Discussion: Haquan's "An Alternative View of the Maps"

One of our members, Haquan, has posted an essay on The Baptist's Head website. Haquan makes a number of interesting points about maps and about mystical practice in general. Here is a teaser:

"Attaining enlightenment does not necessarily confer accurate rational assessment of either the nature of reality or the condition itself, which may be bound up in the assumptions of the methods used to attain it. This is evidenced by the number of traditional models which are clearly inadequate. Inferences about the general metaphysical state of affairs based on the experience are of limited value, and tend to distort the experiences of those who are struggling to develop their new awareness."

www.thebaptistshead.co.uk/forum/topic.php?id=107

I thought it would be fun and educational to begin a discussion of Haquan's ideas and see how our other members relate to them.

I'll start: I agree with the above statements. Enlightenment does not confer "accurate rational assessment" of anything whatsoever. Enlightenment is a line of development unto itself and does little or nothing to improve our ability to manipulate concepts.

Haquan, will you say more about which traditional models you consider to be inadequate and in what ways you feel they fall short?

Kenneth

"People's spiritual experiences will tend conform to the maps they know about, or their general understanding of the maps because they expect them to. Period. The content of spiritual experiences are both idiosyncratic and shaped by expectation. The spiritual experiences are, in fact, produced by vivid engagement with the imagination '“ consistent with contemporary theories of hypnosis. Like psychosis, they superimpose dreaming consciousness over waking consciousness. Like dreams, the content is metaphorical."-Haquan

The "period" after the first sentence makes me suspect that this is not a concept you are holding lightly.

While it's true that the content of the mind is infinite in its possible manifestations, there is a structure inherent in the mind/body. This became shockingly clear to me the day I attained First Path in 1992. I had previously heard about four "jhanas" or states of meditative absorption, each with its unique characteristics. But in my own experience, the territory of the mind was a chaotic jumble; I considered the possibility that the "jhana talk" was metaphorical or arbitrary. On that day, however, four discreet states became accessible to me. They differed from imagination in much the same way that my ordinary waking experience differs from imagination; the jhanas were stable, repeatable, and possessed a reality of their own, independent of any ideas I might have about them. To this day I am amazed by the Theravada map of 31 Realms of Existence, which details the territory of the mind with breathtaking accuracy.

www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sagga/loka.html

Just read it. It seemed good to me.

Apophasis. '˜Neti, neti' ('˜Not this, not that'). Trying to clear a more accurate conceptual space for the rhetoric of the inexpressible.

I liked it, I think.

So far, I seem to have found that there are structure, anatomy, and limits/rules/grammar to imagination. Our conventional view is that there is a mundane, concrete world which is bound by rules and ther eis a personal, private realm of imagination that, while immaterial, is boundless in its possibility. But I believe I've found that the world of mental conceptualization while more subtle is also bound by grammar and limitations. And it is also physical.

So, I am not surprised by advanced, accurate maps of the internal, subjective realms. Rather, I am intensely grateful for them.

On the other hand, so far, i seem to find something that is fundamentally arbitrary here. Like water, fixed into various shapes as it freezes into a solid, and yet also fundamentally fluid. We 'freeze' to engage with the conventional world. But we are still water.

So, the belief/imagination/averred doctrine or view does shape a great deal. But that which is shaped is formless.

I've read Haquan's comments and now I have only a million things floating around in my head

Like Haquan, I am leery of certain sociological tendencies that religions and other such groups exhibit. I'm also leery, even more so, of the tendency Haquan mentions for folks to exhibit serious ego-centric problems, the development of a desire to please an authority figure, the desire to maintain status, and the like. Frankly, it is those concerns that have driven me away from the DharmaOverground of late. My caution is also part of what drives me not to pay all that much attention to maps. Funny thing, though, contra some of what Haquan says, the maps do appear to hold true for my more or less "mapless" process.

That said, it is quite clear to me that there is structure and meaning behind the practice of meditation and that structure and meaning are generated by a human being's physical and mental nature. I have no idea if we are purely material beings or something else, but it has become very clear to me that the world is not as I once believed and that the reason for this is the application of a process (meditation) that produces predictable results (realization).

What I experience now could no doubt be said to be a self-fulfilling prophesy but I don't think it is. I think it's real, and valuable, but is best taken with a skeptical attitude, as are most things we humans do, or believe.

Somewhere "out there" is the true intersection of science and spirituality. We have to struggle through to find it and I applaud everyone who tries, from Dr. James Austin and the Dalai Lama to Haquan.

Haquan, welcome to KennethFolk Dharma.

This is an interesting topic, Kenneth. Thanks for getting the ball rolling.

I agree with Haquan that, "People's spiritual experiences will tend to conform to the maps they know about, or their general understanding of the maps because they expect them to." Though, I think the, "Period." that follows is unnecessary, because he says that our experiences "tend to conform" not "always conform." I would have been more appropriate to say our experiences always conform, period. I'm just being picky, I guess. Back to the article.

I have found this to be true of my own practice. I've read descriptions of others' awakenings and have later had experiences that match theirs very closely. This could easily lead me to believe that what occurred was the real thing because it matches up with the description of some master meditator. It's appropriate for me to be somewhat skeptical of this truth, and only to evaluate my experience after the fact. What's my experience now? How do I experience the sensational universe in this moment? Those questions are more helpful to me than "what happened back then?"

(continued)

Also, Haquan writes... "Attaining enlightenment does not necessarily confer accurate rational assessment of either the nature of reality or the condition itself, which may be bound up in the assumptions of the methods used to attain it. This is evidenced by the number of traditional models which are clearly inadequate. Inferences about the general metaphysical state of affairs based on the experience are of limited value, and tend to distort the experiences of those who are struggling to develop their new awareness."

I sort of disagree with this one. I think that investigating one's experience (vipassana, especially) leads to a direct understanding of the nature of experience, in a phenomenological sense. However, I think it's possible that our direct experience of things (our phenomenological experience) says very little about how things are on an Ultimate level. Meditation is only experience-deep. I cannot observe quantum mechanics, or even molecular biology, by observing the flickers of sensation in my big toe.

However, I can notice that the sensations in my big toe do flicker, and that each and ever sensation comes and goes for only a moment, and that there appears to be no one controlling this or making it happen. Where I don't think that the knowledge, or even the experience, of this process is equal to being enlightened, I think it's a huge part of the journey from start to finish, and then from finish throughout the duration of the yogi's life. To say that enlightenment is merely a physio-energetic process that has nothing to do with insights is too hard line for me. Both are involved, and it's hard for me to believe that the physio-energetic side is able to develop at all without gaining some insights that one is able to articulate. Just my opinion.

Thoughts?

Hi Jackson,

I took Haquan's comment about "accurate rational assessment of either the nature of reality or the condition itself" to refer to the conclusions we make *about* our insights. So, while I agree with you that meditation brings about not only physio-energetic development but also certain insights into the workings of the mind, any conclusions I draw about those insights are influenced by my education and indoctrination (or lack thereof).

Here's an example: A beginning vipassana meditator will soon discover the first Insight Knowledge, that it is possible to distinguish mental processes from physical processes. This is the simple discovery that body is body and mind is mind. We might call that a low-level insight in that it doesn't require a great deal of cogitation; it's pretty cut and dried. Based on that simple observation of the distinction between mind and body, however, one could draw all sorts of inferences. In Buddhist terms, you might begin to speculate about the four elements and how they interact to create the appearance of mind and body. A Christian might conclude that his eternal soul is in charge of this otherwise lifeless piece of meat. A neuroscientist might wonder about the physical interface between cognition and physiology.

So, it makes sense to me that there should be so many disparate explanations for the basic insights that come along with direct observation of our own experience. I see the mind as consisting of various strata, which are as real (or unreal) as the physical body. When these strata are accessed and penetrated, they yield the so-called Insight Knowledges. Some of these strata, the so-called jhanas, are stable enough to take as object and cultivate as resting places. So, for me the inherent structure of the mind co-exists peacefully with the fact that there are as many ways to talk about the mental territory as there are explorers of it.

Hey Kenneth,

I am in agreement with your conclusions regarding the example you provided (Mind & Body). One observes the bare facts, which is that the mental processes are distinguished from the physical/bodily processes. Making further inferences based on one's tradition is where thing get tricky, and even skewed. And somehow, noticing this distinction (stage one) leads to further stripped down insights. It's fascinating stuff, really.

Now, as far as "psychic anatomy" is concerned, it's an interesting hypothesis. I've been known to jump on board with it most of the time. I think it will stay in the realm of hypothesis for quite some time, however, if not indefinitely. For, the inference that one's experience of a distinct jhana correlates to the existence of actual mind strata is difficult to prove (or should I say "verify" - "prove" may not be appropriate here), even if it is more or less experienced by the yogi in a direct first person sort of way. At best, it is a handy tool for charting one's progress toward this thing we call awakening. It's all very mysterious, and yet we have discovered ways of talking about it which can help others experience and achieve such attainments as well.

I like to stick with what you told me quite some time ago, and that's to avoid conclusions in general. Solidifying experiences into Truths or Axioms puts one on an express way to dogmatism, which is generally discouraged in communities such as this one.

Thoughts?

Jackson

Hi Jackson,
I'll jump in here with your message because it was the last in the thread at this time. You wrote:

"I like to stick with what [Kenneth] told me quite some time ago, and that's to avoid conclusions in general. Solidifying experiences into Truths or Axioms puts one on an express way to dogmatism, which is generally discouraged in communities such as this one."

I choose to make all kinds of assertions about "the way things are" in the form of axiomatic statements. And then I'll proceed to deny what I've formerly asserted. Or assert what I've formerly denied. This is a fairly classic Zen technique. Listeners are first enticed to embrace one position, then find that platform cut out from under them. So they then embrace the opposition position, until that too is undercut.

The truth is too subtle for words. The practices we engage do not yield a single unimpeachable permanent statement of truth. They only reveal us to ourselves. When we realize this at depth, at the root, then the transformation has been accomplished. From the resulting "point of view" all talk about "rational assessment" of enlightenment, and "the nature of reality" as Haquan put it, are the stuff of hilarity.
[Edited spelling]

I take that comment, Gozen, to mean that I should become as comfortable with uncertainty and not knowing as I can possibly get?

"
I take that comment, Gozen, to mean that I should become as comfortable with uncertainty and not knowing as I can possibly get?



"

You know it!

:>

"Solidifying experiences into Truths or Axioms puts one on an express way to dogmatism..."-Jackson

I agree with you about this, Jackson. At the same time, I think that some provisional conclusions or arbitrary designations are useful. For example, it's fairly easy to show that the human body is a mental construct, even without denying its reality or solidity. I believe it was Allen Watts who pointed out that in order to define any living thing, you must include a description of the environment in which it lives. In order to describe that environment, you must put it in the context of a larger environment. Eventually, in order to fully define a human being with its human body, you would have to include a detailed account of the entire universe and everything in it. So, when we speak about a human being or a human body, we are making a convenient, arbitrary distinction.

Similarly, my contention is that the mental strata have about as much reality as the human body. Neither are absolutes and the truth is that neither exist separately from everything else. But at the level where we can provisionally admit the existence and coherent structure of the human body, we can also provisionally admit the existence and coherent structure of the individual mind.

Like the body, the mind can be observed to have parts that work together to create the whole. Those parts are mappable because a careful observer can watch them cycle through his experience in invariable order time after time. This becomes more and more apparent as we get better at not manipulating our experience, as you have seen. And while it's possible for highly enlightened people to be unaware of these strata of mind (recognizing them requires training in a particular mode of observation), this doesn't negate their existence.

In summary, the strata of mind have as much objective reality as the human body.

Sorry I'm late... I've had a lot to write lately. - by the way, I've posted more on the original thread.
In terms of the traditional models that fall short, I was referencing all the different models of enlightenment that Daniel discusses in MCTB - the fully realized energy system,. immortality, the "no-thinking", the immortal, etc.

Let's see... I believe that there may be an implicit *structure* to experience, but that symbol systems (content) is empty. So the samatha jhanas may be an exception to what I say, but I doubt it. The Theravada 31 realms of existence - a powerful mythic narrative/cosmology capable of organizing our experience like a 4 dimensional mandala. Is it inherent - to the extent that it is archetypal, yes. But so are other narrative/cosmologies that vary from it in certain ways.

You have to realize, I'm a Chaos magician. I have a different point of view and different experiences. Many, many, many exotic experiences. What I have found is that your experiences will tend to conform to the belief system you adopt - and they may seem as real as your body *and* they will always be distorted by your personal projections or associations. In fact, this (the personal projections) is part of how the process works because personal elements become processed in association with the more mythic.

To illustrate - if you perform Yoga with a a 7 chakra system, you will have a seven chakra experience. If you work with a 12 chakra system, you will have a 12 chakra experience. And both will be as genuine. The fact is, the world will seem to conform to any self-consistent belief system you adopt. Try it. Every day for a week or two, adopt a different belief system at random - maybe superstitious, monotheistic, atheist-scientific materialist, animistic, pantheistic, etc

Some of my views on this are expressed in the "Chaos Enlightenment" thread on Baptists Head

"
I sort of disagree with this one. I think that investigating one's experience (vipassana, especially) leads to a direct understanding of the nature of experience, in a phenomenological sense. However, I think it's possible that our direct experience of things (our phenomenological experience) says very little about how things are on an Ultimate level. Meditation is only experience-deep. I cannot observe quantum mechanics, or even molecular biology, by observing the flickers of sensation in my big toe.

"

Well, Kenneth did, in fact, correctly interpret my meaning - but I'd like to point out that you don't know about quantum mechanics except through experience - experience is all there is, really, except perhaps what is expressed by "Emptiness." Do I really know what I mean by emptiness? "Try to grasp it and you cannot hold it." Interestingly I sort of conceive of the Void as a superpositional state of all things unknown and unmanifest - but this is really me trying to describe it to myself (sort of like my conclusions) - and is still different from the experience. Quantum physics doesn't exist outside of you, nor is it subjective.

Anyway - one of the more arbitrary things is probably the number of paths before final completion - 3 in the Thelemite, 4 in Theravada, 6 in some Tibetan systems - also why Gotama blasted through all 4 paths in one sitting in some accounts. He probably put together stuff that emerged from his explorations into "map form" - but there is a *lot* of stuff that doesn't fall anywhere on a map , and Gotama acknowledged that.

Any reality is possible from the unconditioned, and our conditioned reality is contrained by the physical structures and to any extent an individual is an individual, not sharing traits both physical an non physical with the collective. While most assume a the collective bondary and discuss where it is, I think it important to recognize the significant individual variations (Karama if you like). After all it is [also from] these individual variations that conditioned reality arises and just maybe the assumed [collective] constraints I mentioned earlier do not exist at all. This being the case Haquan's reality may only be the tip of the iceberg. Much could be said on how this reality fits nicely with what we already know regarding emptiness and the mind.

[edit] It is possible, given the chance, Haquan maybe take this as far as I have, I am not familar his tradition or beliefs.
the words in [ ] were added for clarification.

Since I am familiar with the Chaos Magick paradigm, I understand very well what Haquan means. It is true as far as symbols are concerned. It is also true that expectations and world views tend to shape out experience. From the biography of ancient Greek philosophers, it became clear that their main purpose was not to create systems reflecting the truth in a scientific manner. Their purpose was instead to find the ultimate Good. Some identified it with the contemplation of pure ideas (Plato), others with Ataraxia (Epicurus) or Apatheia (Zeno) to mention a few. With this goal in mind, they created systems composed of logic, physic, ethic, namely a worldview, a road map and a set of practical exercise that eventually allowed their student to reach the desired state.
Getting back to Buddhism, is appears that Indian yogis (living 2500 years ago) devised system based on completely different worldviews (materialist, idealist, dualist, phenomenological, etc.). Like their Greeks cousins, their purpose was not to create systems reflecting the Truth in a modern scientific sense. The idea was only to provide a complete coherent system leading to what they had defined as the ultimate goal (pleasure, immortality, merging with Brahma, end of suffering and entrance into Nirvana)'¦.

Therefore, I consider that the Buddha was pragmatic. He himself said that when a warrior got shot by an arrow, the only thing that matters is to save his life. He therefore assembled ideas from other Hindu yogic systems as well from Jainism to create a practical system that supported the practice and worldview that had led him to enlightenment. The system has been compiled in what is known as Abhidhamma. Later on, treaties like the Vishudhimagga systemized it adding new elements. Later on Birmese monks mapped their experience with these treaties.

I think that Chaos Magick shares this concern for a pragmatic approach. The ultimate goal might not be defined, but the whole system (including random beliefs) supports a set of rituals and yogic practices aimed at a mastery of various aspects of magick.

My conclusion is therefore that systems and road maps don't express the absolute truth. Their purpose is purely pragmatic and result oriented. They are necessary (or at least very useful) in order to reach the goal for which they have been created, not despite but on the contrary because of the fact that they shape experience.

Alex

So, to summarize this so far: we cannot actually, in any absolute sense, define anything to be separate from everything else (Kenneth's comment), and therefore we are left to deal with constructs. These are built on the assumption, for practical reasons, that they can serve to inform other human beings. They are communications. These constructs have been built over long periods of time, probably from the dawn of human self-awareness. They have become, in some cases, what we call religion, in other cases what we call philosophy, in other cases what we call magick, in other cases.... well, who knows? The point of all this is to say, per Haquan's thesis, that the tradition you adopt will be the interpretation you believe.

IOW - there is no REAL, TRUE, DEFINITIVE description of reality. There are only inherently flawed constructs, flawed because it's impossible to define reality without including the entirety of reality. Or is it?

Questions:

1. Mind contains what appears to be an infinity. Everything we experience, which includes a lot of things we imagine, is "in there." Why can't the mind define reality - or *does* it define reality, but only through direct experience? Is this why we can't communicate direct experience to anyone else? These things, I think, are related.

2. Godel's Theorem (sorry, math and philosophy) says that for any self-consistent recursive system powerful enough to describe the arithmetic of natural numbers, there are true propositions about the naturals that cannot be proved from the axioms. Is this akin to what we're saying here about reality and the mind? Reality cannot be bound by itself, in other words. These two things, also, appear to me to be related.

Just askin'

Yep, the primordial mindstuff will take any form you give it. Now where the forms come from is an entirely different question, because ultimately they are emerging out of the mindstuff. I have to think on the first question, but the words that popped into my head were "The mind can't define reality because it *is* reality - just as we can not see our own faces it can not see itself." I'm not sure I understand the other two parts to your question though.

Well spoken Alex! Given that *any* map has some validity - even the ones you might make up (though some might be more useful than others), and that when you start exploring the mind, you tend to find what you expect to, one interesting perspective is to examine what the fundamental question any given tradition is attempting to answer. If you do that, a few things pop out - one is that most mystical traditions evolved within the context of a religion and are therefore concerned with the existential problems posed with that religion - original sin, for instance, in Christianity. Only two religions I can think of actually grew out of a mystical tradition - Buddhism and Taoism. When you consider the questions those two traditions were attempting to answer - they are actually very different. Buddhism wants to solve the problem of individual suffering, karma, and cyclical existence. Taoism is interested in health, in the broadest possible definition of the word, and longevity. Yoga seems to be about finding the "true self", and freedom (which of course raises the question, freedom from what?) Western ceremonial magic probably can trace it's lineage back to the Greek Mysteries - which as you mentioned had it's own particular concerns.

In fact, there are many possible mystical quests, not all of which lead to enlightenment. And there are, of course, practical consequences from understanding all this.

At some time, some future time, do you believe there will ever be an answer to these questions? I'm curious because I'm entirely unsure. I've read a lot of physics (quantum-wise) and neuroscience, and there are raging arguments going on in both of those disciplines over issues that are similar to the one we're talking about.

For example, in quantum physics it's very clear that the mere presence of an observer -- a MIND -- determines the outcome of many experiments. By choosing a particular experimental design, the observer is literally choosing the future outcome of the experiment. This is similar, to me, to what Haquan is saying about choosing a map and then getting results that conform to that map.

I guess what really gets me going, revs up my curiosity engine, is to think that these things are all related in a very, very deep and fundamental way. That the nature of the mind is the central, definitive part of the material, mathematical and spiritual worlds. Science, math, anatomy, philosophy and spirituality may all be aiming at the same thing... ultimately. But, of course, from very different starting points.

Now, to stop ranting and get back to work....

Edit: grammar.

"Yep, the primordial mindstuff will take any form you give it. Now where the forms come from is an entirely different question, because ultimately they are emerging out of the mindstuff. I have to think on the first question, but the words that popped into my head were "The mind can't define reality because it *is* reality - just as we can not see our own faces it can not see itself." -- Haquan"

'In the realm of the mind, anything we believe either is true of tends to become true as a result of having believed it.'

- John Lilly, M.D,

"Let's see... I believe that there may be an implicit *structure* to experience, but that symbol systems (content) is empty. So the samatha jhanas may be an exception to what I say, but I doubt it. The Theravada 31 realms of existence - a powerful mythic narrative/cosmology capable of organizing our experience like a 4 dimensional mandala. Is it inherent - to the extent that it is archetypal, yes. But so are other narrative/cosmologies that vary from it in certain ways."-Haquan

The map of the 31 realms has presumably survived the ages because of its mythological component. In other words, the talk of deva realms and fantastic beings is wonderful fodder for stories, which can be passed from one generation to the next. But when the content is stripped away, there remains a map of the inherent strata of mind. It's possible to observe these strata of mind without content other than the characteristics of each stratum; this is jhana in its simplest form. You are right that the content of the mind is supplied by imagination, which is scripted by our education and beliefs. The strata of mind, however, arise in order during meditation, independent from content.

I'll write up a concise map of the 20 major strata of mind and post it as a page. While firsthand familiarity with the topography of mind is not essential to enlightenment, I think those who aspire to understand how our experience is created will find it a fruitful avenue of investigation.

Edit: here's the map!

kennethfolkdharma.wetpaint.com/page/20+Major+Strata+of+Mind

"

I guess what really gets me going, revs up my curiosity engine, is to think that these things are all related in a very, very deep and fundamental way. That the nature of the mind is the central, definitive part of the material, mathematical and spiritual worlds. Science, math, anatomy, philosophy and spirituality may all be aiming at the same thing... ultimately. But, of course, from very different starting points.
"

Me too!

I do think that in answer to number 2 in post 18 that we know that there's never going to be a complete and consistent theory of everything - so yes! If there's an Absolute Truth, it can't be expressed.

To Kenneth:
Thanks for posting up the 20 strata of mind, I'm still looking it over, trying to understand it...
I guess I'm getting the feeling that you's like me to say something like "OH MY GOD KEN!! You've found the One True Map!!!"
I hate to disappoint you, but there ain't no such animal. I've had similar conversations about Qabala a few (!) times... Not that the map isn't important, powerful, and useful - but it's still a map. I think the cliche is "The map is not the territory." I mean, I'm going to learn and assimilate this map. I think I mentioned in some other thread somewhere that my basic theory about how divinatory oracles work (like Tarot) is that they have such a web and cluster of associations, and the standard interpretations are so vague and cryptic that it allows the reader to make virtually interpretation - so the reader is the real oracle. Nevertheless, if I have to teach someone, I'll make them learn the Tarot - why? Because it helps them assimilate the structure and gives them a lexicon to think more magickally.

Have you ever played with any systems outside Buddhism? Would you be open to the idea that maybe your experience did not reveal the *only* fundamental structure?

If so, I would like to propose an experiment that I think you will find interesting, useful, and instructive - but you have to be open to the idea that there may be something new or unexpected revealed, and to be able to step out of a Buddhist worldview temporarily.

Are you familiar with the Tibetan term "kunzhi namshe"? It's the base consciousness in which all the karmic traces as obscurations of consciousness are stored. Now earlier I wondered where all the forms and schema came from - probably the Tibetans would say that they were karmic (traces of experiences with grasping or aversion) - what I can't figure out is how the whole karma thing got started in the first place... Anyway regarding the kunzhi namshe:
"It is not a thing or a place, it is the dynamic that underlies the organization of dualistic experience. It is insubstantial as a collection of habits, and as powerful as the habits that allow language to make sense, forms to resolve as objects, and for existence to appear to us as something meaningful that we can navigate and understand. The common metaphor for the kunzhi namshe is of a storehouse or repository that cannot be destroyed. We can think of the kunzhi namshe as storing a collection of patterns or schematics. It is a grammar of experience that is affected to a greater or lesser extent by each action that we take externally or internally, physically or cognitively.... The karmic traces continue in the mental consciousness until they are purified. When they are completely purified, there is no longer a kunzhi namshe and the individual is a Buddha." Tenzin Wangyal Rinpoche

interesting Haquan, I was just thinking about this last night. Actually, kunzhi namshe is the Tibetan for Alajavijnana, the 8th Vijnana of Yogachara Buddhism, the store consciousness, the Buddha Nature, or simply the Mind (Citta).

Here is a link to the Wikipedia entry for those interested who might not be familiar with this essential notion of Mahayana Buddhism:.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Store_consciousness

Alajavijnana or Kunzhi solves many problems and explains many things. It is the answer to the self / no-self debate. It explains karma. Above all, it provides an answer to the main topic of the discussion.