Since yesterday I have been thinking about memory again. The reason was that during a debate the topic of latent afflictions (anusaya) came up, and I wasn't really sure where to put them. They seemed fairly irrelevant there. Nevertheless, it started a chain of thought in me, the result of what is this post. But even before that I had gone through similar thoughts about how memory is possible. It was almost three years ago (this topic), and my conclusions at that time you can see here and in the following posts where I think I couldn't really move forward on deciding on anything. However, the real reason behind this post is that I have now managed to think of putting this in a way that might be useful to consider.
The problem with memory is the same as with any latent mental factor: one is not conscious of them. Any object of mind - or rather instance of consciousness - that can exist without oneself actually being aware of it is a contradiction. Practically speaking, an impossible situation. When asked where karma is stored, Narada Thera (The Buddha and His Teachings, ch 19) put it this way: "Neither wind nor fire is stored in any particular place, nor is kamma stored anywhere within or without the body." Even if we conceive the mind as a stream that somehow contains the seeds that ripen in an appropriate condition, those seeds are still latent mental factors.
The error I made and what stopped me from coming up with a good solution was that I wanted those hidden thoughts to be somewhere. Because if they are not carried over (through a causal continuum, as explained in Yogacara for instance) from the past to the present, then really there are no latent afflictions, no past karma, no memory. By the way, now that I think of it, when they say that the manas takes the alayavijnana as the self, what it can be translated to is that people identify with their personal history.
The solution I have eventually arrived to is that if we take a close look at it, memory and the rest do not arise from any storage, but they are always brought about by specific conditions. The difference between stating that they are seeds ripening based on conditions, and simply being generated by conditions is an important one. Memories, habits, and afflictions are in fact thoughts like all the others. Thanissaro Bhikkhu translates anusaya as obsessions, and being obsessed about something happens as actual conscious activity, like when one needs to go to the toilet but cannot. That is, when I think I remember something, it is a thought (generated by preceding thoughts and such), to what I attribute the quality of coming from the past. This is a very clear case of assuming a substance, a self, that persists over time. And that assumption of a substance is what makes us conceive a storehouse of memories. Just like we think of ourselves as being the same person from one day to another.
So, conventionally speaking, it is fine to talk about memories and habits from the past, just like we accept that there are places beyond the walls of the room where we happen to be. But when we take a look at our actual experience, there is no basis for any past memory or latent habit, nor a personal history. It's all just empty appearances, an illusory world, conceived to be something what it is not.
"For those who believe that actions and effects possess inherent reality, an action that is over and done with cannot produce effects. They are therefore obliged to speculate about a medium in which actions are supposed to leave imprints of some kind, or about some sort of continuum that links causes with their effects—without which karma could not function. But from our point of view, neither action nor effect has inherent existence; they arise in interdependence. And we do not investigate whether the cause and its effect meet or do not meet, whether there is a space between them or not. It is like looking into mirror: there is a face and there is the reflection of a face—something has simply arisen in dependence on a cause. Nevertheless, if you inquire whether the cause and its effect contact each other, you will never be able to devise an acceptable explanation of how the seed is the cause of the shoot."
(Mipham: Introduction to the Middle Way, p 222-223)
The problem with memory is the same as with any latent mental factor: one is not conscious of them. Any object of mind - or rather instance of consciousness - that can exist without oneself actually being aware of it is a contradiction. Practically speaking, an impossible situation. When asked where karma is stored, Narada Thera (The Buddha and His Teachings, ch 19) put it this way: "Neither wind nor fire is stored in any particular place, nor is kamma stored anywhere within or without the body." Even if we conceive the mind as a stream that somehow contains the seeds that ripen in an appropriate condition, those seeds are still latent mental factors.
The error I made and what stopped me from coming up with a good solution was that I wanted those hidden thoughts to be somewhere. Because if they are not carried over (through a causal continuum, as explained in Yogacara for instance) from the past to the present, then really there are no latent afflictions, no past karma, no memory. By the way, now that I think of it, when they say that the manas takes the alayavijnana as the self, what it can be translated to is that people identify with their personal history.
The solution I have eventually arrived to is that if we take a close look at it, memory and the rest do not arise from any storage, but they are always brought about by specific conditions. The difference between stating that they are seeds ripening based on conditions, and simply being generated by conditions is an important one. Memories, habits, and afflictions are in fact thoughts like all the others. Thanissaro Bhikkhu translates anusaya as obsessions, and being obsessed about something happens as actual conscious activity, like when one needs to go to the toilet but cannot. That is, when I think I remember something, it is a thought (generated by preceding thoughts and such), to what I attribute the quality of coming from the past. This is a very clear case of assuming a substance, a self, that persists over time. And that assumption of a substance is what makes us conceive a storehouse of memories. Just like we think of ourselves as being the same person from one day to another.
So, conventionally speaking, it is fine to talk about memories and habits from the past, just like we accept that there are places beyond the walls of the room where we happen to be. But when we take a look at our actual experience, there is no basis for any past memory or latent habit, nor a personal history. It's all just empty appearances, an illusory world, conceived to be something what it is not.
"For those who believe that actions and effects possess inherent reality, an action that is over and done with cannot produce effects. They are therefore obliged to speculate about a medium in which actions are supposed to leave imprints of some kind, or about some sort of continuum that links causes with their effects—without which karma could not function. But from our point of view, neither action nor effect has inherent existence; they arise in interdependence. And we do not investigate whether the cause and its effect meet or do not meet, whether there is a space between them or not. It is like looking into mirror: there is a face and there is the reflection of a face—something has simply arisen in dependence on a cause. Nevertheless, if you inquire whether the cause and its effect contact each other, you will never be able to devise an acceptable explanation of how the seed is the cause of the shoot."
(Mipham: Introduction to the Middle Way, p 222-223)
No comments:
Post a Comment