma dhatu is also the sphere of mind objects for the mind consciousness. Manas reflects things in the dharma dhatu one at a time. Things in the dharma dhatu are mental factors and they all can be converted into concepts and reflected by manas. Consciousness also has the capacity to see them as external objects and therefore to know them objectively. For example, we can directly experience anger, but we cannot directly know anger. When anger arises, manas can turn toward the concept of the mental factor of anger and reflect it. Then the mind consciousness can grasp and know the concept of anger. So we can say “I’m angry,” or “I see anger,” or “I see anger in someone else.”
Q: Where is alaya in this discussion of the six vijñanas?
TA: Some scholars think that alaya is another name for mind consciousness, the sixth vijñana, and I think we can cautiously agree. However, the early Buddhist treatment of mind consciousness doesn’t carry all the functions that the Yogacara tradition wants alaya to carry. I suggest that there are three ways to approach this. One would be to call alaya a function that co-exists with mental consciousness. Another way would be to think of alaya as actually a different kind of consciousness. A third would be to see that alaya just expands on the capacities of mind consciousness. I think it’s good to entertain all three of these approaches at once. If we can straddle the way of thinking of alaya as a pattern of functions that co-exist with mind consciousness, and thinking of it as a separate consciousness that co-exists with mind consciousness—that would be good. Don’t make it into something separate, yet realize that’s it’s going to be a function beyond what the early Buddhist mind consciousness can carry.
Vasubandhu doesn’t say that there are eight consciousnesses. However, later, based on his teaching, there was a form of Yogacara which did develop a system of eight consciousnesses. In that system, alaya’s potential function is so significant that they call it the 8th consciousness. Similarly, the mind organ, manas, is so important that it is promoted to the status of the 7th consciousness. In this system, manas is the organ capacity, the reflecting capacity of mental consciousness. The Yogacara makes manas into a consciousness rather than just an organ. The 7th consciousness doesn’t have an independent existence from the 6th consciousness. It is actually a function of consciousness which is now itself also called a consciousness.
The purpose of the teaching of the three transformations is to account for the birth of a sense of self and other. In these teachings, the mind consciousness is not the source of these transformations. It is one of them, and the quality of being a resultant is also attributed to it. Calling this transformation of consciousness a resultant is different from saying it dependently co-arises. Using the term “resultant” carries a heavier connotation—that of being caused by something which has genuine causal power. Thinking in terms of genuine causal power is the thinking of karmic consciousness. In this way, this transformation of consciousness becomes a storehouse (alaya) for karmic consciousness. The earlier and simpler teaching on mind consciousness does not explicitly offer a vehicle to explain the accumulation and transmission of karmic cause and effect. This idea of a karmic resultant transformation of consciousness serves this explanatory purpose. It provides a reservoir for karmic consequences and a causal base for further karma. It provides an ongoing source for thinking in terms of self-sufficient causes. Therefore when this elaborated sense of mind consciousness interacts with the reflecting mind organ which is now called the second transformation and the concept of external object, now called the third transformation of consciousness, we have sufficient conditions for the story of the dependent co-arising of the self. Adding this resultant aspect to the basic functions of mind consciousness may be helpful in understanding the dependent co-arising of the illusion of an independent self.
Manas is also very important in the dependent co-arising of this conventionally existing independent self. In fact, manas is given the honor of being the locus or birthplace of the limited understanding of self. This is the basis for its being promoted to the stature of the 7th consciousness. But I think that it may be better to understand manas as an ability or activity of consciousness to reflect itself, than to see it as a separate consciousness.
The sense of self is born and then continues to be localized around this ability. It is born in association with this reflective capacity of the mind and then it continues to be an egocentric reflecting function because every time it reflects, the self is born again. Imagine the mind and imagine the sense of a self being born around this reflecting capacity. Every time the reflecting capacity occurs there’s a sense of self. This sense of self and other is the basic problem of human beings. It also involves a concept of genuine and substantial causal power which is carried by alaya. Alaya is the place where the process gets material for reflection of something substantial which finally becomes a substantiated self. This substantial sense of self arises with the reflecting capacity and is laid back down or stuck into alaya. Alaya becomes the bed for further reflection and creation of a substantial self. It provides all the seeds for the things that are reflected, and then the sense of self goes back and gets associated with alaya again. Since the self is associated with alaya, the things in alaya that are reflected out have got the self stuck to them.
We’re trying to figure out the birth of self and other. The self is born in association with the reflective capacity. What is reflected there? Something external, a concept that is seen as external. What is being reflected is something from alaya, the first transformation. Manas, the second transformation, selects by karmic formations. It is disposed to reflect one thing rather than another thing. By virtue of the third transformation, externality is conferred on the reflected concept. Something from alaya is reflected and then another aspect of mind says that this is outside of itself.
Q: I understood Vasubandhu to be saying that the sense of self arose from the twofold grasping; that grasping/grasper gave rise to the sense of self, and grasping/grasped gave rise to the sense of substantiality of objects. Is that correct?
TA: Yes.
Q: Is the twofold grasping part of manas or part of alaya?
TA: The twofold grasping arises in dependence with all three transformations of consciousness as its conditions. Self and elements are the twofold grasping. Grasping and grasped are the twofold grasping. The sense of self and elements is the first thing Vasubandhu is talking about. That arises not from grasping and grasped; that isn’t happening yet. The first thing to establish is the birth of self and elements. Once you have self and elements then you can have grasper and grasped. The fundamental thing is self and elements. It arises by the threefold transformation and that’s what I’m trying to get you to visualize right now—the process by which self and elements are created. The other thing I want you to see is how this causes a problem, a defilement.
We’re in the world of consciousness. We want to account for the birth of self and elements, self and other. What happens? Manas functions. It’s not karma, but it’s an activity of consciousness; it can reflect something in alaya. There’s one more transformation which says that what is reflected there is external. You have alaya, you have a reflection of something in alaya and you have the idea that it’s external. Alaya provides the seed for the concept of externality but that concept has to be activated, and that activation is the third transformation. If the concept of object is not activated, then you won’t be able to have self and other. It has to be actively operating. That concept is not usually reflected. It can be activated at other times, in your meditation or your daily life. Ordinarily we see objects without saying “I think that’s an object.” When you see something that’s an object, something other than yourself, the “concept of the object,” the third transformation of consciousness, is operating. It must be operating in order for there to be a self and some element.
The teaching of Vasubandhu localizes the birth of the self with the ability to reflect. We don’t so much associate the birth of the self with the concept of the object. But in fact if the concept of the object weren’t there we couldn’t have the birth of the self. Vasubandhu said, all three transformations of consciousness must be operating in order for the idea of self to arise. So really the birth of the self is associated not just with manas, the reflecting capacity of mind, but also with the transformation of alaya and with the concept of the six kinds of objects. The reason the self is especially associated with the function of reflecting is that reflecting is a prototype for the dependent co-arising of individuality. In the process of reflecting, there is a “this” and a “that.” There is “this thing” and “that reflection.” “This” is the individual, the self. “That” other is a condition for the dependent co-arising of this individual self. This reflective transformation of consciousness is the context for the arising of self. Though the illusion of self and elements is born of all three, it’s localized on the reflecting capacity which then gets the name of defiled manas, defiled mental organ, defiled mental ability, klista manas.
This fundamental sense of self is then laid back down upon alaya. After the sense of self is born it gets stored in alaya. In this way, alaya is overlaid with a sense of self, with a sense of independence, and a sense of substantiality. Alaya, the source field from which things are reflected is now flattened with the idea of self. Now everything that’s reflected is contaminated and confounded by this covering of self-existence. What was the nature of alaya before this covering? It was an interdependent field of dependently co-arising elements. Prior to the second and third transformations and the covering of self-existence, alaya was a pure and unobscured expression and impression of dependently co-arising phenomena. But prior to the second and third transformation, there was no conscious knowledge of this wondrous world of the dependently co-arising storehouse consciousness. However, once the second and third transformations develop, there is the appearance of self and elements, and the dependent co-arising of consciousness is obscured by the coverings of self-existence. At this point, we have objective knowledge of the objects of consciousness but it is obscured by the grasping at self-existence. The grasping at self-existence obscures the vision of the dependent co-arising of objects of consciousness. It obscures vision of the selflessness of these objects.
Originally, consciousness is a living and luminous field of dependent co-arising. By the process just described, this luminosity becomes obscured by the imaginings of self-existence. The vital dynamics of inter-dependence get flattened into rigid substantial and self-perpetuating patterns. All of this is then laid down and stored in alaya. In this way alaya becomes a more and more fixed base for the processes of bondage to cyclic existence. All this is a story of the dependent co-arising of ignorance, and obscuration of the process of dependent co-arising. Removing the obscuration of dependent co-arising is the dependent co-arising of awakening. When dependent co-arising of awakening is obscured, there is bondage to the miseries of cyclic existence. When dependent co-arising is revealed there is liberation from samsara and the realization of nirvana. Therefore, awakening is the source of both samsara and nirvana.
Q: Is it this covered and obscured alaya that is referred to in verse 5 where it talks about the dissipation of alaya?
TA: Exactly. It’s the dissipation of the obscured alaya. At Suzuki Roshi’s ashes site there’s a pole on which the Four Wisdoms are written. One of the wisdoms is Great Mirror-like Wisdom, the wisdom of Dharmakaya Vairochana Buddha. It’s the wisdom which sees everything in the universe as radiant Buddha mind because everything in the universe that we see is something that is pulled up out of alaya and reflected and seen as an object. There’s nothing we see that we don’t get from this seed consciousness. Usually, we draw this stuff up out of alaya. But what we draw out of this universe of possible objects has this covering of self-clinging on top of it. So we don’t see the radiance of mirror-like wisdom. We see radiance with a film over it. Because of this film, objects seem to be solid. All these objects seem to have solid and independent existence, rather than being just ever-changing, radiant, inter-dependent appearances which are reflected and externalized by mind. This radiant dynamism is really what is happening as alaya, before the self arises.
When alaya is turned one way, dependent co-arising is obscured. When turned the other way dependent co-arising is revealed. The obscured alaya is the base from which we work to again and again create a sense of self and other. If we ever woke up and saw what alaya really was, we could still use alaya to create a sense of self and other. It’s just that the self that would be created then would be a self that arose with alaya being reflected as radiance. So the self would be like a bright light self and that bright light self would then be laid back down into alaya and this would be the bright light of the dependently co-arisen alaya. This bright light alaya would be the base from which we work to create the luminous vision of the dependently co-arisen alaya.
Q: What are the conditions for this turning of alaya?
TA: The primary condition for the turning of alaya is the study of the self. One may have to start this study from the deluded position of believing in an independently existing self. We may have to begin studying a self which we do not see as dependently co-arising. However, studying this self which we believe to be independently existing will eventually lead to the revelation of the incoherence of such beliefs and to the appearance of the dependently co-arisen self. Seeing this, alaya begins to turn from darkness to light.