Audio recorded at Tibetan Buddhist Institute, Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. In this 65-minute teaching, Ilia S. Durovic and a senior teacher (identified as Geshela) examine the nature of the Alaya Vijñāna through Cittamātra philosophical analysis, beginning with why it is neutral rather than virtuous or non-virtuous. They establish two key reasons: first, because it holds both virtuous and non-virtuous karmic imprints, and second, because its neutrality allows it to function with either virtuous or non-virtuous mental states. The discussion then shifts to whether virtue and non-virtue themselves can occur simultaneously, moving beyond the earlier point that virtuous and non-virtuous minds cannot. Through careful debate with students, the teachers distinguish between virtuous and non-virtuous minds (which are necessarily consciousness) and virtuous and non-virtuous deeds (which need not be). They explore paradoxes: a deed like lying is non-virtuous speech, yet speech is matter, not consciousness. The example of a bodhisattva committing killing through mantra while simultaneously engaging in refuge and virtuous practice demonstrates that virtuous and non-virtuous deeds can occur in the same continuum, even if virtuous and non-virtuous minds cannot. Pitched at practitioners with some training in Buddhist logic and Cittamātra philosophy.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 30052017Cittamatra – KR.mp3
UUID: 50e3a29a-87a0-4489-94bc-5d91028948de
Teacher: Ilia S. Durovic
Collection: Karma
Recorded at: Tibetan Buddhist Institute, Adelaide
Words: ~2,601
So Geshela will now be commenting the two verses on page four of your root text because of engaging manifestly the virtuous and non virtuous in one continuum. So here what is being addressed is the third of the four subdivisions of the presentation of the Alaya Vijñāna, which as you remember were the presentation of the object of observation, the aspect, the nature and the associates. So the nature of the Alaya Vijñāna is stated in the verses on page four of the root text, because of engaging manifestly the virtuous and non virtuous in one continuum, it is established as unstained and neutral. In other words, it is neutral. So in as much as it is neither virtuous, no non virtuous because it engages both, it is or neutral, and there are two reasons for this.
So the two reasons are as follows. The first reason is at the beginning of the third stanza on page four, because of being the basis suffused with imprints. In as much as the imprints are either virtuous or non virtuous, then the Alāyavijñāna is neutral, and the second reason is given in the two following verses. Now the reason for which based on this first reason, the Alaya Vijñāna is a neutral mind is that if it were a virtuous mind in as much as it is also infused with non virtuous karmic imprints, this would be unsuitable, and if it were a non virtuous mind, in as much as it is also suffused with virtuous karmic imprints, this would be unsuitable, therefore it must be neutral. Example should make this clear.
When it is very hot outside, it is not comfortable for us to go outside, nor is it comfortable for us to go outside when it’s very cold outdoors. Actually, is when it is neither very hot nor very cold that we are comfortable in going outside. So this is the first reason for which the Alaya Vijñāna is neutral. And the second reason is that if the Alaya Vijñāna were virtuous, then it would have to be virtuous continually. If in other words, it was a virtuous mind, then it would be continually virtuous and could never become anything else.
If on the other hand, it were a non virtuous mind, it would be continually non virtuous and could never be anything else. Therefore, it is necessarily neutral. So this is why it is neutral, because if it is neutral, then it can operate when virtuous states of mind are present, and it can also operate when non virtuous states of mind are present. If it were, for instance, non virtuous, then it would have to be continually non virtuous, which it is not. So the Alaya Vijñāna, the mind basis of all is a stable mind, therefore, that does not mean that it is permanent from within the division of permanent and impermanent minds.
And as it is neutral, then it can operate when virtuous states of mind are present, and it can also operate when non virtuous states of mind are present. So the two reasons therefore are given in the third stanza on page four, the first is because of being the base suffused with the imprints, and the second is because of engaging manifestly, the virtuous and non virtuous in one continuum. And this demonstrates that the Alaya Vijñāna is neutral. The term used here is drup, established in Tibetan. This does not refer to as attainment, the attainment of full enlightenment or liberation, but merely to the demonstration of logical proof.
So the reason for which the neutrality of the Alaya Vijñāna was explained is because we will need this concept to understand the definition of the Alaya Vijñāna. And for the definition, we will need to rely not only on the nature, but also on the object of observation of the Alaya Vijñāna. So here, when we refer to imprints in the third verse on Page four, actually, one refers as well to seats. And later on, the distinction between the supporting and the supported Alaya Vijñāna will be made clear, supported Alaya Vijñāna are the seeds. So therefore, as is said, because of engaging the virtuous and non virtuous in one continuum, and this second reason, is given for the neutrality of the Alaya Vijñāna, leads us to having to understand the distinction between virtuous and non virtuous mind.
Here, it is important to point out that the Alaya Vijñāna cannot engage simultaneously virtuous and non virtuous mind, precisely because it is neutral. What instance, what example can you give of a non virtuous mind? Stealing is not an all virtuous mind. Seething mind. Yes.
Okay. Okay. That’s okay. Why are these not virtuous minds? In other words, their results create only problems.
Mhmm. Unpleasant results. Right? And we have a lot of experience with non virtuous minds being in our mind stream, don’t we? What instances do you give of virtuous minds?
Generosity. Generosity. Another? So why is generosity a virtuous mood? Because we experience happiness as a result of the activity.
When you die, you detach from the, you know, let go. This is supposed to be the attachment. Let go of attachment. Okay. So today, I mentioned that we do not engage simultaneously virtuous and non virtuous minds.
Why? What is the reason? Non virtuous minds are not necessarily angry minds. Are many types of non virtuous minds. So then if you’re going to say that virtuous minds and non virtuous minds cannot be present at the same time, which is what we said, are you saying that main minds give us, that virtuous minds are necessarily That virtuous minds are necessarily main minds.
They’re necessarily consciousness, that’s clear, right? Are they necessarily main minds? We agree that virtue must be consciousness. Do you say that all virtues are consciousnesses? First you agree, then you change your mind.
Then whether they’re engaged simultaneously has to be examined. Then think about it, does virtue have to be consciousness or not? Does non virtue have to be consciousness or not? Yes. Both.
Virtue and non virtue, both are necessary consciousness. Yes. All the same? The same. Think about it by yourselves, right?
Is it virtue from the power of the object? A stupa isn’t conscious but it’s virtuous because it can create virtue in a conscious mind but it is not necessarily conscious. How can a stupa be Because from the from the power of the object itself. So how could a stupa be virtuous? Obviously, can calculate great merits through relying on a stupa, but a stupa is a thing.
It’s an object. Just like the statues of Buddha Śākyamūni behind that, they are not virtuous. It’s matter. Virtues are connected with some mental continuum. The stupa and the statues of Buddha Śākyamūni are not connected with some mental continuum.
It’s outside, out there. Right? If there’s nothing out there. Virtue and non virtue are dependent on the motivation, then they are necessarily consciousness. Have a go.
I’ve written down the main mind as being that mind that apprehends an object. So it’s a mere knower of the entity of an object. So does that indicate that it doesn’t have virtue or non virtue? It’s a neutral mind because it’s the Main mind is always neutral is what you’re saying. Sensory consciousnesses and mental consciousness.
So main minds can have virtuous mental factors, or non virtuous mental factors. Main minds are not necessarily sensory consciousnesses, there are main minds which are mental consciousnesses. So you’re saying that virtue and non virtue is necessarily consciousness. Virtue has no form then. If virtue had formed, obviously it would be inappropriate.
Then the issue becomes that of the status of karmic imprints, which are neutral as we said. I was thinking about it in terms of substantial causes. So if we define virtue as that which leads to happiness, non virtue is that which leads to unhappiness, and if happiness and unhappiness are states of mind, then the substantial causes must be also of the nature of mind, And therefore, virtue and non virtue must be of the nature of mind if they are to act as substantial causes for happiness and Okay. So actually, virtue can have form. You remember that in Chitamatra, karmic imprints are neither virtuous nor non virtuous, because they are the supported ālaya vijnana, which is neutral.
So karmic imprints are neutral, right? So let’s take an example. When we take refuge vows, then we pledge to abstain from the 10 non virtuous deeds. We pledge to train in ethics, which is an abstention of the 10 non virtuous deeds. The opposite of these is the 10 virtuous deeds.
Then there’s a variety of these, isn’t there? So, you’ve said to me that non virtues non virtues are necessarily consciousnesses. Please give me the 10 non virtues. So let’s take put aside for the time being the three non virtuous deeds of the body, the four of speech. Lying, divisive speech, harsh words, and idle talk.
These are all speech, right? They all matter. But it’s not the deed itself, it’s the motivation that is virtuous or non virtuous. So, okay, we’ve got a non virtuous motivation, then on the base of that non virtuous motivation, one engages in line or divisive speech. Now there’s nothing apart from speech with lying or divisive speech, right?
So, now that we have established that non virtue is not necessarily consciousness, in the case of lying and of harsh words, then the opposite of these non virtues, which are virtues, it’s already been proven that they are not consciousness. Good. Do you understand? Mhmm. Yeah.
Not quite, Geshela, I don’t quite understand, because there is a mind behind the speech. Yes. Because based based on a non virtuous motivation, one lies and the lying becomes a non virtuous deed. I think Andrew was meaning therefore because there’s consciousness involved in making the sounds therefore it can’t be matter. What can’t be matter?
Speech. Then let us take also the example within the three non virtuous deeds of the body of killing or murder. This is a non virtuous deed of the body. Can it occur simultaneously with a virtuous state of mind? So what is said in the treatises is that virtuous minds and non virtuous minds do not occur simultaneously.
What we are debating about is whether virtue and non virtue, set aside minds, occur simultaneously or can occur simultaneously or not. Okay. So let us now meditate during a couple of minutes on the following issue. It should be clear that virtuous minds and non virtuous minds cannot occur simultaneously. However, once we have established that virtue is not necessarily consciousness, and non virtue is not necessarily consciousness, is it possible for virtue and non virtue to occur simultaneously?
Please open the text, page one. So there was a question last time, what in Chitamatra the cooperative condition of the sixth mental consciousness was? Then if we take the case of the visual consciousness perceiving this table, this visual consciousness induces a mental consciousness, and this visual consciousness is the cooperative condition of the mental consciousness it induces. Sensory consciousnesses induce mental consciousnesses. Then the second topic is, as you know, in Cittamātra, all form is of the nature of mind.
And in Asaṇga’s Mahāyāna Saṃgraha, examples are given for this, which include dreams and reflections. Then you have received a handout or translation of this section from the Mahāyāna Saṃgraha. Please read it carefully and Geshela will explain this next week. So as is said explicitly in the root text of Lama Tsongkhapa’s, stanza three, page four, because of engaging manifesting the virtuous and non virtuous in one continuum. This clearly implies that virtuous and non virtuous minds are not simultaneous.
However, the question which we brought up today is whether virtue and non virtue can be simultaneous or not. Yes or no? Yes. Union? No.
Okay. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.
I think there is an example in the text about somebody who healed in order to stop a massacre. Lying to a hunter who is in chase of rabbits. Lying to a hunter who is in chase of rabbits. It’s both virtuous and non virtuous. Yes.
What’s the virtue? Preventing the rabbits from dying. Preventing the rabbits from dying. And which one? Non virtue.
Non virtue is lying. Another? Somebody chasing killing you know, chasing another one escape, and then the person who saw that person, you know, hiding, and then the one who asked the person about the other one Just whether they see it, and then then he just lie. He say that direction. Bodhisattva who uses harsh speech as skillful means.
I need clean, you know? So So Geshe says, I need a pure example, pure example. And the one he would give is the following. Let us imagine that someone goes, in this case for instance to a monk, and says to him, I need to have so and so killed. And the monk then uses mantra to kill the person from a distance, and it takes a long time.
So he recites mantra to kill the person, but in the meantime, takes refuge and engages also in virtuous practices. Then clearly, when the person is killed as a result of the mantra, then this murder occurs independent of it on a non virtuous motivation. So it is a non virtuous deed, right? But it’s happened at the same time as a virtuous deed. You all understand?
Obviously, if he kills him with mantra at the end of the day, then it’s not clear whether there will be the time for virtue to occur. That’s why in this example, it must be a long process. So definitely this happens. It’s a lot of food for thought in this episode, because you have one person who directly orders the death of another, and another who indirectly causes it. So numerous factors are required for the death.
Do you all understand? Does it make sense? So what’s the virtue The virtue here is that this person is thinking of karma, refuge and so forth at that time. And what’s the non virtue? The non virtue is that And the non virtue is obviously killing by mantra.
Then here you have to examine what the nature of this non virtue is, it’s not mind, but is it form or is it a non associative compositional factor? What is the definition of virtue? Action that leads to happiness. Is there definiteness that an action leading to virtue to happiness is necessarily virtuous? So, there are generosities motivated by non virtues, by the afflictions.
And if we engage in generosity with such a motivation, it leads to the happiness of the other person, but is that virtuous or not? When you say that, take the example of generosity, that the result of a virtuous deed of generosity is happiness, is it happiness for the other party or happiness for oneself? I would suggest it’s happiness for oneself. So let us at present have discussion or debate. It seems clear that virtuous and non virtuous minds cannot be simultaneous.
Can virtue and non virtue be simultaneous or not? And why? Okay. Generally speaking, the examples you gave were good. The example of Buddha Śākyamūni as Mahakarunika, who saved the 500 merchants is a good example, but none of you clearly explained what is virtuous and what is non virtuous.
Okay, please.