Yogacara
The “Consciousness-Only” School?


Asanga
 

Vasubandhu
 
As the Perfection of Wisdom/Discernment tradition evolved, various attempts to explain the doctrine of emptiness were proposed, the most notable of which centered on the notion of the tathagata-garbha:
  • tathagata: “Thus-Come One” (a common Mahayana name for the Buddha)
  • garbha: womb, embryo or matrix (depending on the context)
  • tathagata-garbha: (i) the “womb” in which Buddhahood develops; (ii) the internal “embryo” that allows one to develop into a Buddha; (iii) the “matrix” (i.e. web of reality) that is ever-present, but only realized through the attainment of Buddhahood.
 
 
The earliest Sutra to discuss it—the Tathagata-garbha Sutra—illustrated the concept with a series of similes: an excellent child in the womb of a poor woman; honey in a beehive; gold fallen into the mud. Some of these similes, such as the honey or the gold, suggest something already pure. Others, like the child, suggest something that needs to be conceived and nurtured. Still others, like the womb, suggest a nurturing power. Later Mahayanists, both in India and beyond, worked out the practical implications of each of these ways of conceiving the potential for Buddhahood, and divided into broad camps over which concept provided the most reliable guide to meditation practice.
       There was also the question of how this doctrine related to the doctrine of not-self. Some of the tathagata-garbha Sutras, such as the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra, stated flatly that this potential was one’s true self. Others, such as the Lion’s Roar of Queen Srimala, denied that this potential is a self, for it is impersonal: the womb/embryo of the Dharma realm, the Dharma body, the transcendent....

Still, the impression that the tathagata-garbha was simply a way of sneaking a permanent self in the back door of Buddhist thought seems to have persisted, for another sutra—the Lankavatara (Descent into Lanka)—takes up just this question. It employs the canonical image the Buddha as doctor to explain how Dharma teachings should be understood: in terms of their intended purpose in bringing the mind to Awakening, just as medicine can be properly understood only in terms of its purpose in curing illness. In the same way that different illnesses require different medicine, different mental defilements require different teachings. Thus the Lanka explains the tathagata-garbha teachings in terms of its purpose: to assuage the fears of those who are disconcerted by the not-self teaching. As for the not-self teaching, its purpose is to clear away the mind’s habit of imputing imagined categories to reality. Ultimately, however, all doctrines must be abandoned to allow for an experience of Awakening, which is totally inexpressible. [BR, 109-10]
 
 
Asanga and Vasubandhu
The
Foundation of Yogacara

Approximately two hundred years after Nagarjuna was establishing the Madhyamika...the monk Vasubandhu converted to the Mahayana and helped further establish the Vijnanavada school, also known as the Yogacara or the Citamatra, school. In English, it is often referred to as the Mind-Only, or the Consciousness-Only, school....
 
...In a sense, subject-object dualism is the “villain” for Vasubandhu the way inherent self-existence was the “villain” for Nagarjuna. [EB, 164-5]
 
 
6 Sense-Consciousnesses
7th “Mind” Consciousness
8th “Storehouse” Consciousness

In unpacking their notion of reality, the Vijnanavadins were very good at distinguishing between types of consciousness and eventually developed a system of eight consciousnesses. The first six of these they shared with the Mainstream Buddhist schools: the five consciousnesses associated with the five physical senses (that is, the consciousness involved in seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, and touching) and the mental consciousness associated with the brain seen as one of the sense organs (that is, the consciousness involved in thinking).

The third transformation concerns the consciousnesses dependent on the six senses: [the visual, auditory, olfactory, gustatory, tactile, and mental consciousnesses]. [EB, 166]

To these were added a seventh consciousness called the mind (manas), which is chiefly involved in our giving to ourselves (and to objects) a false sense of individuality...

The intellectualizing consciousness is called “the mind” [manas]....It is karmically indeterminate but obstructed by four defilements to which it is always connected. These are called false view of the Self, delusion about the Self, pride of the Self, and love of the Self. Whenever the mind comes into being, it is accompanied by linkage to sense objects and by the other mental factors: attention, feeling, conceptualization, and volition [i.e. the five skandhas]. It ceases to exist at arhatship, or in the trance of cessation, or in the supramundane path. That is the second transformation of consciousness. [EB, 166]

...and an eighth consciousness called the storehouse consciousness (alaya-vijnana), or the “granary consciousness,” which is said to contain all the “seeds” for what become “consciousness-moments” or “consciousness-events” (what we usually call reality)...

The consciousness that is called “coming to fruition” is the granary consciousness (alaya-vijnana); it comprises all of the seeds (bija). Its substratum, its disposition, its perceptions cannot be discerned, but it is always accompanied by the following factors: linkage to sense objects, attention, feeling, conceptualization, and volition. Its feelings are [neither pleasant nor unpleasant but] neutral, and it is undefiled and karmically indeterminate....Its behavior is like the current of a stream. At arhatship, there occurs in it a fundamental revolution. [EB, 166]

...Ultimately, then, reality might be envisioned as but a series of seeds (bija) in the granary consciousness that sprout, germinate, are harvested, and are once again stored, all in the granary consciousness. [EB, 164-5]

 
 
The granary consciousness contains all the seeds; its transformation takes place according to a process of give and take between it and the false discriminations to which it gives rise [and which in turn affect it. This process leaves in the granary consciousness] residual impressions [vasana] of actions, which along with the residual impressions of dualistic grasping give rise to a new “coming to fruition” when the former “fruition” has died out....
 
 
As long as consciousness is not content with being perception only, there will continue to be a tendency toward dualistic grasping. This is so even with the thought “all this is perception only.” If you come to apprehend this and set it up in front of you, you are not being content with “this only.” But when consciousness truly no longer apprehends any object of consciousness, it abides as consciousness only; for when what it grasps does not exist, there is no grasping. It is then free of thought, nondependent, transcendent knowledge. This is the fundamental revolution of all consciousness, the destruction of the double depravity. This element is also free from evil attachments, unimaginable, meritorious, constant, blissful. It is the liberation body, which is called the Dharma body of the Buddha. [EB, 167]
 
 
The way in which the Lanka defines all experience in terms of consciousness has led some modern scholars to interpret it as an early form of ontological idealism, or the theory that nothing exists except the mind and its contents. And some of the Sutra’s traditional interpreters in Asia have seen it in just that light. Other modern scholars, however, have interpreted the Lanka’s approach more as a type of phenomenology, focusing on experience in and of itself for the purpose of ending defilement, without concern for abstract theorizing beyond that purpose. Given the Sutra’s provisional, tactical approach to the Dharma, this interpretation seems closer to its actual intent. [BR, 111]