THE TATHÂGATA-GARBHA AND THE
ÂLAYA-VIJÑÂNA.
{125}
/Suchness/ (_Bhûtatathâtâ_), the ultimate principle of existence, is
known by so many different names, as it is viewed in so many different
phases of its manifestation. Suchness is the Essence of Buddhas, as it
constitutes the reason of Buddhahood; it is the Dharma, when it is
considered the norm of existence; it is the Bodhi when it is the
source of intelligence; Nirvana, when it brings eternal peace to a
heart troubled with egoism and its vile passions; Prajñâ (wisdom),
when it intelligently directs the course of nature; the Dharmakâya,
when it is religiously considered as the fountain-head of love and
wisdom; the Bodhicitta (intelligence-heart), when it is the awakener
of religious consciousness; Çûnyatâ (vacuity), when viewed as
transcending all particular forms; the summum bonum (_kuçalam_), when
its ethical phase is emphasised; the Highest Truth (_paramârtha_),
when its epistemological feature is put forward; the Middle Path
(_mâdhyamârga_), when it is considered above the onesidedness and
limitation of individual existences; the Essence of Being
(_bhûtakoti_), when its ontological aspect is taken into {126}
account; the Tathâgata-garbha (the Womb of Tathâgata), when it is
thought of in analogy to mother earth, where all the germs of life are
stored, and where all precious stones and metals are concealed under
the cover of filth. And it is of this last aspect of Suchness that I
here propose to consider at some length.
_The Tathâgata-Garbha and Ignorance._
Tathâgata-Garbha literally means Tathâgata’s womb[59] or treasure or
store, in which the essence of Tathâgatahood remains concealed under
the veil of Ignorance. It may rightly be called the womb of universe,
from which issues forth the multitudinousness of things, mental as
well as physical.
The Tathâgata-Garbha, therefore, may be explained ontologically as a
state of Suchness quickened by Ignorance and ready to be realised in
the world of particulars, that is, when it is about to transform
itself to the duality of subject and object, though there is yet no
perceptible manifestation of motility in any form. Psychologically, it
is the transcendental soul of man just coming under the bondage of the
law of karmaic causation. Though pure and free in its nature as the
expression of Suchness in man, the transcendental {127} soul or pure
intelligence is now influenced by the principle of birth-and-death and
subjects itself to organic determinations. As it is, it is yet devoid
of differentiation and limitation, save that there is a bare
possibility of them. It will, however, as soon as it is actualised in
a special form, unfold all its particularities subject to their own
laws; it will hunger, desire, strive, and even be annoyed by its
material bonds, and then, beginning to long for liberation, will
struggle inwardly. Here is then no more of the absolute freedom of
Suchness, as long as its phenomenal phase alone is considered, since
the Garbha works under the constraint of particularisation. The
essence of Tathâgatahood, however, is here preserved intact, and,
whenever it is possible, our finite minds are able to feel its
presence and power. Hypothetically, therefore, the Garbha is always in
association with passions and desires that are of Ignorance.
We read in the _Çrimâlâ-Sûtra_: “With the storage of passions attached
we find the Tathâgata-Garbha,” or, “The Dharmakâya of the Tathâgata
not detached from the storage of passions is called Tathâgata-Garbha.”
In Buddhism, passion or desire or sin (_kleça_) is generally used in
contrast to intelligence or Bodhi or Nirvâna. As the latter,
religiously considered, represents a particular manifestation in the
human mind of the Dharmakâya or Bhûtatathâtâ, so the former is a
reflection of universal Ignorance in the microcosm. Therefore, the
human soul in which, according to Buddhism, intelligence and desire
are merged, should {128} be regarded as an individuation of the
Tathâgata-Garbha. And it is in this capacity that the Garbha is called
_Âlayavijñâna_.
_The Âlayavijñâna and its Evolution._
As we have seen, the Âlayavijñâna or All-Conserving Soul is a
particularised expression in the human mind of the Tathâgata-Garbha.
It is an individual, ideal reflex of the cosmic Garbha. It is this
“psychic germ,” as the Âlaya is often designated, that stores all the
mental possibilities, which are set in motion by the impetus of an
external world, which works on the Âlaya through the six senses
(_vijñâna_).
Mahâyânism is essentially idealistic and does not make a radical,
qualitative distinction between subject and object, thought and being,
mind and nature, consciousness and energy. Therefore, the being and
activity of the Âlaya are essentially those of the Garbha; and again,
as the Garbha is the joint creation of universal Ignorance and
Suchness, so is the Âlaya the product of desire (_kleça_) and wisdom
(_bodhi_). The Garbha and the Âlaya, however, are each in itself
innocent and absolutely irresponsible for the existing state of
affairs. And let it be remarked here that Buddhism does not condemn
this life and universe for their wickedness as was done by some
religious teachers and philosophers. The so-called wickedness is not
radical in nature and life. It is merely superficial. It is the work
of ignorance and desire, and when they are converted to do service for
the {129} Bodhi, they cease to be wicked or sinful or evil. Buddhists,
therefore, strongly insist on the innate and intrinsic goodness of the
Âlaya and the Garbha.
Says Açvaghoṣa in his _Awakening of Faith_ (p. 75): “In the
All-Conserving Soul (_Âlaya_) Ignorance obtains, and from
non-enlightenment [thus produced] starts that which sees, that which
represents, that which apprehends an objective world, and that which
constantly particularises.” Here we have the evolution of the Garbha
in its psychological manifestation; in other words, we have here the
evolution of the Âlayavijñâna. When the Garbha or Âlaya comes under
the influence of birth-and-death (_samsâra_), it no longer retains its
primeval indifference or sameness (_samatâ_); but there come to exist
that which sees (_viṣayin_) and that which is seen (_viṣaya_), a mind
and an objective world. From the interaction of these two forms of
existence, we have now before our eyes the entire panorama of the
universe swiftly and noiselessly moving with its never-tiring steps.
A most favorite simile with Buddhists to illustrate these incessant
activities of the phenomenal world, is to compare them to the waves
that are seen forever rolling in a boundless ocean, while the body of
waters which make up the ocean is compared to Suchness, and the wind
that stirs up the waves to the principle of birth-and-death or
ignorance which is the same thing. So we read in the _Lankâvatâra
Sûtra_:
{130}
“Like unto the ocean-waves,
Which by a raging storm maddened
Against the rugged precipice strike
Without interruption;
Even so in the Alaya-sea
Stirred by the objectivity-wind
All kinds of mentation-waves
Arise a-dancing, a-rolling.”[60]
But all the psychical activities thus brought into full view, should
not be conceived as different from the Mind (_citta_) itself. It is
merely in the nature of our understanding that we think of attributes
apart from their substance, the latter being imagined to be in
possession and control of the former. There is, however, in fact no
substance _per se_, independent of its attributes, and no attributes
detached from that which unites them. And this is one of the
fundamental conceptions of Buddhism, that there is no soul-in-itself
considered apart from its various manifestations such as imagination,
sensation, intellectuation, etc. The innumerable ripples and waves and
billows of mentation that are stirred in the depths of the
Tathâgata-Garbha, are not things foreign or external to it, but they
are all particular expressions of the same essence, they are working
out its immanent destiny. So continues the _Lankâvatâra Sûtra_:
{131}
“The saline crystal and its red-bluishness,
The milky sap and its sweetness,
Various flowers and their fruits,
The sun and the moon and their luminosity:
These are neither separable nor inseparable.
As waves are stirred in the water,
Even so the seven modes of mentation
Are awakened in the Mind and united with it.
When the waters are troubled in the ocean,
We have waves that roll each in its own way:
So with the Mind All-Conserving.
When stirred, therein diverse mentations arise:
Citta, Manas, and Manovijñâna.
These we distinguish as attributes,
In substance they differ not from each other;
For they are neither attributing nor attributed.
The sea-water and the waves,
One varies not from the other:
It is even so with the Mind and its activities;
Between them difference nowhere obtains.
Citta is karma-accumulating,
Manas reflects an objective world,
Manovijñâna is the faculty of judgment,
The five Vijñânas are the differentiating senses.”[61]
{132}
_The Manas._
The Âlayavijñâna which is sometimes, as in the preceding quotations,
simply called _citta_ (mind), is, as such, no more than a state of
Suchness, allowing itself to be influenced by the principle of
birth-and-death, i.e., by Ignorance; and there has in it taken place
as yet no “awakening” or “stirring up” (_vṛtti_), from which results a
consciousness. When the Manas is evolved, however, we have a sign of
mentality thereby set in motion, for the Manas, according to the
Mahâyânists, marks the dawn of consciousness in the universe.
The Manas, deriving its reason of consciousness from the Citta or
Âlaya, reflects on it as well as on an external world, and becomes
conscious of the distinction between me and not-me. But since this
not-I or external world is nothing but an unfoldment of the Âlaya
itself, the Manas must be said really to be self-reflecting, when it
discriminates between subject and object. If the Âlaya is not yet
conscious of itself, the Manas is, as the latter comes to realise the
state of self-awareness. The Âlaya is perhaps to be compared in a
sense to the Kantian “ego of transcendental apperception”; while the
Manas is the actual center of self-consciousness. But the Manas and
the Âlaya (or Citta) are not two different things in the sense that
one emanates from the other or that one is created by the other. It is
better to understand {133} the Manas as a state or condition of the
Citta in its evolution.
Now, the Manas is not only contemplative, but capable of volition. It
awakens the desire to cling to the state of individuation, it harbors
egoism, passion, and prejudice; it wills and creates: for Ignorance,
the principle of birth-and-death, is there in its full force, and the
absolute identity of Suchness is here forever departed. Therefore, the
Manas really marks the beginning of concrete, particularising
consciousness-waves in the eternal ocean of the All-Conserving Mind.
The mind which was hitherto indifferent and neutral here acquires a
full consciousness; discriminates between ego and non-ego; feels pain
and pleasure; clings to that which is agreeable and shrinks from that
which is disagreeable; urges activities according to judgments, false
or truthful; memorises what has been experienced, and stores it
all:--in short, all the modes of mentation come into play with the
awakening of the Manas.
According to Açvaghoṣa, with the evolution of the Manas there arise
five important psychical activities which characterise the human mind.
They are: (1) motility, that is the capability of creating karma; (2)
the power to perceive; (3) the power to respond; (4) the power to
discriminate; and (5) individuality. Through the exercise of these
five functions, the Manas is able to create according to its will, to
be a perceiving subject, to respond to the stimuli of an external
world, to deliver judgments {134} over what it likes and what it
dislikes, and finally to retain all its own “karma-seeds” in the past
and to mature them for the future, according to circumstances.
With the advent of the Manas, the evolution of the Citta is complete.
Practically, it is the consummation of mentality, for
self-consciousness is ripe now. The will can affirm its ego-centric,
dualistic activities, and the intellect can exercise its
discriminating, reasoning, and image-retaining faculties. The Manas
now becomes the center of psychic coördination. It receives messages
from the six senses and pronounces over the impressions whatever
judgments, intellectual or volitional, which are needed at the time
for its own conservation. It also reflects on its own sanctum, and,
perceiving there the presence of the Âlaya, wrongfully jumps to the
conclusion that herein lies the real, ultimate ego-soul, from which it
derives the notions of authority, unity, and permanency.
As is evident, the Manas is a double-edged sword. It may destroy
itself by clinging to the error of ego-conception, or it may, by a
judicious exercise of its reasoning faculty, destroy all the
misconceptions that arise from a wrong interpretation of the principle
of Ignorance. The Manas destroys itself by being overwhelmed by the
dualism of _ego_ and _alter_, by taking them for final, irreducible
realities, and by thus fostering absolute ego-centric thoughts and
desires, and by making itself a willing prey of an indomitable egoism,
religiously and morally. On the other hand, when it {135} sees an
error in the conception of the absolute reality of individuals, when
it perceives a play of Ignorance in the dualism of me and not-me, when
it recognises the _raison d’être_ of existence in the essence of
Tathâgatahood, i.e., in Suchness, when it realises that the Âlaya
which is mistaken for the ego is no more than an innocent and
irreproachable reflection of the cosmic Garbha, it at once transcends
the sphere of particularity and becomes the very harbinger of eternal
enlightenment.
Buddhists, therefore, do not see any error or evil in the evolution of
the Mind (_âlaya_). There is nothing faulty in the awakening of
consciousness, in the dualism of subject and object, in the
individualising operation of birth-and-death (_samsâra_), only so
long as our Manas keeps aloof from the contamination of false egoism.
The gravest error, however, permeates every fiber of our mind with all
its wickedness and irrationality, as soon as the nature of the
evolution of the Âlaya is wrongfully interpreted by the abuse of the
functions of the Manas.[62]
{136}
Though Mahâyânism most emphatically denies the existence of a personal
ego which is imagined to be lodging within the body and to be the
spiritual master of it, it does not necessarily follow that it denies
the unity of consciousness or personality or individuality. In fact,
the assumption of Manovijñâna by Buddhists most conclusively proves
that they have an ego in a sense, the denial of whose empirical
existence is tantamount to the denial of the most concrete facts of
our daily experiences. What is most persistently negated by them is
not the existence of ego, but its final, ultimate reality. But to
discuss this subject more fully we have a special chapter below
devoted to “Âtman.”
_The Sâmkhya Philosophy and Mahâyânism._
If we draw a comparison between the Sâmkhya philosophy and Mahâyânism,
the Âlayavijñâna may {137} be considered an unification of Soul
(_puruṣa_) and Nature (_prakṛtî_), and the Manovijñâna a combination
of Buddhi (intellect) or Mahat (great element) with Ahankâra (ego).
According to the _Sâmkhyakârika_ (11), the essential nature of Prakṛtî
is the power of creation, or, to use Buddhist phraseology, it is blind
activity; while that of Puruṣa is witnessing (_sakṣitvâ_) and
perceiving (_drastṛtvâ_). (_The Kârika_, 19.) A modern philosopher
would say, Puruṣa is intelligence and Prakṛtî the will; and when they
are combined and blended in one, they make Hartmann’s _Unbewusste
Geist_ (unconscious spirit). The All-Conserving Mind (_Âlaya_) in a
certain sense resembles the Unconscious, as it is the manifestation of
Suchness, the principle of enlightenment, in its evolutionary aspect
as conditioned by Ignorance; and Ignorance apparently {138} corresponds
to the will as the principle of blind activity. The Sâmkhya philosophy
is an avowed dualism and permits the existence of two principles
independent of each other. Mahâyânism is fundamentally monistic and
makes Ignorance merely a condition necessary to the unfolding of
Suchness.[63] Therefore, what the Sâmkhya splits into two, Mahâyânism
puts together in one.
So is the parallelism between the Manovijñâna, and Buddhi and Ahankâra.
Buddhi, intellect, is defined as _adhyavasâya_ (_Kârika_, 23), while
Ahankâra is interpreted as _abhimanas_ (_Kârika_, 24), which is
evidently self-consciousness. As to the exact meaning of _adhyavasâya_,
there is a divergence of opinion: “ascertainment,” “judgment,”
“determination,” “apprehension” are some of the English equivalents
chosen for it. But the inner signification of Buddhi is clear enough;
it indicates the awakening of knowledge, the dawn of rationality, the
first shedding of light on the dark recesses of unconsciousness; so
the commentators give as the synonyms _mati_ (understanding), _khyâti_
(cognition), _jñânam_, _prajñâ_, etc., the last two of these, which
mean knowledge or intelligence, being also technical terms of
Mahâyânism. And, as we have seen above, these senses are what the
Buddhists give to their Manovijñâna, save that the {139} latter in
addition has the faculty of discriminating between _teum_ and _meum_,
while in the Sâmkhya this is reserved for Ahankâra. Thus, here, too,
in place of the Sâmkhya dualism, we have the Buddhist unity.
Another point we have to take notice here in comparing the two great
Hindu religio-philosophical systems, is that the Sâmkhya philosophy
pluralises the Soul (_puruṣa_, _Kârika_, 18), while Buddhism
postulates one universal Citta or Âlaya. According to the followers
of Kapila, therefore, there must be as many souls as there are
individuals, and at every departure or advent of an individual there
must be assumed a corresponding soul passing away or coming into
existence, though we do not know its whence and whither. Buddhism, on
the other hand, denies the existence of any individual mind apart from
the All-Conserving Mind (_Âlaya_) which is universal. Individuality
first appears at the awakening of the Manovijñâna. The quintessence
of the Mind is Suchness and is not subject to the limitations of time
and space as well as the law of causation. But as soon as it asserts
itself in the world of particularisation, it negates itself thereby,
and, becoming specialised, gives rise to individual souls.[64]