“As we have made the Mind (or awareness)-Only the opponent in the Middle Way’s texts, we say it is a bad philosophy and we think that Nāgārjuna completely finished off the Mind-Only school and totally defeated them. Yet this blocks the door of our beginning to really investigate the Mind-Only school properly.”
“In Tibetan, we always say “the heavens are Middle Way (Madhyamika), and earth is Middle Way, I am Middle Way, they are Middle Way.” We say everything is Middle Way and only the Middle Way. It is as if we are looking down a bit on the lower philosophies and we ignore them and say ‘oh they are realist schools, bad views, they are wrong views compared to Nāgārjuna’s’. So we look down on and ignore them too much. In many respects, we have to think has this helped us more or has this harmed us more? It is hard to say.”
“The Mind-Only best resolves the contradiction that there is no self and yet there is samsara. It asserts the all-ground [basis of mind], which is not something that’s just proven logically. By resting in deep meditation and looking with yogic perception they [the Yogacārā Mind-Only proponents] realized it with yogic perception. This is what they say in their texts. So, because of their practice of yoga they learned that there is an all-ground and because there is an all-ground then they developed a new philosophical presentation of Mind-Only.”
–17th Karmapa (Thirty Verses by Vasubandhu teaching, January 2022)
Indian Buddhist masters, like Vasubandhu (pictured here) developed the Yogacārā Mind-Only view in India, using not only logic but also yogic perception through deep meditation.
Introduction
The 17th Karmapa announced that for the forthcoming annual Arya Kshema (nuns’ Dharma event in Bodh Gaya) he would be teaching on the Fifty Verses on the Guru (བླ་མ་ལྔ་བཅུ་པ་) a famous Vajrayana text on the important samaya and commitment relationship between student and teacher, said to have been composed by the Indian master, Ashvagosha (the first teaching starts on 3rd February, see the schedule published today, here).
This reminded me of the extensive, profound, original commentary the 17th Karmapa gave for two years of Kagyu Guncho (monks’ Winter) teachings in 2022 and 2023 on the Thirty Verses on Mind-Only (or Mere-Awareness) by the Indian Buddhist master, Vasubandhu. The Karmapa’s teaching commentary is a masterpiece, magnum opus of brilliance on the history, origin, influence and spread of the Mind-Only view in India, China and Tibet. In particular, its misleading, unfair and inaccurate presentation by Tibetans. There has certainly been no other such research and commentary by a Tibetan Buddhist master/lineage head such as this one on the topic of Mind-Only, either in the past or the present.
In the Day One/Introductory teaching, the 17th Karmapa lays out the reasons why the Mind-Only view is so different and important not just as a view but for daily practice and support, and should not be looked down upon as inferior to the Middle Way (Madhyamika) view, as Tibetans have generally been taught to do. He begins by saying:
“With the Middle Way, all of the Tibetan schools, all the Tibetans say “that is me, we are Middle Way.” So, I think most of us have a great deal of familiarity with the Middle Way. So how could I have anything to say that you do not already know or understand about that? If we think about the Mind-Only school, generally in Tibet, there is almost no one who holds the Mind-Only philosophy. And there was never any development of an independent Mind-Only School. Even when we think about the Indian Mind-only texts that were translated into Tibetan, the texts were stretched and pulled to fit into the Middle Way by the various scholars. So it has become difficult to identify what actually is the Mind-Only school. There are also very few people who present independent research on this topic and there are few self-standing explanations of it. It is very difficult to be decisive about what it actually is. In the international arena, there are many scholars who research and discuss the Mind-Only philosophy but we have little familiarity with them on the topic. Thus, even to this day, the topic of the Mind-Only is like a missing, blank area for all of us. So, I thought if I speak about it there will be nothing inappropriate in talking about the Mind-Only.”
The Karmapa emphasised how the Mind-Only view is also extremely relevant and important for practice, in an increasingly materialistic world, where the vast majority of people see objects as real and separate from their minds, and thus clinging and desire for objects is ever on the increase. However, the Mind-Only school, that appeared in 3rd-4th Century India, was revolutionary in its outlook, by reasoning that all perceptions arise from the mind, or awareness-only. That we mistakenly view them as separate from us. The Karmapa also spoke about how contemporary science (until recently) has added to this idea of regarding objects as being solid and real and not coming from our mental perceptions.
In addition, the 17th Karmapa spoke about a fundamental difficulty in Buddhist philosophy is that Buddha asserted there is no inherent self, but that there is a samsara, which seems to be a contradiction. However, the Mind-Only view best resolves that apparent ‘contradiction’ with their positing/realisation of the ‘all-ground’ storehouse basis of consciousness (kun-zhi). According to the 17th Karmapa, this ‘all-ground’ is the best solution as to how my ‘self’ and appearances of the world arise, due to this very subtle level of consciousness which stores the imprints/seeds of our grosser mental consciousnesses, which then sprout up as appearances and different types of re-births and so on. This idea of the ‘all-ground’ is not just logically proven, but something the great Indian masters realised with yogic perception.
In the following days of teachings, the 17th Karmapa traces the origin of the Yogacārā Mind-Only view in India and how it then spread (and was treated) in China and Tibet. He reasons that the way Tibetans have treated the Mind-Only view in order to promote the Middle Way is not in alignment with the way both philosophies were actually treated in the renowned Nalanda University tradition in India, where they both were treated equally and not necessarily as oppositional or harming one another, like a big conflict. He explains how at that time, the Mind-Only and Middle Way views happily lived side by side and it was not a case of seeing one as bad, lower, harmful and to be looked down upon. In later teachings, he explores how the Tibetans mistreated and misinterpreted Mind-Only, whereas the Chinese Buddhists gave it a very prominent (and deserved place) in their philosophical canon. Here is a short video clip I made of the 17th Karmapa (in the original Tibetan, with English subtitles) speaking about that.
The Kagyu Guncho website summaries are heavily edited, and seem to have been re-ordered/worded. As it is such an important, intellectually original and valuable commentary by the 17th Karmapa it needs to be preserved as accurately as possible (each word counts from such a great master!) and so I am creating and compiling all the transcripts of those teachings, and will eventually compile them into one single document for download (with images used by the 17th Karmapa and some of my own). I have completed most transcripts of these teachings, but not the first four days, which are mainly on the origin of Mind-Only school in India. So in the lead-up to the Karma Kagyu nuns’ annual 2024 teachings, here is Day One (January 2022) transcript of those teachings.
As I listened to this Introduction, I was thrilled by the courage, integrity and intelligence of the 17th Karmapa and the great benefit and kindness of his teaching us all about the Mind-Only view. As scholars are now revealing, in the 17th Century with the Mongolian invasion and takeover (enabled by the Gelugpas), it was not only the monasteries, texts, land of other lineages that were suppressed/destroyed but also their philosophical texts and views. Previously, in Tibet the Yogacārā Madhyamika school of Śāntarakṣita was the most influential in Tibet in terms of followers, until the Mongolian invasion of the 17th Century. The Yogacārā view (like the Kagyu shedras of study) seems to be slowly rising like a phoenix out of the ashes to re-take its place as one of the crown jewels of Tibetan Buddhist philosophy, as it is viewed in China and India.
Music? Music? I Believe in You by Neil Young, Mind Games by John Lennon, and It’s Just An Illusion by Imagination.
Written and transcribed by Adele Tomlin, 31st January 2024.
Transcripts of the other teachings by 17th Karmapa on Thirty Verses of Vasubandhu (Days 4-10):
FROM MASSES OF ABLE AND WILLING DHARMA TRANSLATORS TO AN ELITE ‘SELECT FEW’: The ‘translation-school ‘ methods of the ancient Buddha Dharma translators during the four main eras of the 900-year period of intensive translation in China (Thirty Verses by Vasubandhu 17th Karmapa, January 2023, Day 10)
Thirty Verses of Vasubandhu on Mind-Only
Transcript (Day One)
Due to the pandemic, the Kagyu Gunchö Winter Teachings in Bodhgaya were cancelled all the shedras held their own events and the schedule as it is normally done. Many requested me to teach via webcast and so I do not disappoint your hopes, we have organised this teaching. The students for whom this teaching is specifically for are the sangha members of the shedras. I thought there would be more of a connection and appropriate if I taught about philosophy instead of practice. Thus, I have chosen a philosophical topic.
As you all know, we normally consider there are the four of the Great Exposition, Sutra School, Mind-Only and the Middle Way are the four major Buddhist philosophical schools. If we think about the Great Exposition, this is explained fairly clearly in the Treasury of Abhidharma. Most of our students have a good degree of familiarity with it. If we think about the Sutra school, there are actually very few Sutra school texts and so since this is the situation, there are only some passages in the texts on epistemology that are similar to the Sutra schools, but there is no extensive presentation of the Sutra schools.
With the Middle Way, all of the Tibetan schools, all the Tibetans say “that is me, we are Middle Way.” So, I think most of us have a great deal of familiarity with the Middle Way. So how could I have anything to say that you do not already know or understand about that? If we think about the Mind-Only school, generally in Tibet, there is almost no one who holds the Mind-Only philosophy. And there was never any development of an independent Mind-Only School. Even when we think about the Indian Mind-only texts that were translated into Tibetan, the texts were stretched and pulled to fit into the Middle Way by the various scholars. So it has become difficult to identify what actually is the Mind-Only school. There are also very few people who present independent research on this topic and there are few self-standing explanations of it. It is very difficult to be decisive about what it actually is. In the international arena, there are many scholars who research and discuss the Mind-Only philosophy but we have little familiarity with them on the topic. Thus, even to this day, the topic of the Mind-Only is like a missing, blank area for all of us. So I thought if I speak about it there will be nothing inappropriate in talking about the Mind-Only.
Studying Chinese language as a child and the influence of international scholarship
For myself, personally, one thing that has worked out for me in this life, is I have had the good fortune to be able to study several other languages a bit, other than Tibetan. Among them, I know some Chinese. When I say that, it means I have reached the level of 5th Grade education in Chinese. So, it is not a very high level. The reason is, when I was studying Chinese as a child, I studied until the age of the 6th class, and then took a break from that. Then I went to India I had no opportunity to carry on with it. Basically, once I got to the 6th class I stopped at that point. So I have a low-level primary school education in Chinese. But I have taken interest in Chinese language and studied it and because of that, I have had the opportunity to dive into the ocean of knowledge in the Chinese Buddhist canon primarily. I had many teachers of Chinese when I was young. If I were to say all their names it would not be right. Most of them were Tibetan, but I did have one Chinese one who was in his 70s or 80s and he probably is not alive any longer. Now at that time, when they came to teach me Chinese I did not study well. I had people saying to me that studying Chinese is not so good. People basically said the intent for teaching me Chinese was a bad intent. Basically, I was a bit lazy and people were criticising it, so I did not study well. I regret this a bit. But the little bit of Chinese that I do know is because of the kindness of those teachers, so I would like to take this opportunity to express my gratitude and thanks.
In any case, because I do speak a bit of Chinese, in the last few years, I have been able to read a few articles by international scholars from Asia and the West who research Buddhist history and philosophy. This has increased my knowledge and opened my eyes and been very beneficial. Also, within Tibetan Buddhism, contemporary research is extremely important. and in that respect, we have been left far behind. I thought that if I were able to tell you what I have learned, it might be beneficial. This has been my hope. This is what gives me the courage to speak about this.
The Middle Way and the Mind-Only origin and development in India
If you want to understand the philosophy of the listeners/Shravakas, then you absolutely must know the Great Exposition and Sutra schools. If you want to know Mahayana philosophy, you absolutely must understand the Middle Way and Mind-Only. According to the Feast for Scholars of Pawo Tsuglag Trengwa, at the time when Chandrakirti was at Nalanda University in the 7th century, he was the only Middle Way scholar and all the other scholars were Mind-Only. So in India, the Mind-Only was more widespread
If we look between the Middle Way and Mind-only, it seems that first the Prajnaparamita spread and the Mind-Only Sutras, like Lankavatara Sutra came a bit later. Also, if we think about it in terms of masters, Nagarjuna was earlier and a few centuries later, came Asanga and his disciples. So, we can say the Middle Way spread earlier and the Mind-Only spread later. The Middle Way philosophy did not entirely satisfy Asanga and his disciples. That is why they began to teach and develop a philosophy. When the later Great Middle Way masters, like Bhaviveka (6th century) and Chandrakirti established the Middle Way, their main opponent was the Mind-Only. In their refutations of other realist Buddhist schools they only gave a few stanzas, but their refutations of Mind-Only were very long.
Likewise, it is also because of the masters of the Mind-Only school that the use of reasoning and logic spread widely. This not only influenced Buddhism but also had a strong influence on Hindu, Jain and other Indian philosophies. In Tibet, we consider epistemology to be extremely important and we have a lot of discussion about if it is Mind-only or middle way.
Likewise, in the Mind-Only there are two schools: the Consequentialist and the Autonomist Middle Way, and that difference arose from whether Bhaviveka using autonomous reasons and Chandrakirti not using autonomous reasons. Ans this was understood as him criticising Bhaviveka using Dignaga’s system of logic. This is why it is said that later, Bhaviveka used epistemology and logic and Chandrakirti earlier used epistemology and logic and I think these are very closely linked.
Later, in the Chinese tradition, there were debates between Bhaviveka and other Chinese Middle Way masters, which I will speak about it later. In any case, the idea of that difference between the two schools is related to the issue of how closely they are linked to the Mind-Only school. Also, Śāntarakṣita, the 8th century Indian scholar and abbot of Nalanda explained the ultimate truth according to the Middle Way and the relative truth according to Mind-Only. That is why they are called the Yogacara Middle Way. So we can say that instead of the Middle Way influencing the Mind-Only, it was as if the Mind-Only had a greater influence on the Middle Way, when we look back at the history from a later perspective we can see it that way.
There is a tradition of dividing the Mahayana Sutras into the first, second and third wheels of Dharma. During the third wheel there are a huge number of Sutras, there are a few in the second wheel. In the third wheel. in particular, there are Sutras like the Avatamsika Sutra, which are really long. These are mainly sutras used by the Mind-Only as their sources, there are probably more Sutras used for the Mind-Only than there are used as sources for the Middle Way. So, if we want to gain a good understanding of these Sutras, it is important to base ourselves and read the Sutras by the Mind-Only scholars.
The ultimate view of Secret Mantra is said to be the Middle Way, even if we think that, there was a great influence from the Mind-Only philosophy on the Yoga tantras, as many scholars from the past have described. Also the emphasis that all appearances are only mind, is also emphasised in the Highest Yoga Tantra. This is clearly explained in the Mahamudra teachings. Thus gaining a good understanding of the Mind-Only view is extremely important not only for understanding sutras but for studying and practising Buddhist tantras. For this reason, when we think about it from a Dharma perspective, it is a really crucial point we need to study and understand the Mind-Only school well.
The impact of materialist science and the importance of studying Mind-Only from a worldly perspective
If we think about it in terms of the worldly situation, it is also important to study it. In the past, there was a period in European history of the Renaissance, a time of great intellectual developments in Europe. Prior to that was the medieval age and during that time, they considered the traditional views of the world to be very important. However, during the time of the Renaissance, Europeans were released from the confines of medieval philosophy, and were able to develop a new way of thinking. So instead of thinking the world was created by God , there was humans and nature, which was other than humans; separate from nature. So they began to think how can humans take control of nature as God was no longer so important. They thought they could impose their will on nature. Thus, the natural sciences developed very quickly, with the aim of controlling nature. The negative side of this development of a materialist view, led to environmental destruction, air pollution and many other difficulties, which we still face to this day. This creates a danger for humans and other living beings to be able to continue living on the Earth. The reason this is happening now, is because of the great increase in the natural sciences and the destruction that has led to. If we were to take the mind-only view as the basis, we and nature are opponents.
However, if we were to take the mind-only view as the basis, we and nature are not separate or in opposition to each other, and the reason for this is because the natural environment is created by our mind, it is an appearance of our mind. In fact, the natural world is a part of ourselves. it is not completely separate like the two horns on a cow. However, the view of materialists in contemporary science have had a huge influence on contemporary society , so for that reason, most people regard the Mind-only, and views that emphasise the mind as being pointless. They think it is meaningless when they hear it and when you try and discuss it, they start laughing about it. This is mainly because we study science from a very young age, creating a strong imprint of the materialist view on our minds. So in society, there is this general view of materialist science so we think: “Of course it is true.” We never even begin to question or to doubt it. So, there are even fewer that the mind is the most important thing, and even fewer that actually believe the mind is primary. So our contemporary society is moving further and further towards things and have a stronger interest in them. We have more interest in external things, and even greater material development. So in an environment like this, there is basically no one who questions or doubts materialist philosophy. These ideas that think of the mind as the most crucial things are very important. They have been with us from ancient times to the present and they are an important part of philosophy of logic and thought. In particular, there were many people who believed the mind was most important.
From the Dharma perspective, we talk about the age of the five degenerations, an era when you have wrong ideas about what is good and bad etc. So in such an environment, it is very important to study the Mind-Only philosophy. Not only does this increase our knowledge, it ‘really hits the mark’ in giving us something that will benefit us and help us. It is something that can change our ways of thinking. The way we think about the world and what we consider to be valuable. The way we think of the essence of our human life, all that can be changed by studying Mind-Only Philosophy. For that reason, it is a way that can actually give us a new way of thinking. So in this age, studying Mind-Only is very important and of practical benefit.
So in this contemporary age studying the Mind-Only philosophy is very important and is of practical benefit. One thing we need to think about is how our contemporary society is a technical age and things are done by technology. Also it is an information age, there is all the social media and internet and we are in an information age. It is like we are a kettle of boiling water on a stove. When water is boiling on a stove it does not stop for an instant, likewise our lives is going so we get tired but the technology never does. So we are always getting new things in every moment, we have no time to just relax and rest, it is like we are bubbling water on the stove and so when we are in that kind of situation we have no control over what we are going to do. This is what they have abroad, they have puppets made from wood and strings to move them up and down. The puppet is not moving the puppeteer is moving it. We are like that we have no control ourselves. We have to stay under the influence of external things and the pressure and control of external things. We direct our minds outwards to external things. So on one hand, it looks good but actually we are under the pressure of external things. When we do focus our minds and think, where do we think, we don’t look inside ourselves, we mainly look outside. We look at different people and individuals and look out towards them. There are fewer and fewer who look inside their minds. It is getting further and further away from us. So in the old days, when there were not as many humans as now, if you were a nomad and had no independent existence.
If we think about the way contemporary people are, it is very difficult for us to take the initiative and make the improvements ourselves. So if people say you have to make efforts to improve yourself, it is because we do not know who we actually are. So if we have to take initiatives and change who we are, we don’t know not to think about it We have to see what is the capacity or the function or uses of the human mind. That is the situation we are in. So when we look at the mind only thought, and how the mind only appeared. So when we examine this , then we can say the origin of the mind-only school arose as an investigation into our human minds. In particular, what the Mind-Only has done examines in great detail what the nature of the human mind is. And the functions and capacities of the human mind.
It gave a fine analysis of the presence of the ground consciousness and afflicted mind and of how the various consciousnesses exist in a mutual relation of cause and effect, each exerting an influence on the others. Mind-Only philosophy is like a complete system of psychology. If we compare it with Western psychology, the Mind-Only if it is not better than it, it is at least not worse than it. It is not only an academic description of psychology, it is a philosophy that has practical benefits and real capacity to help people heal. Is it not just to speak about things but the aim of Mind-Only is to cleanse the polluted and stained aspects of our mind. Therefore, the Mind-Only school is not only an academic discipline that only talks about things in terms of reason and logic. So the Mind-Only philosophy is not just an area of knowledge that the earlier generations have left for us, it is also very useful and beneficial in our current day. It is a real living system and a vivacious view and understanding and. religion.
It also has applications in the medical field. Within the Mind-Only literature, there are of course many passages that conflict with science and emphasise faith and devotion. We cannot say everything matches science exactly. There are parts that are primarily religious and talk about faith and so on. Even so they are very important, because in our daily human life, there are many situations we have.
You have to live on your own without relying too much on other people. The more external development has happened, one is no longer in an independent existence now we are like cogs in a huge organisation, we are a much smaller thing. So people are getting further and further from ourselves. If we think about Tibetans for example, they have left their homeland. Their language and culture, things we gradually forget. It is like we are losing track of our minds and forgotten who we are. So that is the biggest problem we have in our contemporary society is the fact we are separated from the natural world and do not have a lot of consideration for our family and friends and we are separated and feel alienated from everything. Because of that alienation, people think it is like a mental illness, like a poison that gets into our minds like a mental illness. Most of these mental illnesses probably can be helped by medical means, but they are not completely cured by medical practices. It is something that the patients themselves need to make efforts to see what is going to improve themselves
It also has applications in the medical field. Within the Mind-Only literature, there are of course many passages that conflict with science and emphasise faith and devotion. We cannot say everything matches science exactly. There are parts that are primarily religious and talk about faith and so on. Even so, they are very important, because in our daily human life, there are many situations we have to deal with. If we ask can science alone deal with our situations or is it able to remove all our difficulties? No, it is not. If we look at human history, much that has given us courage and the ability to live comes not from science but from other things than science.
For example, Mind-Only is a Buddhist philosophy and a religion whose aim is for those who wish to free themselves from suffering. If we look at the courage of such people and their capacities, this is something that can really give us a new meaning and courage to face our human life. So the Mind-Only not only has a psychological presentation that accords with science but the Mind-Only is a philosophy related to the Buddhist religion. These presentations about the spiritual side are also necessary for us. This is because science alone cannot eliminate all the difficulties we face in our daily life. These days, many people think that science is like an all-powerful King that can remove all our difficulties, but when we meet actual difficulties, there is a lot of power and courage that comes from other things than science that are beneficial for us in terms of philosophy.
The fact, that the Mind-Only philosophy is so powerful and alive is extremely fortunate for all of us. These days, there are many people who are interested in the Mind-Only philosophy. They take a lot of interest in it. In terms of Buddhism we need to have an appropriate traditional and contemporary education as to how the mind and mental factors work, that is really beneficial for us. If we want to understand the Buddhist presentation of mind and mental factors, if we understand the Mind-Only philosophy, then it is needless to say that we will have a good understanding of the mind and mental factors.
The equality of Mind-Only and Middle Way in Ancient India and its denigration and dismissal in Tibet
In Ancient India, when the Mind-Only was spreading there, the famous institutes of study such as Nalanda, were famous for both Middle Way and Mind-Only. At the time of Naropa, there were many great masters such as Shantipa and Serlingpa (who may not have been at Nalanda) but Shantipa was certainly an undisputed master of the Mind-Only who was at Nalanda. So basically, the Indian Mahayana Buddhist centres of learning were places where the Middle Way and Mind-Only co-existed. This was very beneficial for making the Mahayana teachings flourish and did not cause any harm at all.
The Bhagavan Buddha himself respected the different faculties, capacities, and interests of his students as they were. He considered them important. He taught different types of dharma that matched their interests, faculties and interests. Due to that, the different vehicles and philosophies were able to flourish and improve. The primary reason and condition for the different vehicles and philosophies improving is because the Buddha taught the Dharma differently for people with different capacities. That is why there are so many different vehicles and philosophies. However. our situation is a little bit different. In Tibetan, we always say the heavens are Middle Way, and earth is Middle Way, I am Middle Way, they are Middle Way, we say everything is Middle Way and only the Middle Way. For that reason, it as if we are looking down a bit on the lower philosophies and we ignore them and say ‘oh they are realist schools, bad views, they are wrong views compared to Nagarjuna’s. So we look down on and ignore them too much. In many respects, we have to think has this helped us more or has this harmed us more? It is hard to say. In particular, in terms of us being Middle Way proponents, in order to understand what we ourselves are, we can only understand it based on our knowledge of others and who they are. Therefore, if we understand how it is we are Middle Way, we need to know what the Mind-Only is like. And if we do not, and it is only an opponent presented in Middle Way texts, and we think ‘oh it is nothing’ and do not value it then it will be difficult for us to understand what are the features and qualities of the Mind-Only. Because we think the Mind-Only is not important and we have now devalued it, we cannot understand its features and qualities. For example, in the great cities like New York and other great large cities, there are people of many different ethnic groups. If we are someone who does not really like Tibetans, if they do not value Tibetans then they won’t take any interest in what the features of Tibetans are because in the beginning the way they are looking at them is wrong. Because of that, it is difficult for them to learn about the particular qualities and features of Tibetans are. So because we have made the Mind-Only the opponent in the Middle Way’s texts, so we say it is a bad philosophy and we think that Nagarjuna completely finished off the Middle Way school and totally defeated them. It blocks the door of beginning to investigate the Mind-Only school.
To look at it from one angle from the Buddhist teachings in general from the Kagyu monastics and shedras in particular, they basically say that we have very little knowledge of the Mind-Only, that would not be an overstatement. The reason for that is even the great Tibetan scholars Have conflicting explanations of who the great scholars of Mind-Only are and what their texts are. Some people this is a great Mind-Only scholar, some say they are and some say they are not. If we have a text, some will say oh this is a Mind-Only text, some will say it is a Middle Way text, so for that reason, because of these different descriptions of Mind-Only masters and texts, it is very difficult `to actually learn what the Mind-Only philosophy is. Even if you have spent a few decades studying in the shedras. If we talk about the three characteristics in the presentation of the Mind-Only, it is difficult for us to explain it clearly and simply. Now we always like to talk about which view is higher and which is lower. We always like to rank the views of the different schools. If we say, that the Middle Way view is the most profound view, even if it is the most profound, it does not have as many categorisations or difficult points as the Mind-Only view does. So, if we think about the MW way view, if we take a few teachings to understand what the difficult points are an unravel them then pretty much everything else is fairly easy, it is not that difficult otherwise. But the Mind-Only view is not like that, there are so many different categories and teachings and it has such a broad scope, that no matter how many texts you read and study there are still many points and passages one is unable to grasp. So in terms of profundity the Mind-Only is more profound in terms of the scope, the Mind-Only is extremely vast and has many different teachings and categories. There would be nothing wrong in saying that.
If we think about it from a religious perspective in terms of contemporary society, the Mind-Only philosophy is something crucial to study and practice it. However, Buddhist teachings have disappeared in India, for that reason whether we are talking about the Great Exposition, the Sutra school or the Mind-Only, or the Middle Way schools, there is basically nothing left of their traditions in India. One good fortune for us is that the tradition of the Mind-Only spread from India to China and from there to Japan. So the tradition of study and practice is still present. For that reason, if we need to study the Mind-Only, it is extremely important to study the teachings of the Chinese and Japanese masters. :Likewise, I think there is also a very strong tradition in Vietnam and Koreas but the main area of focus and research these days is primarily in Japan and there is also a fair degree in China and so I will speak about this a little later and not say much now.
So when we say Mind-Only, and say it over and over again, who are speaking about? Who do we identify as being Mind-Only. However, in the Tengyur we more frequently see the term the awareness-only, Mind-Only. We could understand it as referring to all the different movements and presentations on the mind. We often call that the consciousness. We talk about it as mind, or consciousness. The Tibetan words we say are all the same. The apparent meaning for all these terms is that there are no phenomena other than the mind itself. if we explain these terms in their literal meaning, it means there is nothing other than mind/awareness. if we understand it in that way, it would be fine. Then we say there is nothing other than mind, then what do we mean by that? If we take a broader understanding of it, we could talk about it
We normally take it for granted that the internal mind and external things are separate – that’s how we see it, right? The mind is something that looks out on external things, and the external things appear to us. It is like the external things are coming towards us and the mind looks out towards them. So we have a feeling and think they exist separately and have different substances and essences and that is how we see it. Likewise, when we think about mountains, forests, houses, or even our own bodies, we see them as being separate from our mind, something other than our mind. Something external and truly exists, separate from our mind. When we see it in that way, when we see a mountain and it exists as an object because we see it, and there are people who can climb it, and that is how we see it. And we see rivers, we can build bridges. The object comes towards us we think that independently of our mind it just appears to us and exists on its own. Until we die, we think this body is me, these five aggregates are me. This is what we normally call conventional truth, it is the common way of seeing things in the world.
But in the third or fourth century India, there were some people who had a completely different way of looking at things than the way we normally do. Normally, we think things are separate from ourselves. They were really audacious! They had the courage to think in an entirely different way. They began to question and suspect that the way things appear to us, conventional truth, and they questioned this. They also used many different reasons and logics to prove that everything that appears to us is actually our confused perception, it is not actually what we project. The way things appear to us, the way things exist on their own , but these are confused perceptions. We do not know them as they are. So there are some people who had this view who appeared in India in the 3rd or 4th Century.
The people who thought this way explained this were called the Yogachara School or Yoga Practice school, or the Yogachara Mind-Only. In any case, the view they taught was called the mind-only school, or the awareness-only school. So whether we call this the Yogachara School, which means the individuals who hold this philosophy, and the view that they hold is the view of the Mind-only or the Awareness-only view. When you say Awareness-only or mind-only that is the philosophy that they asserted now the individuals who asserted it, they are called the Yogacharas. So, for this reason it’s clear that the mind-only view is a philosophy that holds the mind to be primary because there are no external objects, it’s someone’s own mind. Everything that appears to us is just like perceptions in our own mind, it is not a separate entity from our mind, an external form or sound or so forth that is separate from our mind there are no such other things.
So, the mind-only view is a philosophy that holds the mind to be primary that says the mind is the most important thing. When we talk about the mind only, the view of holding the mind to be primary is not only just the yogachara school. The yogachara and the mind-only in a sense are synonymous. This is not just a yogachara view.
The direction that most of the Buddhist schools that developed in different periods was actually very close to explaining everything as being mind-only. Now they weren’t exactly the same as the mind-only, but the direction they were headed was that everything is awareness-only or going in the direction of awareness-only or everything as mind. We could say basically that if we were to remove everything about the topic of Mind from Buddhist philosophy, we take it all out of Buddhist philosophy and put it aside then there wouldn’t be anything left because almost everything that is taught in Buddhist philosophy is about the mind. If you took that all out of the Buddhist philosophy there wouldn’t be anything left because the main topic of Buddhist philosophy is to speak about the mind. So we can say that not only the mind-only, but also the other philosophical schools primarily teach about the mind and because they primarily teach only about the mind all of the Buddhist schools are actually very close to the teachings of the awareness-only view. So, if we think about how Buddhists explained the situation of our mind now, it’s a situation of suffering because our mind is in a situation of suffering in order to protect us and in order to and so there are all views about how we can protect the Mind from suffering and bring us to happiness and our aim is that we’re seeking liberation, which means that primarily we are seeing our mind in this painful situation and how can we bring it to a situation of happiness? This is what we need to focus our awareness on, one-pointedly we need to focus on seeking liberation that is the main thing that we need to.
So Buddhists consider the mind to be extremely important, determining what the mind is extremely important. Buddhists all consider this. If we think about in terms of reasons such as these from broader perspective, we could say that all Buddhists could explain everything is mind only, if we take a broader understanding of the term that is. Most Buddhist philosophies can be said to be explanations of everything as mind-only but they don’t explain everything completely the same way as the mind-only school does but they do emphasize that the mind is primary and they’re getting very close to it and it’s very clear.
An additional point about this is that from very ancient times Indian Scholars or meditators, all the great Indian Masters took a great interest in yoga. So we talk about yoga it’s the same word. In any case, they took a great interest in yoga. When we say yoga these days we think about you know stretching out your arms and legs and so forth, that’s what we think about. That’s not what we should understand the way we should understand yoga is being the practice of Dhyana meditation, the meditation on Shamatha and so forth. Meditation on shamatha and insight the practice of Dhyana meditation. So what is the practice of Dhyana meditation? It is resting in equanimity, deep in the nature of the mind and see how deep we can get into the nature of the Mind. So, that’s what the practice is. If we just talk about it in simple terms. The practice of Dhyana meditation has been present in India from very ancient times. So as taught in the summer teachings if we look at the ancient Indian texts called the Upanishads, when people investigated the nature of the mind and looked at it there are many people who said there must be a self, there must be a person. There must be something that we could identify as the ultimate source of this me, or self and that’s what we should call a self, or a soul, or a person, there are many such views. But the Buddhists do not accept this view of a soul, or a self and as the opposite of that ,the Buddhist taught the view of selflessness and refuted these philosophies that taught that there’s a self or a person. So, for that reason, Buddhism and the other ancient Indian philosophers were all like the complete opposite. They’re all in complete opposition because all the other philosophies say that there is a self or a person, but the Buddha appeared and taught that there’s no self, there’s no person. When he taught this, it’s like he was opposing all of the other Indian schools. They became contradictory to each other.
Not only that, within ancient Indian philosophies there’s another important, if not more important than the idea of there being a self for a person, is the idea that there is samsara . The first people who talked about samsara were not Buddhists, it was the non- Buddhists who said this. They had this idea there is this samsara. Now this presentation of Samsara is extremely important in the non- Buddhist texts. Samsara is something that Buddhist accepted the Buddhist did not accept the idea of a self itself but they did accept the idea of samsara, they said there is the samsara that the non-Buddhists talk about. So the Buddhists not only accepted this presentation of samsara, they also made it into like the foundation of philosophy the idea of nirvana and samsara is like the foundation, it’s like the most important area of Buddhist philosophy. But at that time, the Buddhists from one perspective say there’s no self, and from another perspective they say there is a samsara. So, if there’s no self who cycles in samsara? Who could be in samsara if there is no self at all then if there’s nothing you can identify at all? Who is it who cycles through samsara? So there’s a big contradiction and it is difficult to resolve because on the one hand you say there’s no self, on the other hand,s you say there’s a Samsara. So resolving this contradiction gave Buddhists difficulty. So most of the Buddhist philosophies say that there’s no self but there is a samsara and they made many different explanations of how this could occur. But you could say that like the best resolution to this contradiction, the best explanation of this was made by the yogachara school. The reason why they could have the best resolution to the contradiction between the idea of no self and samsara is that the yogachara, or mind-only when they were describing the mind they would talk about the six consciousnesses, the five sensory consciousnesses and the mental consciousness, they taught about these six consciousnesses right? But this is like a very gross outer level of how things appear to us. But in addition they also said that there is the all-ground consciousness (kun-zhi). So these are like the subtle levels of consciousness like the imprints within our mind, all the appearances in our mind come from imprints. The place where the imprints are stored is in the ground-consciousness. They had this description of the subtle levels of consciousnesses. So both a description of the gross levels of mind and also a description of the subtle levels of mind. They held that this all-ground was like ultimately the basis for everything, the basis for projecting a self and is labelled a self. That this all-ground exists and the foundation of samsara is based upon the all-ground. So when they explained it in this way they were able to give a good resolution to the contradiction.
For this reason, the yogacara masters said that there is an all-ground. Now I will talk about the nature and the existence of the all-ground. It [the all-ground basis of mind] is not something that’s just proven logically. Also by resting in deep meditation and looking with yogic perception they were able to realize it. It’s not just proven logically. This is what they say in their texts. So because of their practice of yoga they learned that there is an all-ground and because there is an all-ground then they developed a new philosophical presentation
The interdependence of the all-ground ‘storehouse’
In particular, the biggest question in Philosophy from ancient times to the present is, how did I and how did the world appear? What is the origin of me and of the world? So, this is the biggest question for all philosophies from ancient times to the present. Now the best answer for this, the answer that the Yogachara had for this, is that everything arose from the all-ground. They had a really good answer for this question of how did everything occur and this is because they had a really good explanation of how due to the all-ground everything else could appear, this is called the interdependence of the all-ground.
This is something I will talk about later. To explain it briefly and simply, everything that appears is outer and inner, the world and all the beings in it, the capacities or the seeds for these, where are they? These are in the all-ground. When all the causes and conditions come together interdependently, these seeds then turn into a mode of external appearance as something actual and appear to us. Not only do they appear to us, in addition to that their own effect or their own imprints are then stored in the all-ground, so these are like in a mutual interdependence of cause and effect. This is what we call the interdependence of the all-ground. Because of the Mind only teaching of the interdependence of the all-ground, they developed their own logical presentation. Now generally, we talk about selflessness we talk about the view of the selflessness, or the view of the Mind-only.
The main debate that they have is like what is it that exists in the ultimate nature what does not exist in the ultimate nature? What exists in the ultimate nature and what does not, is something that we need to explore. The views of selflessness investigate, the mind only also investigates that, and the mind-only
School explain that there are no external things that are in nature other than the mind. Not only are there no external things that are other than the mind, but also the internal mind that appears that perceives the external things, also does not exist. So, in terms of the ultimate truth, even the Mind-only School says that not only is there no external object, but they said the internal apprehending mind also has an illusory nature and they prove this. This is a really crucial point of the Mind-only philosophy. Otherwise, when we say Mind-only when you think that there is some we think oh they they explain that there’s some sort of a mind only, they think that there’s only some mind right? If we still have that grasping of the thought that there is some mind-only, then that shows that we’re actually still falling into another abyss of grasping because we have not really understood the ultimate idea of the Mind-only school. If we think there’s still some sort of mind left, then we have not fully understood the mind-only view.
When we talk about the meaning of Mind-only, or awareness-only, about the external appearing objects , how do they appear to the mind, what is the mind like? What is it like in the beginning? If you really investigate this carefully, then when we gradually look to see what is the nature of the mind, or the way the mind is, then we can come to higher and higher levels of understanding. In terms of the definitive understanding, what is the mind like, does it exist or not? So, we take knowing that as our aim and what we’re trying to do. We need to work towards that. So, if we normally think that there’s some sort of mind that remains, then we actually have not really developed a good understanding of the philosophy of the Mind-only school. So we need to investigate the mind essentially. How do we investigate the nature of the mind? We need to look at what is the capacity of the mind. When we talk about like the primary mind, the primary consciousness, what is that? The mind and the mental factors also have their own particular capacities and because of the mind and mental factors, there are many different external appearances that appear to us. So, what is their nature, what is their capacity? We need to investigate what those are and come to know and recognize them. Then we need to be able to develop an idea about what is true and what is false, and to have the certainty that is able to distinguish the true from the false. For that reason, the yogachara view gradually in describing the way things appear and the way they actually are, distinguishing the appearances from their nature, that is what the Mind-only School does.
For that reason, the Yogachara Mind-only were later, in China and Japan, called the School of Phenomenal Appearance and the reason for this is that they are talking about the form of the way things appear, and the form of the way things are. So, we can talk about them as the school of phenomenal appearance. An additional thing that we need to understand, is that the Mind-only school is not just a philosophy, it’s not just a thought, it is also something that we need to bring into practice. In general in Buddhism, no matter which view, or school of Buddhist philosophy we are discussing, it is related to practice and meditation. If it is merely talk and merely speaking, then it’s not a whole lot of help to the mind. No matter what your view is, it has to be something that can we can use to actually change and improve our minds. So, it needs to be something that’s going to be beneficial for us in achieving liberation. For that reason, even the mind-only view is not just a mere philosophy, it’s not just a logical presentation. It’s actually something that needs to be practised. In particular, as I was saying before, the view of the Mind-only School is not something someone who couldn’t sleep at night thought up. That’s not what they were. It’s not some scholar who invented it after thinking a lot. Primarily, the Mind-only Masters did practice Dhyana meditation because they came to deep levels of Dhyana meditation and because of this, they’re able to see what the phenomena of samsara and nirvana are like, how they exist, how they appear and what they actually are. They knew this as it was and when they describe this they began describing this philosophical school.
The ideas of the all-ground and so forth, are not just ideas that are proven logically, they actually come through practice. That is a brief description about the Mind-only school.
History of Buddhist Philosophy and Mind-Only
The Division into Two Root Schools and Subsidiary 18 schools
I thought that it’s important to speak about a brief history of Buddhism because when talking about the history of the Mind-only, we also need to talk about it as a continuation of Buddhist history. In terms of the origins of Buddhism and so forth, I spoke about these to a certain degree in the last summer teachings.
In any case about one hundred years after our teacher the Buddha passed into Nirvana, the situation that occurred in India is that there were an eastern and western communities of the Sangha. So there were these two communities and they developed different opinions about ten precepts which led to a great dispute between the two. Because of this great dispute, the sangha divided into two different communities because they were unable to stay together and had to split into schools. Of these two schools the one who held firmly to the traditional views were called the Sthaviravada. The reason why they’re called the Sthavira is because stav, means the elders and they held to the views of the elders and had a very strong traditionalist view. Then there are those who were in favour of change and these are called in Sanskrit, the Mahāsāṃghika school.
In terms of Buddhist history, this is the first time that the Buddhist sangha split into different schools. This is called the division into the two root schools. Because this is the first time this happened, it’s called the division into the two root schools.
After the division into the two root schools, at first the entire sangha was in great harmony. Then there was a dispute and they became two different communities. After they divided into two different schools or camps, there were many different schools that developed and the main reason so many different schools developed is the Sthaviravada and the Mahāsāṃghika, also developed many subdivisions, they had internal disagreements. So within the Sthaviravada there are three or four different divisions. and in the Mahāsāṃghika, there are five, six or seven. There are many different divisions. In any case, these are about the eighteen schools of the foundation vehicle.
When we talk about the appearance of these eighteen schools in comparison to the division of the two root schools what we call this is ‘the subdivision to subsidiary schools’. What modern researchers say is that the main reason for there being different Sangha communities is that they all become separate from each other, as different communities, and they had different lineages, which have their own sutras, Vinaya and Abhidharma and so forth. They all became slightly different and because of that they subdivided into so many different schools.
In brief, you have two root schools and then the secondary division into eighteen schools. If you combine these in total, there are 20 different schools of the listeners. All these different schools and philosophies appeared and all became each other’s opponents, and were debating with each other. This period is called ‘the period of the schools’, or you could call it the ‘time of the foundation vehicle (Hinayana)’. At this time, basically the Mahayana had not spread and so was a time when the foundation vehicle spread widely. Within the foundation vehicle there were many different schools and they had debates with each other and they said “we are in accord with the dharma, and you aren’t” and they were primarily arguing amongst themselves, so it is called the period of the schools.
We call this the time of the foundation vehicle, the Hinayana. The members of the foundation vehicle do not say they are Hinayana, or the lower vehicle. This is a name that was given to them by the Mahayana, who called the Listener schools in a critical or derogatory way. They said: ” I’m Mahayana, and you are lower, you’re not important.” They were basically telling them to just shut their mouths. So, this a name that is a critical or derogatory. These days we’ve come to a level in the world where it’s no longer appropriate to call the Theravada, the Hinayana. This is the way they feel about it, they see it as derogatory. For example, if someone else would say that to us, it wouldn’t be nice, so it’s better for us not to use these words such as Hinayana.
In brief, this period when Buddhists split into so many different schools probably occurred sometime around the end of the first century, BCE. Then in the first century CE there was a new period which was the time the period of the Mahayana.
Arisal of the Mahayana Period
When the Mahayana period began, is during the previous time of the period of the schools, they primarily took a really great interest in and really researched and examined the meaning of the Dharma that the Buddha taught. This is the intent of the Buddha. Some people say it’s this and some say it’s that, and they would take one sentence taught by the Buddha and then they would each give their own various different explanations of this and these weren’t just any old explanations, these were explanations that they gave after really considering it deeply and thoroughly. Not only did they explain it, they also compiled all the teachings of the Buddha and divided them into different sections. In terms of their meaning, they gave many explanations that kind of completed them and filled them out and as they described them they wrote many different texts. What these texts are called is generally called the Abhidhamma when the venerable Masters the scholars of the different schools described the teachings of the Buddha, this is what is called the Abhidhamma. So this Abhidhamma is very similar to what we talk about as the Abhidhamma as one of the three Pitaka, or three baskets of the Buddha’s teachings.
In the opinion of some Japanese researchers into Buddhism the scholars of the period of the schools worked really hard to research the meaning of the scriptures, they spent their entire time thinking about this and because they spent all their time thinking only about that it’s like they forgot that the original root of the Dharma is to bring benefit to all sentient beings because they’re talking about every giving explanations of every syllable of the scriptures that they lost track of and forgot that the basic foundation of the Buddhist teachings was to bring benefit to all sentient beings. They’re really going very finely and deeply into the scriptural scriptures that they did not take much interest in the idea of bringing benefit to other sentient beings. In addition, they had this aim of bringing liberation to themselves alone. When you are looking at and really investigating the scriptures the Buddha very carefully, there’s not a whole lot of time to think about anything else. You think that the meaning of the Buddha’s scriptures is to achieve liberation. They don’t have a lot of time to think about anything else because they’re really focusing intently on this. And really working hard on the parts they hadn’t been able to describe in writing and so they began thinking more and more about themselves and they were really kind of fooled into thinking about the highly detailed analysis of the meaning of the scriptures. They were unable to really think much about the important points of bringing benefit sentient beings. There are so many different schools that appeared and there’s so much going on between them. They’re each debating with each other and refuting each other and one would say this, the other person would be unable to give an answer and they’d get fooled into thinking about this only. They probably forgot about the idea of actually bringing benefit to sentient beings. So for these reasons, around the first century CE, there is like a great revolt against these philosophies of the schools. They were saying “the way you are doing things is not right, you’re only thinking about the philosophy and you’re not thinking about benefiting sentient beings that’s not okay. The reason why the Buddha taught the Dharma itself is in order to benefit sentient beings and you’re only talking about philosophy and you’re not doing anything to actually benefit anyone else.” There were people who objected to them for that reason, not only did they object to them, many people instead of trying to achieve liberation for themselves to seek to bring others sentient beings onto the path of liberation. So this was the beginning of the spread of the Mahayana.
In terms of the view, we can say that the Mahayana can be divided into two main groups. As is generally accepted, there two main different groups and these are the view of emptiness of those who take the prajnaparamita sutras as their basis. Then there is the Mind-Only view that takes the Sutra Unravelling the Intent as its basis. There is Chinese translator Yìjìng and when he went to India, he wrote a travelogue, the Account of Buddhism Sent from the South Seas. He went to India around the end of the 7th century CE: According to Master Yìjìng’s travelogue, he wrote about the Dharma in India and that the Mahayana has no more than two divisions. Basically, there were only two schools. One is the Middle Way, the other Yogacara school. The Middle Way say that things exist relatively but ultimately are emptiness. So, what he’s saying is that if we describe the Mahayana in terms of two schools, one is the middle way one is the mind-only. The middle way in Sanskrit is called the Madhyamika and the yogic conduct one is called Yogacara in Sanskrit. Later there is the idea a third Mahayana School, that was separate from the Mind only and the middle way, which is the Tatagagharba school. I don’t need to speak about that now. It is generally accepted that there are two schools in the Mahayana, the mind only and the middle way. In modern times, you can say in another explanation there is a third school is the Tathagata school, or the Buddha nature school.
Generally, in Buddhist terms, we would have to include the Shentong middle the empty of other Middleway, the Zhentong Middleway, as the Tathagatagarbha schools. Yet, they really insist that they were middle way and they are the great Middle way. They are really insistent about this. The reason they’re so insistent is because from one perspective, there’s a little bit of a difficulty for the Shentong school. I don’t need to speak about it too much now but the Shentong school does not really accept everything as taught literally in the Root Verses of the Middle Way. Basically, if you’re going to be Middle way you have to follow the Root Verses of the Middle way. If you don’t accept that as being the literal truth then you insist on the one hand that you’re middle way and on the other hand, you don’t explain that the way is described well as generally in the middle way then that’s a big problem. If the Zhentong Middleway say they are Buddha nature proponents then there’s no difficulty there. So we don’t need to debate about whether we’re Buddha nature or whether we’re middle way, we can say we are Buddha nature school. But because they don’t do so and they say that they are middle way then between the two there’s a kind bit of a discomfort there. But I don’t think I need to go into great depth on that topic now.
The difference and connection between Yogacara and Mind-only
So, as I was saying before, we have the Yogachara and the Mind-only and I mentioned that they are synonyms. So what differences and what connections are there between the Yogacara and the Mind-only? When we say Mind-only, we should understand this is meaning like the scriptures’ explanations of the assertions of the Yogacara, that’s what we call Mind-only. When you say everything is appearance, or awareness, that is the philosophy of the Yogacara. We say awareness-only in Sanskrit this is called vijñāpti. Actually the Tibetan translators translated vijñāpti as nam rigpa (awareness) but later we started saying primarily ‘mind-only’. But the word nam rigpa (awareness) appears more frequently in the Tibetan Tengyur. When we say awareness-only and mind-only these are the same. They’re saying that no phenomena transcend the mind, there are all just different ways that the mind appears, and the people that should be understood as those people describe it in this way.
As a result, later in Japan and China, the Mind-only proponents were generally known by the name Yogacara. and asserts that all phenomena do not transcend mind, or are different ways that vijñāpti (“mere representations”) appear. Those who hold this view are called Mind-only or Vijñānavāda (“the doctrine of consciousness”). The people who propagated this tradition are called Yogacara or Proponents of Mind-Only. This is called vijñāpti and it’s generally translated in Tibetan as Awareness.So the people who hold this position that all things do not transcend mind they are called those who say that everything is nothing transcends consciousness, Vijñānavāda (“the doctrine of consciousness”).those who assert that everything is only Consciousness or awareness. So we talk about mind only and these are talking about the individuals who hold Vijñānavāda so the proponents of the mind -only. When you say proponents you’re talking about the individual’s right? They’re the proponents of the Mind-only.
In our Tibetan tradition, we don’t really use the word Yogacara, but those in China and Japan use the word Yogacara very frequently. So, those who hold the Mind-only view they are called the yogacharas and their view is called the awareness only or mind-only.
For example, if we think about the Middle way proponents who accept Nagarjuna’s Root Verses of the Middle Way as their main text, they are called proponents of emptiness. So it’s the same when we talk about them as the proponents of awareness only because they explain that nothing transcends the character of mind they are the proponents of Mind only proponents of all of awareness only just as the proponents of the middle way are called the proponents of emptiness. So that’s basically the difference between the terms mind only and Yogacara. Mind-only is the name of the philosophy, and Yogacara refers to the proponents of that view, the people who teach that philosophy.
I could not find any content mentioned. I would like to read content from 1-4 days
On Sat, Jan 27, 2024, 8:51 PM Dakini Translations and Publications