In
this chapter I would like to consider the further development of Mahayana philosophy
in India, the relationship between the Middle Way philosophy and the Mind Only
philosophy, and how these two influence the religious and practical traditions
of Buddhism. We have discussed the Middle Way and Mind Only philosophies in Chapters
18 and 19, but have merely sketched the outlines of Mahayana philosophy. The philosophy
of the Middle Way, as presented by Nagarjuna, and that of Mind Only, as presented
by Asanga and Vasubandhu, are the twofold basis of the Mahayana tradition, forming
its general foundation as it evolved during the first four centuries of the common
era.
This period was followed by another eight hundred years of philosophical
development of the Mahayana tradition in India, not to mention its continuing
development in the other countries of Asia to which Buddhism traveled--China,
Korea, Japan, Tibet, and Mongolia. To gain a comprehensive picture of this development
in India, I would like to trace the interaction between the Middle Way and Mind
Only schools from the fourth century C.E. to the end of the first millennium.
Let us look first at what took place in the Middle Way school. The principles
set forth by Nagarjuna were elaborated by his disciples and successors, beginning
with Aryadeva. Whereas Nagarjuna's primary concern had been to establish the authenticity
of the philosophy of emptiness in opposition to the earlier schools of Buddhist
philosophy, Aryadeva's was to demonstrate that the philosophy of emptiness was
equally valid in the case of the non-Buddhist Brahmanical and Vedantic schools.
The works of Nagarjuna and Aryadeva fall within the formative and fundamental
period of the philosophy of the Middle Way. The period after Nagarjuna saw the
emergence of two Middle Way sub-schools, the Prasangika and the Svatantrika. The
division between these two schools is based on how they present the philosophy
of emptiness. When we discussed the philosophy of emptiness in Chapter 18, we
spoke about a characteristic method of argument, the reductio ad absurdum, that
Middle Way philosophers used to reject the positions advanced by their opponents.
In Sanskrit this form of argument is called prasanga, and it was from this term
that the Prasangika school took its name. Arguments ad absurdum are designed to
expose contradictions and absurdities in opponents' positions. For example, the
theory of self-production (i.e., that entities originate from existent things)
was advocated by a rival of the Prasangikas, the Sankhya philosophical school.
Self-production can be refuted by the argument that if entities originated from
themselves, then they would go on originating indefinitely and we would have an
endless series of reproductions of the same existing entities. In other words,
there would be nothing new under the sun. The prasanga argument is that entities
do not originate from themselves because they already exist, and the origination
of something that already exists is plainly absurd. Besides, if existent entities
do originate, then they will go on reproducing themselves ad infinitum.
Alternatively,
one might reject the Sankhya theory of self-production by means of a syllogism.
This form of argument is called an independent (svatantra) argument, and it is
from this term that the Svatantrika school got its name. One might illustrate
this method of argument by saying, 'Entities do not originate from themselves.'
This would be the proposition, the first so-called member of an independent argument.
Then one might say, 'This is because they exist,' which would be the second member,
the reason of the syllogism. Next, one might say, 'They exist like a jar does,'
which would be the example, and the third and final member. By means of these
three members of a syllogism, one might demonstrate the impossibility of origination
from self--the same objective demonstrated by an argument ad absurdum.
We have,
therefore, two forms of argument, a reduction and a syllogism conforming to the
rules of formal logic. Buddhapalita and Chandrakirti are famous for their expositions
championing the reductio ad absurdum, while Bhavaviveka is famous for championing
syllogistic, independent argument. Both the Prasangika and the Svatantrika school
enjoyed considerable popularity in India. The strength of the Svatantrika school
reflected an increasing concern with conforming to accepted standards of logic.
It was common for rival Indian philosophical schools to engage in public debates,
which tended to require arguments that met accepted standards of validity. This
led gradually to more formal requirements of discussion and influenced the philosophical
arguments of the Middle Way school, contributing to the popularity of the Svatantrika
sub-school, which favored the use of independent argument. This trend even led
the Prasangika sub-school to gradually refine and formalize its argument ad absurdum,
so that within the course of a few hundred years, a much more formal presentation
of the philosophy of emptiness emerged.
Just as this was taking place within
the Middle Way school, developments were also occurring within the Mind Only school.
The next significant Mind Only philosophers in India were the fifth century Buddhist
logicians Dinnaga and Dharmakirti, who also played a significant role in the development
of the Mind Only philosophy. They rejected the existence of the objects of consciousness--of
forms, sounds, and so forth--present in experience, and are therefore known as
the philosophers who reject the representations of consciousness. Whereas both
Asanga and Vasubandhu affirmed the existence of the objects of consciousness,
insofar as these participate in the reality of mind, Dinnaga and Dharmakirti maintained
that, although the reality of consciousness is indubitable, the reality of the
forms, or objects, of consciousness is not.
In about the eighth century C.E.,
there arose in India a figure of note, a scholar who made a very important contribution
to the integration of these different tendencies within Mahayana philosophy. His
name was Shantarakshita. In addition to the fame he won as a result of his philosophical
and literary production, Shantarakshita was the first to introduce systematic
Buddhist thought to Tibet. He formulated what we now call the syncretic or synthetic
philosophy that unites in a systematic way the philosophy of emptiness and the
philosophy of Mind Only.
We have discussed the importance of mind in the thought
of the Middle Way school, and also the parallelism between conventional truth
and ultimate truth on the one hand and the illusory and perfected natures on the
other. We indicated the parallel status of mind, interdependence, and the dependent
nature in the Middle Way and Mind Only schools (see Chapter 19). What we have
in the thought of Shantarakshita is a systematic integration of the major tenets
of the Middle Way and the Mind Only schools, so that emptiness is acknowledged
to be consistent with ultimate truth and the perfected nature, while the creative
nature of consciousness is acknowledged to be consistent with the conventional
truth and the illusory nature.
In addition to the reconciliation and stratification
of the principle tenets of these two schools, Shantarakshita's philosophy integrates
the elements of logical argument and treats systematically the role of mind in
the origination and cessation of suffering. In his syncretic philosophy we have
what we might term the apex of the development of Mahayana philosophy in India,
in that Shantarakshita correlated and synthesized, in one coherent philosophical
system, the principal insights of outstanding Mahayana masters like Nagarjuna,
Asanga, and Vasubandhu. The synthesis of the tenets of emptiness and Mind Only
had a direct and determining impact on the two major traditions that grew out
of Mahayana philosophy: (1) the Vajrayana, which held sway in Tibet and Mongolia,
and (2) the Ch'an Zen tradition, which was predominant in China and Japan. Although
these two traditions of practice differ markedly in the forms of their religious
expression, both rely very heavily on the tenets of emptiness and Mind Only for
their function and effectiveness.
In the Vajrayana, it is the philosophy of
emptiness which supplies the openness and fluidity that allows for the transformation
of phenomena from an impure condition to a pure condition. If entities had an
independent and unchanging nature and were therefore not empty, it would be impossible
to transform impure experience saturated by suffering into pure experience suffused
by great bliss. While emptiness supplies the ground upon which this transformation
can take place, mind supplies the effective means of achieving that transformation,
because it is the mind that shapes and determines the nature of our experience.
By controlling, disciplining, and manipulating the mind, we can change our experience
from an impure experience to a pure experience. In the theory and practice of
the Vajrayana tradition, emptiness and mind are indispensable--both because, without
emptiness, transformation of things would be impossible, and because it is mind
that is the key to and means of achieving that transformation. In the Ch'an and
Zen tradition, it is emptiness that is descriptive of the real state of things.
It is the realization of emptiness that brings about the transcendence of duality
and the attainment of enlightenment. And how is this emptiness realized in this
tradition? By looking at the mind--by meditating on the nature of mind itself.
Here, as in the Vajrayana, emptiness and mind perform similar functions and are
indispensable.
Emptiness is the ground of transformation, while mind accomplishes
that transformation. Thus it is not coincidental that both the Vajrayana and the
Ch'an and Zen traditions look to these fundamental ideas of the Indian Mahayana
for their inspiration. Nagarjuna and Asanga are traditionally regarded as the
founders of the Vajrayana tradition; Nagarjuna is also one of the early patriarchs
of the Ch'an and Zen tradition. Bodhidharma, who introduced Ch'an to China, is
said to have favored the Lankavatara Sutra above all other texts. In this way,
the Middle Way and Mind Only schools played an important role in the development
of the principal traditions of Mahayana practice throughout Asia. Let us spend
some time looking at the method of investigation that was developed in India in
line with the insights of the Middle Way and Mind Only schools. The fundamental
division of experience into subject (nama) and object (rupa), found in the scheme
of the five aggregates and in many of the analytical schemes of the Abhidharma,
is also present in the Mahayana context. We can see the investigation of reality
unfolding in this binary way with respect first to the object and then to the
subject.
In investigating the object and the subject, two methods are used
that we have encountered in other Buddhist traditions also--namely, the analytical
method and the relational method (see Chapter 16). Beginning with the object,
we find first an analytical investigation of the object applied. This means, in
the Mahayana context, a consideration of the infinite divisibility of the object.
We have discussed the importance of the infinite divisibility of matter in the
formulation of Mind Only philosophy (see Chapter 19). Here, too, we begin with
the investigation and revelation of matter's infinite divisibility.
This analytical
investigation of the object is followed by a relational investigation of the object,
which reveals that the object depends on the subject--that is, on consciousness.
In this way, we arrive at the rejection of the notion of an independent object
both analytically and relationally.
We then proceed to analytical and relational
investigation of the subject, the mind itself. When we investigate mind analytically,
we do so in terms of its characteristics. The paradigm for this is in the Perfection
of Wisdom literature, which says, 'Examine the mind: Is it long or short? Is it
round or square? Is it white, blue, or otherwise?' Such an analytical investigation
reveals that the mind is inherently unidentifiable.
This analytical investigation
of the subject is followed by a relational investigation, which reveals that the
subject (mind) is relationally dependent on the object. Shantideva, one of the
renowned masters of the Middle Way school said that, without an object, consciousness
is unintelligible, incomprehensible. Consciousness must have an object in order
to function, in order to exist. Consciousness independent of an object is impossible.
Explanations of the truth of this statement date back a long way. For example,
in the Abhidharma literature, it is said that consciousness arises dependent on
an object.
The analytical and relational investigations of object and subject
lead to an understanding of reality as ineffable--as beyond existence and nonexistence,
as empty and luminous. In the Mahayana tradition, this is the ultimate realization:
Reality cannot be described in terms of existence and nonexistence. It is empty,
luminous, and pure. Reality is beyond existence because all existence is relative
and dependent. It is beyond nonexistence because, despite its emptiness and transience,
reality does appear and is experienced. Therefore, reality is not altogether nonexistent.
You may recall our use of the word 'pure' as a synonym of empty. Here we have
another word used, 'luminous.' You need not be confused by this. It is simply
a restatement of that equivalence set forth in the Heart Sutra's assertion that
'Emptiness is form, and form is emptiness.' Reality is not only empty: it is also
form; it is also luminous, bright with the potential for appearance. This luminosity--this
potential inherent in the real state of things--manifests itself to the impure,
afflicted consciousness as samsara, but it manifests itself to the purified consciousness
as the pure universe of the exalted Buddhas and Bodhisattvas. It is within the
context of this luminosity, this potential appearance of reality, that we have
the manifestation of the celestial Buddhas and Bodhisattvas like Amitabha, Akshobhya,
Avalokiteshvara, Manjushri, and the rest. They are luminous, pure, and the bright
manifestation of reality--that reality which is simultaneously emptiness and luminosity,
emptiness and purity. Emptiness and luminosity are the characteristics of reality
that emerge from the Mahayanic investigation of the subject and object of experience.
Let
me conclude by describing a practical mode of contemplation which reflects this
progressive insight that eventually reveals the ineffable character of the real.
This contemplative technique of meditation unfolds through four stages. The first
stage involves contemplation of the mind-dependent nature of all experience. On
this stage we are asked to regard all experience as similar to a dream. This is
reinforced by recourse to examples that illustrate the mind-dependent nature of
experience: not only the experience of dreaming, which is perhaps the most telling
but also that of illness, when one perceives a white conch as yellow because of
jaundice, and the experience of altered perception as a result of the ingestion
of hallucinogenic substances. On the second stage we contemplate all experience
being like a magical show. Like dreaming, this example has an old and venerable
history in Buddhist literature, both in the Perfection of Wisdom discourses and
in the writings of the Middle Way and Mind Only traditions. Here the example of
a magical illusion is used as a paradigm for experience: When the apparatus needed
to produce a magical illusion is present, the magical illusion appears, but when
the apparatus is absent, the magical illusion does not.
In the same way, entities
appear only when the right causes and conditions are present, and fail to appear
when the right causes and conditions are absent. We might feel that this example
of magical illusion is no longer relevant today, but this is not the case if we
understand magical illusion in a broader sense. Some of you may be familiar with
holography--the projection of a laser beam so as to produce a three-dimensional
image of an object. The image does not really exist; if we reach out for that
object--an apple, let us say--it is not there. When the holographic apparatus
is present, the illusion of the three-dimensional object appears, but when it
is absent, the illusion does not. Like a magical illusion and a holographic image,
all experiences appear relative to the presence of certain causes and conditions,
and do not appear when the right causes and conditions are not present.
On
the third stage, we are encouraged to contemplate all experience as relative,
as interdependent. This follows very closely from the consideration of all experience
as similar to a magical illusion. All experience appears relative to causes and
conditions. The sprout exists relative to the seed, earth, water, sunlight, and
air. The flame in an oil lamp exists relative to the wick and the oil. In this
way all phenomena appear relative to causes and conditions, and all experience
is interdependent.
The fourth stage in the process of progressive realization
of the ultimate nature of things is contemplation of the inexpressibility of experience.
The interdependence of experience
means that experience is inexpressible in
terms of existence and nonexistence, identity and difference, and so forth. Entities
and their causes can be said to be neither identical nor different. For example,
whether the sprout and the seed are identical or different is inexpressible: they
cannot be described in terms of either identity or difference. Experience in general
is intrinsically indescribable, like the sensation of being tickled or the feeling
that ensues as a consequence of sexual intercourse. Similarly, all entities that
exist dependent on causes and conditions are inexpressible in terms of absolute
existence and nonexistence. Hence this last stage involves the contemplation of
all things as inexpressible and ineffable.
By means of this four-stage process
of contemplating all experience as mind-dependent--like a dream, like a magical
illusion, interdependent, and, finally, inexpressible--we can arrive at some understanding
of the Mahayana view of reality. For the Mahayana tradition, reality is empty,
luminous, and beyond existence and nonexistence, identity and difference, and
all the other dichotomies of discriminating thought.