The Relevance of Identifying Ignorance and the Issues Involved
Ignorance (ma-rig-pa, Skt. avidyā) is the first link of the twelve links of dependent arising. The twelve links describe the mechanism whereby uncontrollably recurring rebirth (samsara) occurs and is perpetuated. Samsaric rebirth arises dependently on the consecutive cause-and-effect relationship between each of the links. The dependent arising of cause and effect arises, in turn, dependently on the total absence (the voidness) of an atman having the characteristics ascribed to it by non-Buddhist Indian tenet systems. Such an atman is a static, partless self (a person that we call “me”) that, when liberated from samsaric rebirth, can exist independently of a body and mind, but when not liberated, is making this cause-and-effect relationship between the links happen or is experiencing it happening. There is no such thing as an atman having such characteristics as those. On a deeper level, according to the Prasangika tenets, the causal sequence of the twelve links arises dependently on the total absence (the voidness, the emptiness) of any of the links having self-established existence (rang-bzhin-gyis grub-pa; inherent existence). It is only because there is no such thing as self-established existence that the twelve links can function to perpetuate samsaric rebirth.
Each of the Indian Buddhist tenet systems explains the twelve links slightly differently. For example, Vaibhashika asserts that ignorance, as the root of samsara rebirth, incorporates and represents all ten disturbing mental factors (nyon-mongs, Skt. kleśa; disturbing emotions and attitudes, afflictions) – longing desire, anger and so on – while all the other tenet systems assert just ignorance itself as the root. In either case, the main point they all agree upon is the reason why the first link, ignorance, is the root of samsaric rebirth. The reason is its causal role in giving rise to the karmic impulses that constitute both the second link (affecting karmic impulses during a lifetime) and, at the time of death, the tenth link (throwing karmic impulses propelling the consciousness into a further existence). Ignorance, in its causal role, arises prior to the second link and simultaneously with both the second and the tenth.
To gain liberation from samsara by putting an end to the functioning of the twelve links, it is necessary to attain a true cessation of ignorance. With the true stopping of ignorance, such that it never arises again, the sequence of the rest of the links will also come to an end. Again, this happens through the dependent arising of cause and effect and of voidness, not by the power of an atman nor by the power of a self-established pathway mind.
Effectively applying a true pathway mind that will bring about the attainment of this true cessation depends on correctly identifying ignorance. Not only that, but it is also necessary to correctly identify the accurate and decisive discriminating awareness (shes-rab, Skt. prajñā; wisdom) that will bring about the attainment of the true cessation of ignorance and to understand how and why that discriminating awareness can do that. To correctly identify these points depends on gaining authoritative information about them from the texts of the Nalanda masters of India that concern this topic and then thinking analytically about it. Once we have understood their explanations by relying on reason and valid logic, then in order to meditate on them so as to integrate them into our behavior, we need to identify what they are talking about in the context of our own experience. To expand on Shantideva’s analogy, to shoot an arrow into a target, we need to correctly identify the target, the arrow and how to aim and shoot it.
Let us start with identifying the target, ignorance. Although the various Indian tenet systems assert several varieties of ignorance outside of the context of the twelve links, let us limit our discussion, for the most part, to just the ignorance specified as the first link.
Overview of What Ignorance Is
To analyze the texts of the Nalanda masters and to explain in English what they say about ignorance require settling the issue of how to translate the technical terms involved. To settle that issue requires correctly understanding what ignorance is in Buddhism. This is complicated by the fact that it is explained differently in the various Indian Buddhist tenet systems.
In general, however, ignorance in Buddhism is a mental factor (sems-byung, Skt. caitta). Like an individual continuum of mind, ignorance has no beginning. A mental factor is a way of cognizing something that accompanies a mental or sensory consciousness (rnam-shes, Skt. vijñāna) and affects, assists or qualifies the cognition of an object. A different cluster of a sense or mind consciousness and mental factors accompanies each moment of cognition. When the cluster includes ignorance, that ignorance affects all the components by “stupefying” (rmongs-byed, Skt. muhyati) them.
For ease of discussion, let us call the cluster of a consciousness and accompanying mental factors our “mind.” When our mind is focused on certain objects, such as our body, ignorance stupefies it in the sense of stunning and paralyzing it. Ignorance prevents the mind from correctly cognizing these objects as characterized by the four noble truths and its sixteen aspects. We are unable to correctly cognize our body, for example:
- In terms of the four noble truths, as true suffering.
- In terms of the sixteen aspects of the four noble truths, as neither identical with nor the possession of our “self” existing as an atman.
Like a mental block – and, in a sense, an emotional block – ignorance prevents us from understanding and accepting those truths about them. Being close-minded and blind to those facts leaves us, metaphorically, in a state of darkness. It leads to self-grasping, longing desire, anger and compulsive behavior, which, in turn, perpetuate samsaric rebirth.
By way of contrast, correctly cognizing our body and so on as characterized by the four noble truths and its sixteen aspects dispels that darkness. Metaphorically, it “brightens” or “illuminates” the mind and leads to liberation. That correct cognition, however, only leads to liberation when it is with a supramundane (‘jig-rten las ‘das-pa, Skt. lokottara) mind – namely, with a seeing pathway mind (mthong-lam, Skt. darśanamārga; path of seeing) and then an accustoming pathway mind (sgom-lam, Skt. bhāvanāmārga; path of meditation), as will be explained below. Ignorance, then, does not stupefy and prevent the mind from knowing and accepting something else about our body – for instance, how old we are or how much our body weighs. It is not a mental block preventing us from learning algebra or remembering someone’s name.
Furthermore, there are the sixteen distorted ways of embracing the sixteen aspects of the four noble truths (log-zhugs bcu-drug), such as believing that the body or the mind never changes and lasts forever and is either the possession and habitat of our “self” as an atman or identical with it.
At one time or another, we all hold one or more of them from having learned, in this lifetime or in a previous one, the assertions of them by one of the non-Buddhist Indian tenet systems and having accepted them to be true. This is the case because, in accord with the Buddhist assertion of beginningless mind, there is no first time when these distorted assertions were formulated and no first time when we have learned and accepted them. Furthermore, because our beginningless ignorance has been stupefying our mind and, without any beginning, preventing it from having supramundane cognition of the sixteen aspects of the four noble truths, we have never even questioned our distorted ways of embracing the sixteen.
In technical jargon, these sixteen distorted ways are “doctrinally based” (kun-brtags, Skt. parikalpita). According to all Indian Buddhist tenet systems other than Vaibhashika, some of the sixteen also automatically arise (lhan-cig skyes-pa, lhan-skyes, Skt. sahajā). All sixteen, then, are conceptual interpolations (sgro-‘dogs, Skt. samāropa). They project or superimpose onto an object or phenomenon a quality or identity that it does not have. They are not conceptual repudiations (skur-‘debs, Skt. apavāda) that deny a quality or identity that it does have.
The explanation of ignorance as a doctrinally based mental factor that stupefies the mind in the sense of preventing it from correctly cognizing the four noble truths and its sixteen aspects with a supramundane mind derives from The Great Commentarial Treatise on Special Topics of Knowledge (Skt. Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣa-śāstra, Chin. 阿毘達磨大毘婆沙論), the source of the Vaibhashika tenet system. Compiled in Sanskrit in the late first century C.E., it is extant only in Chinese translation. No Tibetan version was ever made. Vasubandhu, who lived around three centuries after its compilation, referred to its assertions as those of the Sarvastivadins and clarified them in his Vaibhashika works. The explanation of ignorance found in this seminal text was also accepted by the other Buddhist tenet systems as common ground.
The Great Commentarial Treatise (Taishō ed., vol 27, no. 1545, scroll 25.129B) states:
Question: What is the reason it (ignorance) is called (the mental state) “totally without brightening?” What is the meaning of “(being) totally without brightening?” Answer: Not penetrating, not analytically understanding and not comprehending (something) is the meaning of “(being) totally without brightening.”
Question: If besides (the mental state) “totally without brightening,” there are dharmas (mental states) other than you that also do not penetrate, do not analytically understand and do not comprehend (something), what is the reason they are not called (the mental state) “totally without brightening?” Answer: If (mental states) that do not penetrate, do not analytically understand and do not comprehend (something) have stupefying as their self-nature, they are (mental states) “totally without brightening.” Other dharmas (mental states) besides you are not (like that). For that reason, they cannot (be considered) “totally without brightening.”
Question: What is the reason it is called (the mental state) “fully with brightening?” What is the meaning of “fully with brightening?” Answer: Being able to penetrate, being able to analytically understand and being able to comprehend (something) is the meaning of “(being with) fully with brightening.”
Question: If besides you, there are tainted discriminations that also penetrate, analytically understand and comprehend (something), what is the reason they are not called (the mental state) “fully with brightening?” Answer: If (a mental state that) penetrates, analytically understands and comprehends the four noble truths penetrates (in a supramundane manner) into what they really are, it is called (a mental state) “fully with brightening.” Although there are tainted discriminations that can penetrate, analytically understand and comprehend (the four noble truths in a mundane manner), but because they cannot penetrate (in a supramundane manner) into what the four noble truths really are, they are not called (mental states) “fully with brightening.” For example, although the four stages of breaking through (the four stages of an applying pathway mind, the path of preparation), heat and so forth, are able to intensely analyze the four noble truths (in a mundane manner), but do not yet penetrate (in a supramundane manner) into what the four noble truths really are, they are not called (a mental state) “fully with brightening.”
(Chin.) 問何故名無明。無明是何義。答不達不解不 了是無明義。問若爾除無明諸餘法。亦不達 不解不了。何故不名無明。答若不達不解不了以愚癡為自相者是無明。餘法不爾故非無明。問何故名明。明是何義。答能達能 解能了是明義。問若爾有漏慧亦能達能解 能了何故不名明。答若達解了能於四諦真實通達說名為明。諸有漏慧雖達解了而於四諦不能真實通達故不名明。如暖 等四順決擇分雖能猛利推求四諦。而未真實通達四諦不名為明。
Vaibhashika does not assert conceptual cognition. The distinction between the mundane cognition of the four noble truths with an applying pathway mind (sbyor-lam, Skt. prayogamārga) and the supramundane cognition of them with a seeing pathway mind is that the former arises by relying on a line of reasoning, while the latter arises without such reliance. Both, however, cognize the four noble truths with joined shamatha (zhi-gnas, Skt. śamatha; a stilled and settles state of mind) and vipashyana (lhag-mthong, Skt. vipaśyanā; an exceptionally perceptive state of mind).
The classical Chinese term used for ignorance here, wuming (無明), literally means “totally without brightening” – totally without the brightening of clearly understanding something. It had been used to translate the Sanskrit term avidyā, ignorance, since the earliest Buddhist translations into Chinese, which were made around the time when Vasubandhu was born. The negation prefix 無 is also used in the Chinese translations of terms such as anātman (無我, selflessness, totally without an atman) and anitya (無常, nonstaticness, totally without staticness).
According to this seminal text, then, ignorance is a mental state, probably meaning a mental factor, that has two characteristics:
- It has stupefying as its self-nature – in other words, it stupefies the mind so that the mind is totally without brightening.
- It does not penetrate, analytically understand and comprehend the four noble truths in a supramundane manner with a seeing pathway of mind.
Any term used to translate avidyā ideally needs to convey both features.
Translating the Technical Terms for Ignorance
Shortcomings of Previous Translation Terms
“Ignorance” is the usual English translation for the Tibetan term “ma-rig-pa” (Skt. avidyā), which I have often rejected as a translation since “ignorance” can imply stupidity, and calling someone “stupid” is derogatory and insulting. My rejection, however, was based on falsely taking ignorance as ignorance in general. It is not ignorance in general, but, as we have seen, ignorance about a specific topic with a specific type of mind.
To avoid that derogatory connotation, I have turned, in the past, to Asanga’s Chittamatra definition of ma-rig-pa (Skt. avidyā) as mi-shes-pa (Skt. ajñāna). I translated the affirmative form shes-pa (Skt. jñāna) as “ways of being aware of something” and thus as “awareness.” “Awareness” worked well in other terms that include the Sanskrit verbal stem jñā and the Tibetan translation of it, shes. The main ones are “discriminating awareness” (shes-rab, Skt. prajñā) and “deep awareness” (ye-shes, Skt. jñāna). Based on translating the affirmative form as “awareness,” I translated the negative forms mi-shes-pa and ajñāna as “unawareness.” Based on that, I also translated ma-rig-pa and avidyā as “unawareness.” That becomes a problem when both terms appear in a passage in the primary sources.
Let me simplify the discussion by referring to the terminology now only in Sanskrit. As I looked more deeply into the commentaries by the Nalanda masters, I learned that ajñāna is like a veil in that it covers over and obscures the mind, casting it into a mental darkness as if blinding it. “Unawareness” could convey that meaning, but it is not the best term. For example, you can be unaware of the effects of a bad diet because of a lack of education or unaware of the latest findings of science because of a lack of information. In some contexts, the English word “unawareness” can even imply a lack of attention, as in, “I was unaware that it had become so late.” None of these are the meaning of ajñāna.
In addition, also translating avidyā as “unawareness” conflates avidyā with ajñāna. Although the two terms are used as synonyms, they describe the same phenomenon in terms of two different functions it performs. Avidyā stupefies the mind and ajñāna casts the mind into mental darkness. To translate the two with the same word deprives the reader of the descriptive richness of the original language.
Sey Ngawang Tashi (Sras Ngag-dbang bkra-shis), a late 17th - early 18th century Gelug master, indicates this richness with an etymological explanation in Analysis of Extremes Concerning (the Twelve Links of) Dependent Arising (rTen-‘bral mtha’-dpyod chen-mo) (Drepung Gomang Library edition, 260):
As for the etymological explanation (of the Tibetan word ma-rig-pa), the explanation is that it is called “ignorance” because, like a darkness, it makes (the mind) unfit, having obscured its object’s manner of abiding – (namely) its manner of existing and the extent (of some of its characteristics).
(Tib.) sgra bshad ni mun pa bzhin du yul ji lta ji snyed kyi gnas tshul bsgribs nas rigs par mi byed pas na ma rig pa zhes bshad do
Sey Ngawang Tashi explains that the Tibetan term ma-rig-pa (“knowing” with a negative prefix) is a pun. It derives from its homophone ma-rigs-pa (“fit” with a negative prefix). Rig (knowing) and rigs (fit) are spelled differently, but pronounced the same, like “to,” “two” and “too” are in English. In obscuring the mind as ajñāna does, ma-rig-pa renders the mind unfit to cognize how the body, for example, exists (as not the possession of an atman) and some of its characteristics (such as its not being unchanging or lasting forever). While rendering the mind consciousness unfit to cognize such facts, it does not render the eye consciousness unfit to validly see the body at the same time.
Translating as Transitive Gerunds
Despite avidyā and ajñāna being synonymous, they are still distinct Sanskrit terms. Therefore, it would be best to use distinct terms to translate them into other languages. Afterall, their affirmative forms, vidyā and jñāna, as nouns, are distinct terms. They are usually translated, respectively, as “knowledge” and “awareness.”
- Vidyā, as knowledge, is something you need to acquire by learning, such as the five major fields of knowledge (rig-gnas lnga, pañca-vidyāsthāna) – medicine, logic and so on – for receiving the mahapandit degree. Acquiring such knowledge entails using the analytical powers of intelligence.
- Jñāna, as awareness, is something that you naturally have, such as an awareness of phenomena, or something that you acquire through experience, such as discriminating awareness of voidness.
In the context of our discussion, vidyā and jñāna cannot be treated simply as the abstract nouns, “knowledge” and “awareness.” They need to be understood as dynamic nouns since they both do something. This is clear from a grammatical analysis:
- “Vidyā” is a primary derivative from the Sanskrit verbal root “vid” plus the suffix “yā,” making it a gerundive or a gerund. For example, in the case of the verb “to talk,” the gerundive form would be as in “a talking parrot,” while the gerund form would be as in “talking is helpful.”
- “Jñāna” is a secondary derivative noun from the Sanskrit verbal root “jñā” plus the suffix “ana,” making it an action noun, as in “I like talking.” Gerunds are action nouns.
Furthermore, vidyā and jñāna always occur with an object and are defined in terms of what they do while cognizing that object rather than in terms of what they are. Because of that, they need to be translated in a transitive mode, as in “I am talking nonsense,” and not intransitively, as in “Be quiet, I’m talking on the phone.”
Translating, then, as mental factors that are transitive gerunds and gerundives:
- Vidyā becomes “the mental factor of knowing something” and “a knowing mental factor.”
- Jñāna becomes “the mental factor of making something be an object of awareness.”
This translation of jñāna is too awkward to use. To convey the meaning, let’s use “an illuminating mental factor,” suggested by the Chinese “ming,” a brightening state of mind.
Does this way of translating work with the negative forms? To parallel the Sanskrit, Tibetan and Chinese terms, they need also to begin with a negative prefix.
Translating the Negative Forms
For ajñāna, “a deluminating mental factor” works well. By the addition of the negative prefix “de,” “deluminating” becomes the negative form of “illuminating.”
Avidyā, however, is not as straightforward. Avidyā has two distinct interpretations, depending on the Indian Buddhist tenet system in which it is used. The two derive from the fact that there are two ways in which ignorance can obstruct and prevent the supramundane cognition of the four noble truths.
- One is by merely stupefying the mind without, by its own force, cognitively taking its object in a reversed manner (a manner that is the reverse of the accurate way).
- The other is, by its own force, cognitively taking its object in a reversed manner by its own force.
To convey the difference between these two types of avidyā requires that they be translated with two different negative prefixes:
- Avidyā, as a disturbing mental factor that merely stupefies the mind can be translated as “anti-knowing.”
- Avidyā, as a disturbing mental factor that, by its own force, cognitively takes its object in a reversed manner can be translated as “misknowing.”
In a general discussion, however, avidyā needs to be translated in such a way that it covers both meanings. We shall use “ignorance” for this, as it is the familiar term. Furthermore, its etymology is from Greek, the negative prefix “ig” and “gnosis” meaning knowledge. “Ig” also appears as a negative prefix in the English words “ignore” and “ignoble.” In some cases, where a contrast with correct knowing is made, we shall use “debilitated knowing” in contrast with “abilitated knowing.”
The choice of “ig-,” “de-,” “anti-,” and “mis-” as negative prefixes in English accords with the intended connotation of the Sanskrit negating prefix “a” in avidyā. Sey Ngawang Tashi, in Analysis of Extremes, (253-254), explains the intended connotation in terms of the negative prefix “ma” in the Tibetan term ma-rig-pa, where rig-pa, knowing something, is equivalent to an accurate, supramundane, discriminating mental factor:
The “ma-” in “ma-rig-pa” is a negative prefix, but it is unsuited for being a negative prefix that indicates (1) a mere (nonimplicative) negation (an absence) of a discriminating mental factor like “without a discriminating mental factor (such as watching an historical documentary without a discriminating mental factor cognizing whether it accords with the actual events), or (an affirming negation) like (2) “not a discriminating mental factor” such as the eye and so on, which is something other than a discriminating mental factor, or like (3) “similar to a discriminating mental factor” such as the written words that are the material substance (spelling out) the (unobscured) unspecified (words) “discriminating mental factor” or texts of poetic language, or the knowledge of knowing crafts, diseases, the bases for diseases, medicines and so on, or like (4) “a bad discriminating mental factor” such as one of the diverse bad views that are disturbed discriminating mental factors (for example, the mental factor of taking disturbed morality or conduct to be supreme), or like (5) “a slight discriminating mental factor,” slight or meager like the discriminating mental factors that are the building-up and accustoming pathways of mind (the paths of accumulation and preparation) of ordinary beings and of enterer stream-enterers, or like (6) “parted from a discriminating mental factor” such as minds and cognitive sensors that do not give rise to a discriminating mental factor. It (“ma”) is a negative prefix with the meaning of “opposing.” It makes words that indicate “the opposite” (of something, as in) anti-attachment, anti-anger and anti-violence.
“Ma-rig-pa” is spoken of as a mental factor for the purpose of dispelling (the doubt) of wondering whether it is a (distinct) mind. Since ma-rig-pa is not (a variant of any of the) other mental factors, it is spoken of as a stupefying mental factor for the purpose of indicating (that it has) its own essential nature.
(Tib.) ma rig pa zhes pa’i ma dgag tshig yin zhing/ de yang shes rab med pa lta bu shes rab bkag tsam dang/ shes rab ma yin pa lta bu shes rab las gzhan pa’i mig sogs dang/ shes rab dang ‘dra ba lta bu lung ma bstan gyi shes rab kyi rdzas yi ge ‘bri ba dang/ sgra snyan ngag sogs kyi bstan bcos dang/ bzo dang/ nad dang/ nad kyi gzhi dang dman sogs shes pa’i rig pa dang/ shes rab ngan pa lta bu shes rab nyon mongs can kyi lta ngan gzhan rnams dang/ shes rab nyung ba lta bu’i so skye tshogs sbyor ba dang/ rgyun zhugs zhugs pa’i shes rab lta bu nyung ba ste chung ba dang/ shes rab dang bral ba lta bu shes rab ma skyes ba’i sems dang dbang po sogs ston pa’i dgag tshig la mi rung bas na/ gnyen po’i don can gyi dgag tshig chags med dang/ sdang med dang/ rnam par mi ‘tshe ba’i ‘gal zla ston pa’i tshig la byed/ ma rig pa la sems gcig yod dam snyam pa ‘gog ched du sems byung smras/ sems byung gzhan rnams ma rig pa ma yin pas rang gi ngo bo ston ched du rmongs pa smras pa’i phyir//
Just as the mental factor of cognizing with anti-attachment is not only the opposite of the mental factor of cognizing with attachment but is also what opposes and prevents it from arising, similarly ma-rig-pa is not only the opposite of rig-pa but is also what opposes and prevents it from arising. Transposing to the English terms, “anti-knowing” and “misknowing” are, similarly, not only the opposites of “knowing,” but are also what oppose and prevent it from arising. Like ma-rig-pa and avidyā, however, they are neither implicative nor non-implicative negation phenomena (dgag-pa, Skt. pratiṣedha; negatingly known phenomena) despite having negative prefixes. This is because to have anti-knowing or misknowing does not require first accurately knowing the four noble truths and then, ruling that out, knowing something else to be not the four noble truths. It is not like having to know what an apple is before being able to know that something is not an apple. Anti-knowing and misknowing are, in fact, negatingly expressed affirmation phenomena (sgrub-pa, Skt. siddha).
The eighteenth-century Gelug master Purchog (Phur-cog Ngag-dbang byams-pa rgya-mtsho), author of some of the monastic textbooks used at Ganden Jangtse and Sera Je Monasteries, defined an affirmation phenomenon as a (validly knowable) phenomenon that is apprehended in a manner in which an object to be negated (dgag-bya) is not explicitly precluded (dngos-su ma-bcad-pa, explicitly cut off, dismissed, rejected) by the sounds that express the phenomenon.” In the case of the words “anti-knowing” and “misknowing,” the sound of the negation prefixes “anti” and “mis” merely preclude the word “knowing.” They do not preclude the meaning of the word “knowing” since that would require previously apprehending (accurately and decisively cognizing) what the word “knowing” means and what it knows and then recognizing that our state of mind either is not that or lacks that.
For example, suppose we can’t find our house key. Our minds might be befuddled, and we have no idea where it is. In fact, being in a daze prevents us from knowing where it is. Or we might be convinced that we left it in the house, but that’s incorrect. Being convinced like that also prevents us from looking elsewhere and finding it. Both states of mind are merely what the sound of the words “not knowing where the key is” inform us of. Both affirm that these are states of not knowing. Suppose later we find the key – we left it in the car. Now we know that when we were in a daze and when we thought the key was in the house, we did not know where the key actually was – it was in the car. That “not knowing” is a negation phenomenon. It negates knowing that the key is in the car. Previously our “not knowing” just affirmed that we did not know where it was.
Debilitated knowing (ignorance), as an anti-knowing or misknowing mental factor, is specified as an individual mental factor with its own distinct essential nature since it is the root of samsara. It is the main hindrance that needs to be ceased forever in order to attain liberation. The essential nature (ngo-bo) of something refers to the unique subclass of phenomena something belongs to within a specific class of phenomena – for example, the subclass of dogs within the class of mammals, the subclass of sounds within the class of forms of physical phenomena, and in this case, the subclass of anti-knowing or misknowing mental factors within the class of mental factors.