Svasaṃvedana

In Buddhist philosophy, svasaṃvedana (also svasaṃvitti) is a term which refers to the reflexive nature of consciousness,^[1] or the awareness of being aware. It was initially a theory of cognition held by the Mahasamghika and Sautrantika schools while the Sarvastivada-Vaibhasika school argued against it.

Translations of Svasaṃvedana
English	Reflexive awareness, Self-awareness
Sanskrit	Svasaṃvedana
Tibetan	Ranggi rig pa
Glossary of Buddhism

The idea was famously defended by the Indian philosopher Dignaga, and is an important doctrinal term in Indian Mahayana thought and Tibetan Buddhism. It is also often translated as self-cognition or self-apperception, and by Malcolm Smith as "one's own vidyā."

Sources in the Buddhist schools

Mahasamghika school

According to Zhihua Yao, the theory was first presented by the Mahasamghika school. Their view was preserved in the Sarvastivada compendium of Abhidharma called Maha-Vibhasa and states:

It is the nature (svabhava) of awareness (jñana) and so forth to apprehend, thus awareness can apprehend itself as well as others. This is like a lamp that can illuminate itself and others owing to its nature of luminosity.^[2]

The issue is also discussed in the Theravadin Katthavatthu (section V.9) in a dialogue between a Theravadin and an Andhaka (the Mahasamghikas in the Andhra region).^[3] In the dialogue, the Andhaka is asked by the Theravadin if one knows an awareness of the present by that same awareness. The Andhaka first denies this, but then affirms it when asked again. In the commentary to the Katthavatthu, Buddhaghosa explains this because "continuity is concerned", thus if seen by itself a mind moment cannot know itself but in a continuous stream of mind moments it can thus be said.^[4] The Theravadin counters with the argument that the other aggregates like feeling do not feel themselves and uses similes like a knife that cannot cut itself or a needle that does not pierce itself. The Andhaka then recovers by making the following argument for his position of self cognition:

But, when all phenomena are seen as impermanent, is not that awareness also seen as impermanent?^[5]

Sarvastivada school

Sarvastivada sources which discuss self-cognition mainly do so in order to refute the idea that a mind moment can know itself in that moment. These include the Jñanaprasthana and Mahavibhasa.^[6] However that does not mean the Sarvastivadins reject all theories of self cognition, they developed their own theory which argued that mind moments know themselves only reflexively in regards to the previous mind moments. As Zhihua Yao states, "in other words, the mind knows itself through a reflection of the past mind".^[7] The Sarvastivadins use their metaphysical theory of the real existence of the past, present and future to allow for a present mind to take a past mind as itself.

Sautrantika school

Sautrantika authors also discussed the theory. It was extensively covered by the Harivarman, the author of the Tattvasiddhishastra, and shows that he was in a dialogue with both Sarvastivada and Mahasamghika views.^[8] Harivarman's view argues against the Mahasamghika's simultaneous model of self-cognition and instead argues that self-cognition is only seen in the course of successive moments of cognition.^[9] That is, it involves multiple mental processes which Harivarman considers as happening in the "present continuum" and is not a case of a single mind moment knowing itself but is a case of the mind grasping the "image" (akara) of itself as it is fading away.^[10] This is also part of his account of how memory works.

Dignaga

The Buddhist philosopher Dignaga also defended a theory of svasamvedana drawing on Sautrantika and Yogacara influences. For Dignaga, svasamvedana is a kind of perception (pratyaksa) which is an "internal awareness of mental consciousness" and his theory of perception also entails that it is non-conceptual (unlike the other source of valid cognition, anumana - inference).^[11] He asserts that svasamvedana is a valid means to knowledge, just as sense-perception is.^[12] Dignaga gives three reasons for why cognition can grasp an object and itself.

1. Without a self-reflexive nature, there would be no difference between a) cognition of the object, and b) awareness of the cognition of the object.
2. If the cognition only grasped itself, the content of an earlier cognition would be gone when a later cognition takes place.
3. Memory proves a self-reflexive nature of cognition because one is able to remember both the object and one's former cognition of it.^[12]

Dharmakirti

Dharmakirti, Dignaga's most influential follower also defended svasamvedana. He claimed that cognition and its object are the same because they are perceived together at the same time. If one could not perceive cognition, one could not perceive its content either. He argues that cognition cannot be cognized by another cognition because that would lead to infinite regress: the second cognition would require a third cognition to cognize it and so on.^[12]

Bhartṛhari

In the Vākyapadīya, Bhartṛhari writes regarding svasamvedana, but he argues that a cognition cannot be the content of another cognition. In verse 3.1.106 he explains why a cognition cannot be objectified using an example of light: "as a source of light is never illuminated by another one, likewise a cognition is never cognised by another one." He also writes that a cognition is always perceived at the same time of the cognition of its content. This explanation avoids infinite regress caused if a second order cognition was needed for the first cognition.^[12]

Madhyamaka school

Santaraksita summarizes Dignaga's and Dharmakirtis' arguments for svasamvedana in Tattvasaṃgraha. He also discusses two additional features of svasamvedana.^[12]

1. Self-awareness is not determined by other cognitions
2. Self-awareness is a distinctive feature of the living

In Tibetan Buddhism

Svasaṃvedana is at the root of a major doctrinal disagreement in Indian Mahayana Buddhism. While defended by the Yogacara thinkers such as Dharmakirti and the eclectic Santaraksita, it was attacked by 'Prasangika Madhyamika' thinkers such as Candrakirti and Santideva.^[13] Since in Mādhyamika thought all dharmas are empty of inherent essence (Svabhava), they argued that consciousness could not be an inherently reflexive ultimate reality since that would mean it was self validating and therefore not characterized by emptiness.

In Tibetan Buddhism there are various competing views regarding svasaṃvedana (Tibetan: Ranggi rig pa).^{[citation needed]}

In the Nyingma school's Dzogchen tradition, svasaṃvedana is often called 'the very nature of mind' (sems kyi chos nyid) and metaphorically referred to as 'luminosity' (gsal ba) or 'clear light' ('od gsal).^{[citation needed]} A common Tibetan metaphor for this reflexivity is that of a lamp in a dark room which in the act of illuminating objects in the room also illuminates itself. Dzogchen meditative practices aim to bring the mind to direct realization of this luminous nature. In Dzogchen (as well as some Mahamudra traditions) Svasaṃvedana is seen as the primordial substratum or ground (gdod ma'i gzhi) of mind.^{[citation needed]}

Following Je Tsongkhapa's (1357–1419) interpretation of the Prasaṅgika Madhyamaka view, the Gelug school completely denies both the conventional and the ultimate existence of reflexive awareness. This is one of Tsongkhapa's "eight difficult points" that distinguish the Prasaṅgika view from others.^[14] The Nyingma philosopher Jamgon Ju Mipham Gyatso (1846–1912) defended the conventional existence of reflexive awareness as per the Madhyamaka two truths doctrine. According to Mipham, the Prasangika critique of reflexive awareness only applied to its ultimate inherent reality and not its conventional status.^[15][16]

In East Asian Buddhism

According to Zhihua Yao, Chinese developments in the doctrine of self-cognition can be divided into three phases: the old Yogācāra in China (which blended Yogācāra with Buddha-nature teachings), the new Yogācāra of Xuanzang and Kuiji, and contemporary Yogācāra studies beginning at the start of the twentieth-century. Yao observes that the old and new Yogācāra in China correspond respectively to Nirākāravāda and Sākāravāda views in India. According to the Nirākāravāda, consciousness is without different parts or divisions. Thus, self-cognition is reflexive and not involved with subjective and objective aspects of consciousness. The Nirākāravāda position, according to which subject and object are illusory, is represented in the East Asian śāstra, the Awakening of Faith. On the other hand, the new Yogācārins Xuanzang and Kuiji defended the Sākāravāda view of Dharmapāla.^[17] According to their view, the various parts or divisions of consciousness (bhaga) are real.^[18]

According to the Huayan patriarch Fazang, self-cognition is the original karmic appearance (yexiang) which causes the delusive world of samsāra with all its suffering. In this, Fazang differed from certain Yogācāra views, such as that of Dignāga, according to which self-cognition is an effect of consciousness' subjective aspect perceiving its objective aspect.^[19] Fazang's view corresponds rather to that of the Awakening of Faith for which karmic appearance, being a state in which the mind is aware only of itself, is the cause of both the subjective aspect of consciousness as well as the illusory objective world.^[20] According to Zhihua Yao, this means that karmic appearance, or self-cognition, "is not contributed by an external agency because the arising or awareness is inherent to the mind or reality itself."^[21]

The Korean commentator on the Awakening of Faith, Taehyeon (c. 750), argued that in addition to the five kinds of manas (mentation) enumerated in the text, there should be added another: svajātilakṣaṇa, or "genuine appearance," which he borrows from the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra. For Taehyeon, genuine appearance is to be regarded as the first manas, as it is unconditioned and not dependent on any other manas. Since it possesses the nature of illumination, genuine appearance is thus the basis of the other five types of mentation (namely, karmic consciousness, or appearance; transformative consciousness; representative consciousness; intellectual consciousness; and continuous consciousness). Regarding self-cognition, Taehyeon states that it refers to both genuine and karmic appearance, corresponding to his first and second manas respectively.^[22]

According to the Huayan patriarch and Chan master Guifeng Zongmi, the essence of the true mind is awareness, or knowing (知; zhi).^[23] Zongmi explains this to mean that the true nature is "aware in and of itself," or "spontaneously Knowing" (自知; zizhi).^[24][25] For Zongmi, knowing or awareness is thus a "direct manifestation of the very essence itself" (t'ang-t'i piao-hsien).^[26] Zongmi further explains that the true mind has two types of functioning: one original and intrinsic, the other conditioned and responsive. Jenny Hung understands Zongmi’s intrinsic functioning of the true mind to refer to "reflexive awareness in and of itself," while the responsive function is "reflexive awareness with content."^[27] Zongmi gives the analogy of a bright mirror to illustrate their relationship: where the responsive function is likened to the appearance in response to conditions of various reflected images, the intrinsic function is likened to the mirror's constant brightness itself. He says, "The reflections appear [when the mirror] is face to face with objective supports. They appear in a thousand varieties, but the brightness is an intrinsically constant brightness. The brightness is just one flavor."^{[28][note 1]}

In Chan sources one can also find the term 自照, zizhao, or self-illumination. For example, the Hongzhi Chanshi Guanglu of Chan master Hongzhi Zhengjue, who famously promoted the practice of silent illumination, contains the phrase 本光自照 (ben guang zi zhao), "the inherent light illuminates itself."^[30] Zizhao appears in earlier Chan works as well, such as the Xin Ming (Mind Inscription), attributed to Niutou Farong (594–657):

Bodhi exists originally
It has no need of being preserved
Afflictions have no intrinsic existence
They do not need to be eradicated
Numinous knowing is self-illuminated [自照, zizhao]
The myriad dharmas return to Thusness
There is no return, no receiving
Cut off contemplation, forget preservation^[31]

See also the well-known Xinxin Ming (Faith-Mind Inscription), attributed to the third Chan Patriarch Sengcan, though likely a product of the Oxhead School, which flourished during the Tang dynasty:

Nothing remains
Nothing is harboured in memory
Void, clear, self-illumining [自照, zizhao]
The heart-strength does not struggle
It is not the place of calculated thinking
Difficult for understanding and sentiment to fathom
In the Dharma realm of true Suchness
There is no other, no self^[32]

The Japanese Sōtō Zen master, Menzan Zuihō (1683–1769), comments in his Jijuyū-Zanmai that this means that "the light of the Self shines brightly," saying that it is "similar to the light of a jewel illuminating the jewel itself." As such, there is no need to engage in mental struggle.^[33]

Notes

1. Compare with the following from the famous Chan poem, the Zhengdao ge:
   
   "The maṇi pearl is unknown to people;
   You can find it in the Tathāgata-garbha.
   The functions of the six senses are both empty and not empty,
   One perfect light with colors, yet colorless."^[29]

See also

• Prakasha
• Buddha-nature
• Śrīharṣa
• Ösel (yoga)
• Rangtong-Shentong
• Rigpa
• Vijñāna
• Svayam prakāśa (self-luminosity in Advaita Vedanta)