 I have the honor to chair this kind of session today mostly because, you know, we distributed different lectures between us and I already knew professor Nobiyoshi Yamabe from his art-historical work, which of course was interesting for me. He studied in Osaka and I think already there he got the kind of seed of his Yogeshara interest, but then also did the PhD, the doctoral degree at Yale University and they have worked on a different subject, namely the visualization sutra. And I think these two areas kind of remain this kind of main focus with the link between them is the connection to practical meditation in both doctrine, how doctrine reflects practical meditation and also how art for example reflects practical meditation experiences. And I think this kind of broad perspective on Buddhism, deriving from India, being practiced in Central Asia and China as well, is kind of reflected, for example, in the two latest works that I know of, one for example on the Kuntura cave 75, a kind of reconstruction or digital restoration of its paintings and an examination of relevant motifs and inscriptions that came out fairly recently. And actually two days ago a Yogeshara art degree came out that is called Alaya Jnana from a practical point of view at the channel of Indian philosophy and I think that demonstrates the broad range of his expertise. And so I'm looking forward to the talk today, Successive Causality and Simultaneous Causality in the Yogeshara Theory of the Beja. Welcome. So thank you very much Dr. Ruzanis for your very kind introduction and thank you everybody for your participation in the middle of this snowy weather. And so this morning also I talked about some other, some data development of the Yogeshara Art Theory of the Beja and now I'd like to talk about some other aspect of the Beja theory, namely Successive Causality and Simultaneous Causality. Okay, so these are all famous triads of the important figures in the early Yogeshara history in Hokwendo or chapel in Kofukuji in Nara. And the central figure is Maitreya and to your right you see Asanga and to your left you see Vassbandu there as you know important brothers. And this is Maitreya and this is of course a legendary figure and he's a boy satva in Toshita and he's practicing to be the next Bunda and this is Asanga and this is a famous sculpture by important artist Unke in the early Kamakura period and so obviously he had no idea, he must have had no idea about how Asanga and Vassbandu looked like but if you compare these two persons and this is Asanga and this is Vassbandu and you know they are different, represented quite differently I think and Vassbandu you know doesn't really look like a friendly person, he looks like a very difficult and argumentative person and you know I think probably he was this kind of person jutting from his Abhidharma Koshia etc. And Asanga looks like you know more profound and calm spiritual type of figure and I think he was indeed this kind of person he had deep meditative experience and according to the tradition he using his meditative power clear ascended to the Toshita heaven and encountered Maitreya and received teachings from Maitreya yeah so I think Japanese artist had a good idea of the characters different personalities of these two important religious figures. Okay and Asanga wrote many important treatises but I've listed only the three works that are directly relevant to this talk and the first one is obviously the Yogacara Bhumi and Yogacara Bhumi is not exactly Asanga's original work because according to tradition this is teaching he was given by Maitreya so in East Asian tradition Yogacara Bhumi is usually attributed to Maitreya himself but anyway both according to the tradition and East Asian tradition it was Asanga who received Yogacara Bhumi and disseminated in the human world and Hayama Sangra and Abhidharma Samujje I'm sorry I missed the H here just be in the H and these two Asanga's original and theoretical works and Yogacara Bhumi according to the modern scholarship particularly by a professor Arametsu Shimitazen this is not work coherent work written by a single author and this is compilation of some historical development and so this has some all the elements and younger elements as I discussed this morning and it consists of the these five sections basic section Vinisha Sangrahani and Vibram Sangrahani and Pariyaya Sangrahani and Vas Sangrahani and for this talk direct relevant portion is the first two chapters Pancha, Viginalakaya Samplita Bhumi and Mano Bhumi in the basic section and Rambhava Shimitazen you know published many important works about Yogacara Buddhism and this is one of his representative works and according to professor Shimitazen there are at least three straight of the Yogacara Bhumi and the oldest portion is part of the basic section in particular Shravaka Bhumi is a chapter discussing the traditional practice of auditors and then both at the Bhumi obviously discussing the practice of Mahayana Sattva and then Vas Sangrahani and this is sort of commentarial portion on Sanyukta Agama one of the traditional Agamas and then the second there is the other parts of the basic section and and then the youngest there is the Vinisha Sangrahani okay and the talk today is based on this paper of myself a visual successful causality and a simultaneous causality in Shravaka Bhumi and in this book and so if you're interested and this paper is available at this academia site so you can download it freely okay as you know the established system of Yogacara has eight kinds of consciousness and first is Chakshur Viznayana visual consciousness and Shrotra Viznayana auditory consciousness and the grand Viznayana you know the sense of smell and jiva Viznayana sense of taste and kaya Viznayana are you know tactile sensations and then Manu Viznayana this is a judging mind and then Krista Manas defined mind this is subliminal ego consciousness and then other Viznayana you know often called storehouse consciousness that stores all the records of your past experiences and according to the Panchaviznayana kaya Samplekta Bhuni of the basic section the very first chapter of the Yogacara Bhuni it says as follows let me read just English translation what is the basis for the eye consciousness there are three bases the first one is co-existing basis that is the visual faculty of the eye so Induria for Viznayana to arise there must be Induria that supports Viznayana and that is the first Arshuraya basis and the second basis is Samanantara Arshuraya the preceding basis and that is Manas and this is Manas in the traditional sense namely consciousness that's a past in the preceding moment yeah because the preceding moment past is the succeeding moment takes place and that is the traditional epidemic system of consciousness and then the third basis is the seed basis Vizha Arshuraya and seed basis is Arre Viznayana which contains all seeds physiologically maintains the body and is comprised in karmic maturation yeah so for all the five sense consciousness you know they are similar descriptions of three types of Arshurayas and then for Mano Viznayana mind there are only two bases Arshuraya Khattamaha there are Samanantara Arshuraya and Vizya Arshuraya Samanantara Arshuraya is the preceding basis is Manas the same thing so the mind of the consciousness of the preceding moment and then the seed basis is as described above Arre Viznayana that contains all seeds so which means that for Mano Viznayana there is no material faculty in Durya so there are only two bases yeah and this is found in Mano, MVH stands for Mano Bhumi so the second chapter of the basic section okay and then you know Kervishu room and so once again Vassbandu and okay so Vassbandu wrote many texts but for this purpose for the purpose of this talk and the directory relevant text is this Trish Kavijin Tamattara Siddhi 30 verses on consciousness only and this is a concise text and he didn't write commentary by himself so there are different interpretations and according to the East Asian tradition ten masters wrote ten separate commentaries and among those ten masters the best known ones are these two Dermapara and the Stramity and there are obviously eight others and then just famous master Shwanzang went all the way from China to India to study Yogachara Buddhism and after his return to China again according to the East Asian tradition first Shwanzang thought that he should translate these ten commentaries separately and but then one of his major disciples, Tsuen Fash, suggested that if you different ten different commentaries separately it will only confuse people so you should compile these ten different commentary into a single text and you should clearly show that which is the correct interpretation and which is the wrong interpretation so that you know the text would not confuse later people and Shwanzang accepted that suggestion so he compiled you know one single text and that is the Chan Weishu Long and this is a Chinese text but probably the Sanskrit Shwanzang had in mind is also vision of the Matala Siddhi and obviously this text exists only in Chinese and this is for the tradition set and so if you look at the text of this Chan Weishu Long indeed often we find a few different interpretations you know juxtaposed and so first interpretation is this and second interpretation is and the third interpretation is this and usually the last interpretation is the one that is regarded to be the correct interpretation by the fashion school and so it appears that indeed this is a compilation of several different commentaries and however I'm not totally convinced by this tradition and I discussed that point in this Japanese paper and what I said is that if you look at this Vibrator Guthier of the Pindaviyake the anonymous commentary on the Mahayana Sangra that I discussed this morning in this Vibrator Guthier of the Pindaviyake also often times a few different theories juxtaposed on the same question so my suspicion is that perhaps you know just giving different interpretations on the same issue with the style of later Yogachara text in India and so my suspicion again this is just suspicion but just Tsuen-Fa-Shu you know wanted to claim that he only he knows the what's a secret of Yogachara you know so if you want to understand the essence of Yogachara you have to come to me and receive my teaching yeah so so what he says on this matter is not totally reliable that's my suspicion anyhow according to the Chame-Shu run concerning the seed basis we find this argument ah let me read the English translation with regard to the first seed basis B.J. Shureya someone maintains as photos only after the seed perishes can the effect arises because the Abhidharma Samuchaya you know one of Asanga's text says our reason without seed abhija panna and because seeds and sprouts and those and so forth cannot coexist when we see a sprout the seed is no more existent you know so first cause and then result so cause and result cannot coexist this is the first opinion so this is the successive causality theory right and then as I maintain this is the second opinion their reasoning is not conclusive because the passage they quote concerns the generation of subsequent seed because it is not the ultimate truth that the seed gives rise to a sprout and so forth and because it has not been established that the sprout arises after the seed perishes since a flame and a weak are simultaneous and cause each other so it is not necessarily the case that you know cause must precede the result sometimes cause and result can coexist like flame and a weak right so this is a second opinion and they continue the causality between successive seeds themselves is not simultaneous but the mutual generation of potential seeds and actual as elements is definitely simultaneous therefore the Yogachara boomi states an impermanent elements causes another element parababa and also causes the same element in the subsequent moment this is what generative cause het platia means here the same element indicates that among the seeds themselves a previous one causes subsequent one another element call shows that the seed and the corresponding actualized element mutually cause each other so it is something like this you know in Buddhism everything is impermanent and nothing lasts forever so one moment of visa seed perishes and then it must give rise to the same visa in the succeed you know subsequent moment and so forth so the causality between the preceding visa and the following visa are obviously successive but in terms of the visa and the corresponding Dharma visa according to the established system of Yogachara visa causes actual Dharma and they can coexist because they you know they correspond to each other but they are not exactly the same thing so they can coexist yeah so this is what the text is saying here then the Mahayana Sangraha another Asangra's work also states Arya Vijayan and defiled elements mutually cause each other they coexist like a band of reeds it also states states and I'm sorry seeds and their fruit always coexist so the same thing you know seed and result is Dharma and they coexist therefore the seed basis is definitely neither prior nor posterior to its fruit if some text says that seeds and their fruit are successive they are expedient teachings and they are not the ultimate teaching and thus the eight types of consciousness and their mental functions definitely have their respective seed basis yeah so all the vijñāna and chaitas have respective bījās okay so in this Chhāma-e-shūra you know regarding the bījās Shri Ayyā found in Yogachara Bhumi Chhāma-e-shūra gives two different interpretations and the first interpretation is successive causality so bījā and its fruit cannot coexist and the second interpretation simultaneous causality bījā and its fruit coexist and successive causality is compared to the relationship between a seed and a sprout and the simultaneous causality is compared to a flame and a weak or a band of reeds they cause each other and exist together okay and I discussed it yeah so so here my starting point is Chhāma-e-shūra on which I said it's a Chinese text but it was a compilation or translation by Shwanzang and obviously Shwanzang was well familiar with India Ayyogachara arguments so even though this is a Chinese text it is very likely that it reflects India argument and I discussed something similar in this this is on different topic but another aspect of the bījā theory I try to trace the sources of some controversy found in Chhāma-e-shūra into Indian Ayyogachara texts and I think something similar can be observed here as well okay so first let's see a passage is quoted in support of the successive causality theory and the first passage quoted in the Chhāma-e-shūra is this in a bit of a sumptuous and the original Sanskrit is very concise only this Sabi again sorry there should be no background oh sorry Sabi-jot panna and Abi-jot panna and the Chhāma-e-shūra says this one and so what has a reason accompanied by a seed and what has a reason unaccompanied by a seed and what does it mean and according to the Abhidharma Samu Chay Varsha commentary on this Abhidharma Samu Chay we find this explanation what has a reason accompanied by a seed means the elements other than the last scandals of an arhat and what has a reason unaccompanied by seeds means the last scandals of an arhat okay so the scandals in the last moment of arhat has special meaning how so because just after the last moment means the last moment of his life so the next moment is Nirvana completely Nirvana without remainder so there is no next moment for the last moment of arhat because if it's not arhat even if you die there will be reincarnation so this is not the end but if you are arhat you have severed all the creations so no next life so the last moment is really the last moment so no subsequent moment so it's a Samu Chay exit so as I said for example so in the case of Rupa Skanda Rupa Skanda is also momentary so it must be succeeded by the next moment Rupa Skanda so here Rupa is at the same time Bija in the sense that it gives rise to the succeeding Rupa and and so on but this is the last moment and so there is no next moment if you if an arhat enters Nirvana so the last moment Rupa is not Bija that's what this text is saying yeah so which clearly shows that Bija in this context means that something is capable of generating the same thing recreating the same thing in the previous and the successive moment right so this is clearly a successive causality theory yeah and so our Chinese show runs the interpretation of this Abhidharma Samu Chay passage is that when the result arises the cause has already perished like seasons plus and Abhidharma Samu Chay verses the interpretation is that the scanners of the last moment of arhat do not function as sees of the subsequent moment so the interpretation is a bit different between these two texts I think and this is the original connotation original meaning of this Abhidharma Panna expression and then our argument about successive causality and simultaneous causality and successive causality and simultaneous causality is actually one of the popular topics in India Buddhism and for example we find a relevant discussion in this text Chanshalon Tattwasindy and this is attributed to some Indian master Harry Balban by name is and this is a bit obscure text but probably close to the tradition of Darshtantika which is one of some unorthodox masters among the surpassed by the community and the text says also for what reason the material visible elements and so forth arise from hardness and the earth element and so forth but not hardness from material elements or in addition since the hardness and material elements co-arides how can we say that material elements and so forth are caused by hardness and so forth but hardness and force are not caused by material elements and so forth further co-existing elements cannot mutually cause each other so basically this text seems to be against the simultaneous causality theory in order to be any two elements or cause and effect you know they can't coexist because if two things are already co-existing one of them cannot really cause the other element like these two horns two horns coexist two horns coexist but we can say that the left and the right horn mutually cause each other question in the case of I guess in this context don means flame and right though they co-arides we also say that the right is called by the flame but not the flame is called by the right the matter of material elements and hardness etc should be understood in the same way and so this is a critique and the answer of Tato Sidi is as follows a flame and right are not separate thus there is no causality between them a flame consists of two elements visible and tangible element because a visible element is identical to the right it can be separate from the flame thus there can be no causality between them you have not clearly thought about this seemingly so even though flame and right seems to be an example of simultaneous causality it is not the case question there are still other co-arising elements that become cause and effect in addition to the examples mentioned above for example with respect to tangible object consciousness is caused by the visual faculty of the eye and visual element yeah so chakshul vijnana is caused by chakshul induria and rupa as a cognitive object but the eye and visual element are not caused by the consciousness not vice versa so this is not idealist text so cognitive object is not a product of your visual consciousness and that's what this opponent says and the answer is this is not the case the eye consciousness is caused by the preceding mind and conditioned by the eye and visual element because the mind perishes earlier how can the cause and effect call arise and also the word if we see arise from homogeneous cause for example rise rise grows from rice feet grows from feet likewise earth arises from earth but water and so forth do not arise from earth likewise a visible element arises from a visible element okay so what it says is basically this one so cause must be in the preceding moment so for any chakshul vijnana to arise the generative cause is the preceding moment of the same chakshul vijnana probably and other supporting elements like induria and arambana they coexist but they are not generative cause yeah because they are already there you know the result is already there so this sense faculty and cognitive object are not producing anything further I think yeah so that's what just no text is saying there are no elements associated with the mind for what reason because there are no mental functions what can the mind be associated with also mental aspects like sensations cannot be simultaneous in essence the cause and effect are not simultaneous since the consciousness is a cause of elements like ideation they should not arise therefore there is no association between the mind and mental functions Sarvastvada says that vijnana and chaitas you know coexist and work together associated with each other but this text does not accept that theory therefore there is no association between the mind and mental functions in addition the Buddha states this arises in the profound Dharma of causality that it can arise also just as a grain sprout stem branches leaves flowers and fruit arise in causal succession or consciousness and so and so forth i.e. mental aspect must also arise in succession yeah so even among the mental elements the causality is found only in succession the generative cause and supportive cause in the older straight of the yogachara bhumi and in this passage we have already seen in the morning seminar kimpuva kimpasthia destetra the English translation is as follows question preceded by what based on what and together with what what element arises also preceded by its own seed based on the basis other than the seed basis belonging to the materials in material realms and karma and together with accompanying elements and cognitive object elements tied to the last format material and immaterial realms as well as elements not tied to any world they arise respectively so the key is this first one the first element preceded by kimpuva swavijapuva right and i think in this context kimpuva kimpuva is a question and swavijapuva is an answer and here purva should be taken in its literal sense preceded by something yeah so again in this this is from the sabitaruka sabichara adi bhumi so one of one of the chapters of the basic section and so it is one of the all the elements of the yogachara bhumi and so i think it retains the old bija model and all the bija model was as a model of successive causality the preceding element gives rise to the same element in the next moment and this also i quoted in in this morning uh bija pariyaya punardata etc the equivalent of bija element etc so bija and that are also treated as synonyms and bija i'm sorry that is often in yogachara tradition to be often interpreted in the sense of hate that and hate are the same thing so that means cause and so bija and that are also equivalent and but that as you know is also used in the sense of 18 data 18 elements that constitute sense of being and the surrounding world so every element that constitute our cognitive world function as data i.e. bija in this early system okay and so the same uh understanding is found in this vasangra herring section and this also i mentioned in this morning uh let me read just the English translation in some data are two fold the ones existing by nature so primordial data and the ones enhanced through habitual practice the ones existing by nature for example the 18 data which are seeds staying in their own respective continuities yeah so one of the 18 datas uh so each of the 18 datas function as bija yeah and shravaka boomi also says this is one of the all the layers of the yogachara boomi it says our question among them what are the datas and what is the proficiency in the datas answer datas are 18 and each of these 18 elements arise and emerges from its own data seed and gotra yeah so all of the 18 elements arise from its own data or bija and gotra and we should not hear that shravaka boomi is as i said one of the oldest layers of the yogachara boomi and in this shravaka boomi we don't have idealist element and in the established yogachara theory uh everything including external world arise from the bija stored in our ala vijinyana and but that kind of theory does not exist at this stage there is no ala vijinyana there is no idealism in shravaka boomi but still it says that 18 datas 18 datas obviously uh includes not only internal elements but also external elements everything arise from bija and how can that be possible you know i think what they had in mind is simply that you know each of the 18 datas gives rise to the same element in the next succeeding moment yeah that's all uh this is uh the first chapter of the minister sanghrahani here what is seed it is not the case that a distinct entity separate from the sanskara is called seed the sanskara's existing arising and staying in a certain manner are called seeds and also fruit and for those of you who attended the seminar this morning this is actually section number one of that bija discussion that i omitted this morning and so this you know as we discussed this morning from the section four onward bija was defined as pericarpita swababa avinvesha vasana and and there the text also says that seed is neither identical nor different from darmas but here the text says that uh sanskara's are called seeds and also fruit so bijas are not different from darmas period and uh here no confusion between seeds and fruit is observed with regard to past sanskara's it's called fruit but with regard to the future sanskara's it is called seed thus uh when it is seed with regard to something with regard to the same thing it is not fruit when it is fruit with regard to something with regard to the same thing it is not seed yeah so the model is something like this each of the 18 daughters you know gives rise to the same element in the following moment and with regard to its uh the next uh next moment of the same element uh this is bija and this is para but uh with in this uh relationship the same element uh this is the para of this bija but at the same time this functions as bija to the uh following moment of the same element yeah and uh vinisha sanskara pancha vijana kaya samplecta manobin vinisha also says uh you know the same thing as uh what we have seen in the of darmas samplecta vasha uh that which is a visual fact uh faculty of the eye but not i dato is the last moment of the eye of the arhat uh this is the first possibility of that that you remember is so uh uh so that is called so because it reproduces the same element in the following moment yeah yeah okay so this is the old model and then uh simultaneous causality and uh and there are two sub types of the simultaneous causality theory the first type is this one uh for the generative cause it must precede its result but for supporting cause they can be simultaneous and one example is this one uh in the uh vinisha sanskara pancha if the visual faculty of the eye and the eye conscience have the nature of cause and effect how can they be simultaneous if they are simultaneous how can they have the nature of cause and effect answer uh it is not reasonable that the eye consciousness arises based on the visual faculty of eye like a seed and sprout uh why not uh this is because the eye is not the generative cause of the eye conscience but the supporting cause so induria is only supporting cause it's not a generative cause therefore like a frame and the right uh these two can be a cause and an effect uh while existing simultaneously uh like eye and the eye consciousness here knows a town body and their corresponding consciousness should also be seen in the same way otherwise because there is no basis eye and other types of consciousness can't arise even though they have their own seeds yeah so in this model uh supporting cause uh can be simultaneous and uh this refers to the sense sense faculty induria that coexist with vijinyana but generative cause uh must be the same element in the previous moment they cannot coexist with its result yeah and uh this is uh the theory we saw in the tattva city and sabitarika sabichara dibumi uh it says uh this is uh another passage quoted in the chanwe shiro it says uh even though an impermanent element is a cause of impermanent element it is a cause of another element and of itself in the subsequent moment but not of itself in the same moment and chanwe shiro interprets that uh this another element refers to uh the actualized Dharma and so uh uh para-baba refers to uh you know the relationship between vijya and dharma and the suba-baba refers to uh uh the succession of vijya themselves uh yeah but probably the original meaning is that uh you know each dart is uh you know uh so for something else for example in the in the relationship between induria and vijinyana uh they can be simultaneous but uh for the same element like uh chakshil vijinyana uh no two chakshil vijinyana can coexist so their relationship must be only successive yeah and the second uh subtype is uh vijya and dharma are semi can be simultaneous but the succession uh between vijya and vijya are successive and this is found in mahayana sangraha and this is also quoted in the chanwe shiro uh how they should one understand the simultaneous and mutual causality between that aria vijinyana and those different elements it is just like the arising of a flame and burning the weak of a lamp which are mutually simultaneous uh this is also like a bundle of reads that depend each other and do not fall likewise here also mutual causality should be understood uh aria vijinyana is a cause of differed elements and likewise differed elements are the cause of aria vijinyana just generative cause is established because other generative causes are not observed yeah and here uh vijas are stored in aria vijinyana so this uh obviously uh presupposes in the aria vijinyana theory and after the introduction of aria vijinyana uh there is a separate well for potential vijya and so potential vijya and uh you know active dharma can coexist now this is a later uh model i think and uh also mahayana sangraha quoted in chanwe shiro sees are regarded as momentary co-existing with the fruit continuously operating specific uh relying on conditions and giving rise to their own corresponding uh fruit yeah so uh this is also a discussion between vija and dharma and vija and dharma can be uh co-existing uh the mahayana sangraha says because it presupposes aria vijinyana and so uh in this model uh there is a realm for potential vijas uh separate from the actual dharma so these two can be a simultaneous so this this is different from the aria model so or in conclusion i think uh in the old uh uh portions of the augacharabumi each of the 18 darts were considered to reproduce itself in the subsequent moment and in that sense darts were called vijas but this is quite different from the aria vijinyana uh uh you know uh system of vijas and in this model uh vija is not latent vijas and actual as dharmas are indistinguishable they are basically the same thing yeah uh with regard to the uh following moment uh the same dharma is called a vija yeah so no no there's no no distinction between vija and dharma and in this model a generative cause must precede its fruit co-existing elements can only be supporting causes like injuries or uh alambanas in this moment uh i'm sorry and this model does not presuppose aria vijinyana or vijineptimatra so even though uh shirabaka boon we for example says that uh 18 darts arise from their uh respective vijas they are not talking about idealist theory they are only saying that each of the 18 darts reproduce itself uh in the uh following moment after the introduction of aria vijinyana vijas and actually dharmas belong to some four distinct elements and thus uh they can coexist while being cause and effect uh the two theories uh in the chavez room seem to represent these old and new models i think so or even though or chameleon is as i said uh is available only in chinese i think uh chameleon uh can be uh witnessed the historical development in idia yogachar tradition thank you very much so first i wanted to thank you very much sensei for this model production uh yeah we i can see now that it would have in an ideal world we would have had this lecture first and the seminar after that because now we would have been really up to date with vijas and uh able to to dive into a specific debate uh with which we struggled a little bit this morning but um it's it's was very interesting uh i wanted to ask you i'm sorry if it is an ignorant question but i wanted to ask you maybe a bit more uh about your view about this chameleon and its composition because you seems to you seem to point in in several moments in your lecture that this has been a bit dismissed as a kind of late chinese composition uh by a specialist of yogacharas uh but in fact you have uh you think that this might be the reflection of a fairly late uh indian commentary that reflects the kind of debates that we are going at the moment and etc could you develop a little bit on this and how you would basically so you would date its immediately before schwanson basically around the time of his master so you know uh you know one one thing that caught me to think this way is the vipirta goherta finna vijaya i mentioned several times you know and in my earlier uh papers i discussed another controversy funding chameleon and that is about the origination of vijas and you know so as we discussed this morning you know somebody says uh uh that vijas exist by nature so we we can only enhance some potential element you know all the good element good potentiality but potentiality are always in us but whether or not uh we knowledge enhance good tendencies or bad tendencies is upon ourselves right yeah and so that is the first theory so all the element is already here potentially by nature and the second theory is that no no no all the vijas are implanted by your conscious act yeah and so that is the second sort of newly engendered vijas theory and the third theory says that there are both possibilities some of them are innate but some of them are generated by your act yeah so the combination of the first two yeah so these three theories are uh uh you know listed in chameleon and almost existing the same three theories are found in vipirta goherta finna bhiakya yeah so uh so and this uh as i said this morning vipiria goherta finna bhiakya was somehow influenced by chinese buddhism uh which i i think is rather unlikely and the possibility and the likelihood is that uh that was the style of data indian yogachara texts and only by some uh what's say uh historical coincidence not many data yogachara texts survived in india so we are not too familiar with the data style of yogachara uh texts you know uh but uh as i said vipirta goherta finna bhiakya and also yogachara boomi bhiakya this is another commentary extant only in tibetan they also have similar style you know theory a theory b theory c yeah and chameleon also so my suspicion is that probably chameleon had some indian original very close to the present chinese text and shuan zan maybe i did something but basically just translated the original text in front of him and then as i said tsuen da she wanted to say that he only knows some secret yeah uh only inherited the essence of yogachara from shuan zan yeah so uh you have to listen to me yeah and so for that purpose he invented the story of the computation of chameleon that's my suspicion i may be wrong but yeah that's my impression you know uh you know one any other question yes thank you very much for both talks today um i was wondering if you could clarify for me um where uh latency in manifestation of the seed so anushaya and paribhas dana fit into the timeline of the earlier modular feature so is there can we understand um latency in manifestation in terms of uh coexistence generative and yeah uh you know when we discuss the ambitious theory and one one of the issues is the relationship between the so-called or sautran tika uh theory sautran model and yogachara model and in abdarmic uh text we find something similar to visa for example anodata right yeah and so the relationship between them is certainly an issue and this is a difficult question but uh uh one of the thing uh is that according to my friend robot quitsa etc many of the uh you know apparent is the first uh a testable occurrence of the word uh sautran tika is in jabdarmic kosher vasha yeah and in the case of Edward kosher vasa almost all the so-called sautran theories uh it can be traced back to yogachara boomi yeah so fat uh vast wonder cause uh sautran tika uh may have been sort of what say concealed reference to yogachara tradition yeah and that's what uh quitsa suspects and i have similar impressions yeah so uh um yeah that is a uh difficult question but you know if we follow the earlier model i discussed today you know there is no what say uh real distinction between visa and dharma dharma can function as visa for the uh you know next moment of the same element and if visa means only that in the visa and the cause are almost the same thing so there's no what say uh potential uh unmanifest element and manifest dharma that kind of distinction is not found in the earlier model and to that extent probably salvastvada master would also agree if if they say that uh some potentiality exists somewhat separately from the actual dharma then salvastvada master would have difficulty yeah but uh so the exact relationship um among those traditions is difficult one of the difficulty is that the you know information is limited we we have only limited number of texts so we cannot know everything yeah i have other history card here uh process i think visa for the uh i have a question about it similarly of the two horns yeah is that particularly chinese or is that no no no uh this is found in pat pat the extent only in chinese but it must be indian text okay so it's familiar similarly also in the indian context yeah i think so yeah all right yeah okay and it and does it have a set meaning does it refer to two things or duality or coexistence or is the flexible metaphor yeah you know so it's simply saying that you know uh uh you know for example uh you are sitting side by side with this gentleman right and but you are not a cause of this gentleman and this gentleman not a cause of yourself but but doesn't appear in terms of causality well but the metaphor is always used in in the context of explaining causality yeah but in this context the simile is denying causality right yeah but it's about causality so yeah as far as you know there's there are no other usages of this metaphor yeah i'm i'm interested in the selfish question because i in the text that i'm working on there's also speaking of the horns and i'm in trouble of interpretation so yeah so so what's the context well it's just it's a zen text okay and it's it's it's i'm not sure if it's supposed to refer to duality like two things yeah being different or actually as it seems to say here two things being actually coexistent or being one so this apparently has to do with oneness or two or twoness in the sense that there are two horns but they are one animal or they form different directions so i was just wondering if there is any kind of usage in the text you're working on in this particular scene uh well you know my intuitive reaction is probably the context is different right yeah but uh well we did a Chan tradition also there are historical developments and there are right where where it is and i worked on some uh Chan texts from the northern school and you know artists for some of the northern Chan texts there's a very yeah what's that a strong influence of Yogachara uh theories there are many many Yogachara technical puns using yeah uh the northern school texts so uh you know or once your typical image is fashion school is you know scholastic hair splitting you know uh in practical scholasticism and Chan is very intuitive and practical and direct approach to the reality so they are the opposite ends but this is not necessarily the case it's sometimes they and the fashion come very close to each other yeah as some similarities uh for example uh fingers cannot touch itself and the sword cannot cut itself yeah and that simile is uh a popular one found in Yogachara and available texts and the same simile is found in some northern Chan texts yeah so that kind of shared property certainly exists yeah but in the case of these two horns uh i'm also sure okay thank you very much well um this seems to be very um philosophical but um i i hear that you also wrote an article about the practical context of Yogachara so i was wondering if this ties in with with with the discourse about practice i can imagine cause and effect is very important i i know in china and japan becomes important in the question whether Buddhist practice is necessary as causing as a cause for awakening so the status of of Buddhist practice um seems to tie into this so i was wondering if you could speak a little bit about the the kind of practical context in which these discussions um arise this morning uh i discussed the historical development of the abyss theory yeah and uh in this talk i you know uh what i talked about the most is very early form of uh Yogachara abyss theory and uh in the later form uh eight what's it in the earlier form uh all the potentialities as i said is already within you yeah and so it is just a matter of uh enhancing promoting which element yeah and that is decided by your practice yeah and but in the more developed form all beaches are implanted by your act and uh act basically refers to your conceptual thinking yeah so all conceptual thinking whatever you think uh or judge within your mind leaves its record in the area of jnana and that uh let's say and create and decide your cognitive world in the subsequent moment yeah and probably that model reflect the uh meditative experience i think yeah uh one of the points of Mahayana's meditation is penetration into the non-conceptual realm yeah and for average people uh conceptual recognition is matter of course so we never doubt that cognition but uh once you experience that intuitive world uh beyond consent uh conceptualization you realize that the conceptualized uh world view is uh just uh bondage yeah and that binds your cognition and so that kind of reflection uh let this uh vision of conceptualization model i would imagine yeah so there is probably certain links between vision uh at least between the data vision model and uh the practice i think and also you know one of the very recent articles uh about alia vizniana uh i discussed the practical background of alia vizniana you know uh what i uh argued is that uh you know usually alia vizniana is uh understood to be uh something like subconsciousness yeah and certainly it is one alia vizniana uh has that aspect as well but it also has uh physiological aspect it is very closely tied to the body yeah and alia vizniana maintains the body and keeps the body alive so when the alia vizniana is separate from your body you are dead yeah and while you are alive the state of your body and the state of alia vizniana are correlated yeah so or when your alia vizniana is in a bad shape your uh body is also in a bad shape it doesn't work nicely and after meditation your body you know we usually think that you know meditation is a spiritual practice it transforms your mind yeah but of course that's true but at the same time it also transforms your body and so body transformation and mental transformation are concomitant and both of them are based on the transformation of alia vizniana itself because alia vizniana is the basis for your conscious mind and also your body yeah and so i think alia vizniana has at least in the original very practical background i think it's actually a nice end to this lecture so let's thank you