During the course of this lesson, you will:
Is there a fundamental level of reality? This lesson contrasts the views of reality put forward by different philosophical systems and discusses parallels between consciousness, as seen by the Yogācāra school, and the observer in quantum mechanics, before investigating the nature of the mind as seen through Buddhist Philosophy.
Most Eastern and Western philosophical systems assume the existence of a ‘fundamental level’ of reality, whose nature is either:
a) mental (e.g., Metaphysical Idealism, which asserts that the physical universe is, ultimately, a product of mind or consciousness) most famously advocated in the West by Bishop Berkeley in the eighteenth century;
b) material (e.g., Physicalism/Materialism, according to which conscious experiences can be totally reduced to physical entities and interactions) which is the dominant view among scientists today (although the fact that many scientists tend to ‘default’ to a materialist position is partly because scientific instruments are only capable of measuring material properties);
c) both physical and mental substances (called ‘Cartesian Dualism’, named after René Descartes) which most closely reflects our ‘everyday’ intuition of feeling our minds to be distinct from our bodies; or
d) neither mental nor material (e.g., dual-aspect monism, whereby both mind and matter are seen as manifestations of an undifferentiated, underlying reality).
There are also various other ‘shades’ in-between these four main positions (including relational understandings as discussed below) forming a rich spectrum of possibilities. In Buddhist philosophy, the first position is most closely represented by the Yogācāra (or Mind-Only) school, based on the idea that the nature of physical objects is not different from the awareness that perceives them. However, Yogācāra is not identical to Western idealism and might in fact be better related to ‘phenomenalism’. Whilst Yogācāra maintains that we must always rely on the mind for the interpretation of perceptual data, this does not necessarily mean that everything ‘out there’ is itself made of ‘mind-stuff’. In other words, the way things are is more important in this Buddhist school of thought than the question of what actually is. Nonetheless, the status of the mind (‘what is the mind’) is extremely important in Yogācāra. As stated in the Daśabhūmika Sūtra (Ten Stages Sutra), an influential Mahayana Buddhist scripture:
“These three realms [1] are only mind.”
Similarly, the Dhammapada, one of the oldest surviving Buddhist scriptures (which predates Yogācāra thought by hundreds of years), begins with the following statement:
“All phenomena have mind as their fundamental nature.”
The Yogācāra school, started by Asaṅga (300-370 AD) and Vasubandhu (ca. 316-396 AD), was very influential in the development of Mahayana philosophy and is seen as part of the ‘third turning’ of the Buddha’s teaching (whereas Mādhyamika or the ‘Middle Way’ school is part of the ‘second turning’). It was partly a reaction to a (mainly misplaced) feeling that śūnyatā (as understood by the Mādhyamikas) was too nihilistic, so instead the Yogācāra school set about presenting the mind in positive, dynamic terms. From a Mādhyamika perspective, however, its statements should not be interpreted as claiming that the mind itself is a self-established entity, nor that it constitutes the fundamental ground of reality. However, it is helpful to see Yogācāra school, with its emphasis on mind and meditation, as complementary to the Mādhyamika, with its emphasis on logic and analysis (indeed, there was a syncretistic school called Yogācāra-Mādhyamika that later developed).
In pursuing its approach to mind, the Yogācāra school came up with several important innovations. In its analysis, it added two additional levels of consciousness, called, respectively, the ‘defiled mind’ (responsible for delusion and ego-clinging) and the ‘storehouse consciousness’ (accounting for the continuity of personality through death and periods of unconsciousness). The Yogācāra school also came up with the idea of the ‘three natures’ as another way of describing reality and how we see it. They re-characterized emptiness as the transcendence of subject-object duality (i.e., being ‘empty’ of duality), as well as what is left when that duality is removed, i.e., an ineffable but positively existing ‘thusness’ (although for the Mādhyamikas only śūnyatā can be the final, definitive description of ultimate reality). The Yogācāra school also helped systemize the features of Buddhahood into the ‘three-body doctrine’ ofNirmāṇā-kāya, Saṃbhoga-kāya and Dharma-kāya.
[1] In Buddhist philosophy, the whole of reality is seen as being composed of three different domains: the desire realm, the form realm, and the formless realm.
Certain interpretations of Western Philosophy’s schools of Idealism seem to point to an inherently existing consciousness, a fundamental, self-established witnessing awareness. According to the Mādhyamaka school, however, consciousness itself is only a relative entity, rather than the ultimate nature of reality. This finds a parallel in Carlo Rovelli’s relational interpretation of quantum mechanics, which does not privilege the consciousness of the observer in the way Copenhagen interpretations do. This is somewhat analogous to how the Mādhyamika school of Buddhist philosophy does not privilege consciousness in the way the Yogācāra school does. Indeed, Carlo Rovelli credits the work of Nāgārjuna, the principal founder of the Mādhyamika school, with helping him develop his relational interpretation.
As discussed in the previous module, the relational interpretation utilizes the same principles that govern Albert Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity (of 1905), maintaining that the quantum state of a system must always be interpreted relative to another physical system. In other words, the state of the quantum system is observer-dependent because the state is the relation between the observer and the system. This means that different observers may (quite correctly) give different accounts of the same system since there is no privileged account that is more ‘real than any other. This clearly resonates with the Mādhyamika understanding of emptiness. It is important to also note that in the relational interpretation, an ‘observer’ can be any arbitrary physical system and does nothave to be a conscious observer like a human being. Therefore, a ‘measurement event’ can be any physical interaction in which two systems become correlated with each other. The ‘observer’ system has the effect of restricting the degrees of freedom that a particular quantum system can exercise, whether or not that ‘observer’ is itself a conscious being or a physical system.
Nāgārjuna points out that is that there is a circularity in nature; there is no need to posit the existence of an ultimate level from which everything else originates. Both material and physical phenomena emerge from a complex set of cause and effect relationships. Consciousness and the mind, too, manifest as part of a greater network of interdependent phenomena, all of which arise through relations in the process of dependent origination, rather than existing inherently as independent entities.
Buddhism offers powerful tools to investigate the nature of mental phenomena, showing how they too exist in a relational way, rather than as inherently existing and independent entities. The logic of dependent origination, explained in the previous module, can be applied not only to physical objects, but also to our cognitive processes, including our perception of a ‘self’. In Module 6, you will learn how to use this analysis practically during meditation, in Scott Snibbe’s experiential meditation workshop.
For now, seen from a more theoretical point of view, it is important to know that the fundamental aspects of the interdependent nature of the mind are analogous to the analysis of physical entities: 1) the mind is composed by parts and collections of parts; 2) cognitive processes originate from a number of causes and conditions, and 3) ‘Mind’ is the label given to a wide range of dynamic and ever-changing processes.
As will be discussed in greater detail in Module 6, Buddhist philosophy subdivides mental activity in a number of different processes, which include feeling (our sense of like, dislike, or neutrality towards a certain person or object), discrimination (our ability to recognise objects and people), mental volition (the different impulses and mental factors that motivate and influence our actions – this is sometimes referred to as compositional factors), and consciousness (the presence of ‘bare’ awareness, the ‘fact’ of knowing and experiencing, regardless of the content of experience itself). None of these processes is static or unchanging; all of them are dynamic entities, with new feelings, thoughts, volitional impulses, and experiences constantly arising and ceasing. Where, among them, is the mind to be found? In which specific moment of consciousness, temporary thought, arising and ceasing feelings can the mind reside?
As well as being composed by different parts, rather than being a unitary entity, our mind is constantly being shaped by external and internal factors. For example, our thoughts and feelings when we meet a specific object are influenced by our memories and previous life experiences, the state of our body, as well as the way in which our brains and nervous systems have evolved. Similarly, the way we perceive the world, our attention, and the direction of our will, depend crucially on our mental and physical state. In addition, awareness itself arises in an interdependent manner, because it requires an encounter between a sense faculty and a specific phenomenon [2]. As stated by Nāgārjuna in his Hymn to the World Transcendent: “Without being known, it’s not an object of knowledge; without that, there is no consciousness as well. Therefore, the knower and the known possess no intrinsic reality.”
When we analyse the numerous parts that make up the mind and the numerous causes and conditions that give rise to, and influence, mental activity, it becomes clear that ‘Mind’ is just a label that we assign to a complex multitude of dynamical processes, rather than a unitary, unchanging, solid entity. Through the meditations you will experience in the next module, one can learn to see the mind as an entity that is inter-dependent and profoundly dynamic, rather than inherently existing, solid and static.
[2]. In Buddhist psychology, cognition itself is considered to be a 6th sense, in addition to sight, hearing, smell, taste, and touch.
We recommend reading the lecture notes before you start watching the content. This will help you to start contemplating some of the topics before you begin to watch the lecture.