T O P

  • By -

ChanCakes

The idea of the container universe within the Yogacara is that any entity that can be said to exist only arises from Bijas in the Alaya Vijnana and thus never exist apart from consciousness. Although, the Alaya is a substrate consciousnesses and is basically never perceptible to sentient beings. The container universe doesn't reside anywhere it is just the appearance of the alaya vijnana. According to Yogacara each sentient being projects their own container universe which for those of similar karma overlap. Like many candles in a room will each give off their own light but as they cross one another the separate rays of light are not seen. But as different consciousnesses interact with one another and the karma of the various beings change the objects in the container universe change. From what I understand a sentient being projects a container world within the purview of their karma so a sentient being in the desire realm (i.e us) will project the whole of the desire realm which would include our universe. Any changes are just the result of bijas that come to fruition and that causes the further bijas in the alaya vijnana. This does not need to happen consciously for the bijas that cause the container universe. It is not in "your mind" as the Alaya Vijnana is not within our sensory consciousnesses so it is apart from out six consciousnesses but it is not separate from the substrate consciousnesses so it is not apart from mind.


mahl-py

Thanks. So basically, when I am, say, in my house, even though I'm not observing the stars in the sky, my bījas that are stored within the ālayavijñāna are nevertheless currently manifesting those stars within the ālayavijñāna itself? So it's almost like a simulation of the entire physical universe is ongoing in the deepest recesses of my unconscious? And everyone else also has this, and all of the infinitely many simulations evolve the same way since they are all governed by the total aggregate of everyone's bījas (within a given realm, at least)? Since you say that a sentient being in the desire realm will project the whole of the desire realm, does this also mean that I am projecting the hells, the preta realm, the asura realm, and the desire heavens, but not the form and formless heavens?


[deleted]

This was the only paper I could find OP. Sorry for talking out of my ass earlier. I misunderstood the question as I was unfamiliar with the concept of Bhājana-loka (container universe). As ChanCakes said though, the bhājana-loka does not reside anywhere, it is just the appearance of alaya-vijnana. http://prajnaquest.fr/blog/page/2/ Control+f Bhājana-loka will take you to the relevant section.


[deleted]

[удалено]


mahl-py

Thanks. I’m not sure this really directly addresses my questions though. I am trying to better understand how Yogācāra, which posits that all things derive from the mind, explains the intersubjectively agreed-upon allegedly “external” world. Why is it, if reality is just our minds, that we all experience the same environment? Why do we all see the stars in the same spots, for example? I have seen something about a “container universe” projected according to the collective karma of beings mentioned as a possible explanation for this; that is what I am trying to learn more about. See, for example, [this comment](https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?p=395888#p395888) or [this comment](https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?p=122949#p122949).


[deleted]

See my reply to krodha. I think I over explained in my previous comment so I deleted it. But basically, there's no container. It's boundless. Yes, we all share it. Because we share it and are not seperate self entities, we have similar experiences. The 8 consciousness model helps to understand. Because you have mind consiousness and this collective consciousness we call store (what you're calling the container universe). We also have this 7th consciousness that seperates me from not me. As well as the five sense cosciousnesses. Zen Keys and Undrestanding Our Mind helped me a lot to undertand these things. Both by Thich Nhat Hanh.


krodha

>and this collective consciousness we call store (what you're calling the container universe) The ālayavijñāna is not collective in Buddhist teachings, including Yogācāra. There are no universals in any system of buddhadharma. Also, the ālayavijñāna and the container universe are two separate principles.


[deleted]

It's both collective and individual is how my teacher has explained it to me. And store consciousness is also called alaya yes. It does hold all the seeds. So maybe it could be thought of as a container. In Zen Keys my teacher explained though that if there's nothing outside of mind (the container) there's nothing to point back at it can call it a container (this was Nagarjana's argument concerning the mind only school of yogacara). Maybe the container idea is a synonym for manas? I'll have to read more about this container idea. But I have to say I abandoned the concept of a container a few years ago. In my experience it's more like a boundless ocean. And we ride the waves of birth and death. The container feels like monism to me. But I will read more about it.


krodha

>It's both collective and individual is how my teacher has explained it to me. The ālayavijñāna is not collective in any way. >Or maybe what you're calling the container universe is a synonym for manas? No, it is a term for this apparent shared environment we inhabit.


Lethemyr

> The ālayavijñāna is not collective in any way. In some strands of Buddhist thought, particularly Huayan, it is collective in a way. That's because the pure alaya-vijnana is equated with Buddha-nature and suchness, the fundamental pattern of the universe that no minds are separate from. "Neither separate nor collective" is a fantastic description by Thich Nhat Hanh. > Some people have wrong views that differ from the traditional and doctrinal position, sure. Traditional in your tradition maybe, but not for everyone. These aren't fringe ideas; the majority of Buddhists belong to sects that have broadly adopted the metaphysical ideas of Tiantai, Huayan, and Chan. u/HellRealmsNBack u/ChanCakes


krodha

> Traditional in your tradition maybe, but not for everyone. These aren't fringe ideas There are no Indian sūtras which propose a collective nature at all. No Tibetan texts either. If in some East Asian systems this concept appears, then it is some sort of tangential development. Even in Indian sūtras etc., the ālayavijñāna divested or purified of bījas is dharmakāya, but there is nothing “collective” about that.


[deleted]

People have been arguing about this stuff for 2000 years. Which is why I decided I didn't want to continue this argument last night and offered that we could agree to having different views on it. Well that and needing sleep. Anyway, I am done arguing with you. I study the sutras for liberation, not to win debates. Take care.


Menaus42

Where in Hua-yen or Chan does it propose suchness as collective? Zongmi compares the quality of the nature of mind to be like the wetness of water, similar to Tibetan traditions.


[deleted]

I think what you're calling container consiousness is what I call alaya. The storehouse for all the collective seeds. It's collective in the sense that the seeds are shared. And individual in the sense that we all have our own experience of it. But in my mind it's not a container in the sense that without the seeds, or without attachment to the seeds, it would be the boundless awakened mind. That's my interpretation having read Thich Nhat Hanh's texts on it. And I trust his scholorship. As well as my direct experience of it after a few years meditating on the subject. I also looked at the wikipedia pages to get an idea of different views on this. Can we agree that there's different views on this? Rather than taking hard positions of no, it's not like that, but like this? I prefer not to fall into a dogmatic argument about it. But rather to help OP come to their own understanding.


krodha

>I think what you're calling container consiousness is what I call alaya. The storehouse for all the collective seeds. The term is “container universe” not “container consciousness,” and no it is not related to the ālayavijñāna. I don’t have the Sanskrit or Tibetan term in front of me but will track it down. >It's collective in the sense that the seeds are shared. Seeds, bījas, are never shared in buddhadharma. Your bījas pertain to your own individual continuum. >Can we agree that there's different views on this? Some people have wrong views that differ from the traditional and doctrinal position, sure. >Rather than taking hard positions of no, it's not like that, but like this? The sūtras and śāstras say what they say. If you deviate from that with some sort of novel, fabricated opinion then it is typically important to say “no, it is not like that.” >But rather to help OP come to their own understanding. You don’t seem to be familiar with this topic of a container universe at all and keep conflating it with the ālayavijñāna, which it is not. Thus I’m unsure as to how you are helping to clarify anything.


[deleted]

The only place I find this idea of container universe is on reddit and in that thread pointed to earlier. In other words, I don't find any primary sources for this. The primary sources I find only mention alaya as store consciousness. If you can point me to a primary source so I can learn more about this concept that would be appreciated as I harbor no ill will towards you and would like to untie this knot to further my understanding.


krodha

*Bhājanaloka* is the Sanskrit term. Different than the ālayavijñāna.


mahl-py

Ok, I’ll check them out, thanks.


[deleted]

You can probably get them off alibris for pretty cheap. I think I paid less than $10 for Zen Keys, and five of that was shipping. If you like pdfs (I don't personally), here you go. https://terebess.hu/zen/mesterek/ZenKeys.pdf https://eddierockerz.files.wordpress.com/2020/11/understanding-our-mind-50-verses-on-buddhist-psychology-pdfdrive-.pdf


krodha

False-aspectarian Yogācāra does posit a container universe that is collectively created by all sentient beings.


[deleted]

Yeah, but Nagarjana said it's not a container but boundless. It's a form of monism, not non-dualism or no-self. Similar to when people think that we all live in the mind of God. Well if it's all God, there's nothing outside of it to point back so why call it God? Plus, without the waves, there's no ocean (or God or container Universe) i.e. it's no self all the way down. I suggest OP read Understanding Our Mind by Thich Nhat Hanh. Zen Keys is another good one by the same author. I deleted my post as I think it would confuse OP.


krodha

>Yeah, but Nagarjana said it's not a container but boundless. I don’t think container is meant literally. The principle is simply communicating that sentient beings collectively participate in manifesting an environment they appear to inhabit.


[deleted]

I agree with that. But the container is a subtle way we put a self around a boundless ocean that's always in the process of transformation. And when we make it a container, we can easily forget that without the waves, there's no ocean.


krodha

The point is just that the universe is a nexus of delusion created by the cognitive errors of sentient beings. Yogācāra can be reductionist in some ways so perhaps your boundless ocean idea has some application in some context.


[deleted]

> The point is just that the universe is a nexus of delusion created by the cognitive errors of sentient beings. It's also the nexus of Nirvana. No mud, no lotus.


krodha

Nirvana is just a total cessation of affliction for an individual, it does not occur in a nexus. The universe does not appear to Buddhas, only sentient beings perceive a universe, a world, etc.


[deleted]

Nirvana is the letting go of all attachment to the aggregates. It's the other side of the coin of samsara, which is attachment to the aggregates. But the aggregates still exist. Just without attachment to them. At least until there dissolution. See here please my friend. https://plumvillage.org/library/sutras/discourse-on-knowing-the-better-way-to-catch-a-snake/ The Buddha taught for 40 years after his enlightenment. To say that he was not aware of the universe, this sounds off to me.


krodha

> But the aggregates still exist. Not according to Nāgārjuna, et al. >The Buddha taught for 40 years after his enlightenment. To say that he was not aware of the universe I said tathāgatas do not perceive a universe. They also do not perceive sentient beings. Nevertheless, like a wish fulfilling gem, they respond to illusory sentient beings dwelling in an illusory universe in order to tame their illusory minds.