Theos-Talk Archives (January 2002 Message tt00099)

I wrote the following on the Monad, after doing some research on the subject, and am passing it along. The original is a Word doc file, and there may be some corruption/confusion over this text conversion. Sorry about that, but anyone interested can find a full version on my web site.

Jerry S.

*******************************************

Monads in Theosophy and Tibetan Buddhism
By Gerald Schueler, Ph.D.

"Monad, Monas [from Greek monas a unit, individual, atom] A unit, a one; something nondivisible and which is therefore conceived of as real, in contradistinction to compound things which (as compounds) are not real." (http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/etgloss/mi-mo.htm)
"The Monad ... is nothing else than a simple substance, which goes to make up composites; by simple, we mean without parts." (Leibniz, The Monadology)


The Monad in Theosophy 

"The potential for development of the atoms, particles, etc., which are required to create a universe, requires the development of a multiplicity of cells, all of which are the same essence. This is the doctrine of the monad in The Secret Doctrine." (Sellon, 1996, p 19)

The ancient doctrine of monads is used in modern Theosophy to explain the composition of material objects and how living beings and inanimate objects evolve. By definition, a monad is any indivisible unit. It can be composed of anything from divinity itself, through spirit down to matter so long as it is partless or indivisible. According to Blavatsky's presentation, there is a close relationship between gods, monads, and atoms.

"The term 'Monad' is a generalizing term. There are divine Monads and spiritual Monads, intellectual Monads and astral Monads, even physical Monads. Then following another line of degrees, there is a Monad of our Home Universe. There is the Monad of a solar system which is its Sun. There is the Monad of every planet. There is the Monad of every atom." (Purucker, 1948, p 413)

The use of the term monad, a partless particle by definition, for so many different things on virtually all cosmic planes and systems can be confusing, and so we need to begin with some clear definitions of just how Theosophy employs this term. According to G. de Purucker's Occult Glossary, "A monad is a spiritual entity which to us humans is indivisible; it is a divine-spiritual life-atom" ( p 108) and "Monads are spiritual-substantial entities, self-motivated, self-impelled, self-conscious, in infinitely varying degrees, the ultimate elements of the universe." (p 109) Thus in one sense a monad is an "entity" and in another sense it is an "ultimate element" both being non-physical. The monad as a "life-atom" is explained in Theosophy as "the life-principle or vitalizing essence within the atomic particles that exist on every plane." (Long, 1965, p 52). This is how Theosophy explains the teaching that everything in the universe is alive. Blavatsky made the multi-functionality of monads clear when she wrote that monads

"may be separated into three distinct Hosts, which, counted from the highest planes, are, firstly, "gods," or conscious, spiritual Egos ...Then come the Elementals, or Monads, who form collectively and unconsciously the grand Universal Mirrors of everything connected with their respective realms. Lastly, the atoms, or material molecules..." (The Secret Doctrine, Vol I, p 632)

In the above quote, she uses the idea from Leibniz (1931) that "every monad is a mirror of the universe" (p 265) to describe monadic elementals standing halfway between gods and atoms. So, Theosophy recognizes a direct connection between spiritual partless particles and physical atoms. Here she seems to be accepting physical atoms/molecules, but she is actually referring only to these as the physical counterparts of monads (monads per se are subjective/spiritual consciousnesses that have objective/material bodies). While clearly alluding to this connection, G. de Purucker (1949) says that the "Elemental Kingdoms ... are aggregates or groups of evolving monads. (p 50) These comprise what are called physical or mineral monads.

Technically, it is difficult to see how spiritual unities can form the compounded aggregates of the physical atoms that comprise the elemental kingdoms (Theosophy recognizes three separate elemental kingdoms rather than the one mineral kingdom recognized by modern science). Blavatsky hinted at an answer to this puzzle when she wrote that "Instead of saying a 'Mineral Monad,' the more correct phraseology ... would of course have been to call it 'the Monad manifesting in that form of Prakriti called the Mineral Kingdom.'" (The Secret Doctrine, Vol I. p 178) She suggests that physical atoms are not actually monads themselves, but rather the physical manifestations or vehicles of monads. This would be in keeping with Purucker's insistence that all monads are actually spiritual. 

We may conclude then, that terminology such as 'mineral monad' and 'human monad' found throughout Theosophical literature is a matter of convenience and should not be taken literally. This conclusion is further substantiated when we consider Purucker's (1949) statement that "a monad never leaves its own plane; so when we say that the earth-element is composed of concreted or dormant monads, we do not mean the spiritual monads themselves; we mean the life-atoms, each life-atom being the representative of a monad on this cosmic plane." (pp 50-51) We see then that Blavatsky's "Monad manifesting in that form of Prakriti" is called a life-atom, for convenience, to distinguish it from the physical atom itself.

The doctrine of monads, as used in Theosophy, suggests that all material objects are composed of such manifesting monads or life-atoms. But, as Blavatsky herself has pointed out, "Matter has extension." (The Secret Doctrine, Vol I, p 251) This idea of the physical extension of compounded atomic objects into three-dimensional space is a problem that troubles many Tibetan Buddhists, as we shall see later. To help clarify this, Blavatsky makes it clear that "Our Gods and Monads are not the Elements of extension itself, but only those of the invisible reality which is the basis of the manifested Kosmos." (The Secret Doctrine, Vol I, p 614, her italics) Here again, she is insisting on the inherent spirituality of monads. This idea was first formulated by Leibniz (1931) who wrote, "Now, where there are no constituent parts there is possibly neither extension, nor form, nor divisibility." (p 251) G. de Purucker (1974) expressly pointed out that monads do not have physical extension or weight when he said, 

"When we say monad, do we give it magnitude, volume, or bulk? No, because our mind instinctively recognizes it as a point of consciousness, an infinitesimal, whose essence nevertheless is universal since it is a droplet of the universal consciousness. A monad (literally 'one') cannot ever be divided; it is an individual, yet it is all-embracing because its heart is Infinity." (p 273)

Finally, Blavatsky emphatically differentiated atoms from monads when she wrote,

"the atoms (molecules, rather) of materialistic philosophy can be considered as extended and divisible, while the monads are mere mathematical points and indivisible. Finally ... these monads are representative Beings. Every monad reflects every other. Every monad is a living mirror of the Universe within its own sphere ... the monads are not mere passive reflective agents, but spontaneously self-active." (The Secret Doctrine, Vol I, p 631)

In this passage she echoes Leibniz by suggesting that each monad is like a crystal. Crystals have been used extensively in Buddhist literature to demonstrate the idea of reflection, often using metaphors such as the jewels of Indra's net:

"It is said in the Hwa Yen Sutra that high above in heaven, on the roof of the palace of the God Indra, there hang innumerable ornaments in the form of small crystal marbles. They are interlaced in various patterns forming a great complex network. Because of the reflection of light, not only does each and every one of these marbles reflect the entire cosmos, including the continents and oceans of the human world down below, but at the same time they reflect one another, including all the reflected images in each and every marble, without omission." (Chang, 1971, p 165)

The Monad in Tibetan Buddhism

"When the Buddha first began teaching, he gave teachings that were compatible to the understanding of his students. These became the Hinayana teachings and were intended for shravaka practitioners. In these teachings, the Buddha said that there was no creator, instead everything was made up of minute particles like atoms. This was the view of the Vaibhashika school. Another Hinayana teaching of the Buddha was that there were small invisible particles which were "hidden" from mind and from these the self and the external world were created. This was the view of the Sautrantika school." (Thrangu Rinpoche in Rangjung Dorje, 2001, p 24)

The generally acknowledged founders of the Mahayana school of Buddhism were Nagarjuna and his chief disciple Aryadeva. From their time until today, no Mahayana school has argued with the written words of these two, and the various schools of the Mahayana were primarily founded on different interpretations of their writings. Concerning monads, Aryadeva (in Tillemans, 1990) wrote, "One should analyze as to whether atoms do or do not have parts." (p 139) Here the Sanskrit word paramanu is translated as "atom" and it is this paramanu of Tibetan Buddhism that is equivalent to the monad of modern Theosophy, especially in its atomic sense, or what is called a "mineral monad" which is directly expressed physically as an atom. 

In the Kalachakra Tantra system of Tibetan Mahayana Buddhism, we find that there are "subtle particles that remain scattered during the period when the world-system has been emptied [of manifested form]. These particles are not perceived by the limited eye [consciousness of an ordinary person] but appear to the eye [consciousness] of a yogi. ... The very subtle particles that remain scattered [after the destruction of a world-system] are termed emptied since they are merely a manifestation of mental instincts and not the object of sense perception." (Taye, 1995, p177) These subtle particles are said to be indivisible or partless, and thus monadic. 

At least two Tibetan Hinayana schools teach the existence of subtle partless particles (Sanskrit: paramanu) that form our material universe: 

"Vaibhashikas assert partless particles that aggregate into gross objects. According to the Kasmiri sub-school, the particles do not touch each other but are held together by space. Others say that the particles surround each other without interstice, while others say that they touch each other. In any case, gross objects are formed through the aggregation of partless particles, and thus external objects - objects which are entities external to a perceiving consciousness - are said to exist truly." (Hopkins, 1996, pp 338-339)

"According to this Sautrantika explanation, only infinitesimal atoms and moments of consciousness are real." (Dreyfus, 1997, p 85). 

The Svatantika Madhyamika, a Middle-Way Mahayana school founded by Bhavaviveka, a student of Nagarjuna, also recognizes partless particles or monads.
In Tibetan Buddhism, the teaching of partless particles or monads is often accompanied by a corresponding teaching of partless moments of time so that both material objects and time are composed of monadic infinitesimal indivisible units. In the Svatantrika chapter of Jang-Gya's Presentation of Tenets, Jang-Gya (1987) says that "we assert that a composite of conjoined minute particles is a substantially existent thing." (p 309) Furthermore he explains that a composite is a collection of monads of similar type, and that a collection is a group of dissimilar composites (he gives an army and a forest as examples of collections).

These partless particles or atoms (paramanu) combine together to form aggregates or molecules (samghataparamanu). Each molecule is said to be composed of at least eight substances (dravya). These are the four elements of earth, water, fire, and air, and the four bhautikas which include visual form, smell, taste, and tactile sensations (the occasional accompaniment of sound makes a ninth substance). These molecules are said to be laid or spread out (spharitva) in space to form three-dimensional objects.

Most Tibetan Buddhist schools teach the Doctrine of Two Truths. According to this doctrine, our everyday physical and mental world of causation is a conventional truth, and its emptiness of inherent existence is an ultimate truth. Thus phenomena have conventional existence, but no inherent or permanent existence in that they only exist temporarily and they totally depend upon causes and conditions. This teaching is important when we look at how Tibetan Buddhism perceives partless particles or monads.

The idea of monadic or partless particles can also be found in the writings of some exponents of the Cittamatra or Mind-Only School, founded by Asanga and his brother Vasubandhu. According to Dharmakirti, a later Mind-Only scholar and logician, our physical universe "is reducible to partless atoms interacting with moments of consciousness." (Dreyfus, 1997, p 85) Dharmakirti wrote that "when different atoms are produced in combination with other elements, they are said to be aggregates." (pp 87-88) However, in accordance with Mind-Only teaching, he gave these partless particles only conventional existence with the idea that all phenomena are external projections of the mind. Rangjung Dorje (2001), the third Karmapa of the Kagyu school, wrote that "If the wise examine well, they will know that nothing, such as atoms and so on, exist externally, as anything other than cognition." (p 29)

But not all Tibetan Buddhist schools accept the existence of partless particles or monads even conventionally. Tzongkapa (1999), the founder of the Middle Way Gelugpa School, while discussing the Mind-Only School in his Essence of Eloquence, agrees with Vasubandhu's rejection of the doctrine of partless particles as presented in Vasubandhu's Twenty Stanzas. But for Tzongkapa, who follows Nagarjuna's disciple Candrakirti, these partless particles don't even exist conventionally. Vasubandhu attacks the ultimate existence of building blocks of external objects - partless particles - by considering that, if they are spacially dependent, then they must be surrounded by other particles. Thus the right side of one faces the left side of another, and so on so that they actually must have sides, and hence parts, and so cannot be truly partless. The only remaining possibility is that they are not spacially dependent, but if so, then they would overlap each other and there would be no spacial extension at all. This logical argument of Vasubandhu against partless particles being inherently existing atoms that aggregate to form conventionally existing material objects is echoed by several other prominent Tibetans, and has never been definitively refuted. According to Lopez (1987) "If it is admitted that the central particle has sides that face the surrounding particles, then it must be accepted that minute particles have parts" (p 184). Echoing this logical argument, Tzongkapa's disciple, Kay-drup (mKhas grub rje, 1992) also refutes the existence of "atoms" (paramanu) in his A Dose of Emptiness where he says, "One should refute the special partlessness of physical composite things, and the temporal partlessness of the nonphysical." (p 149) 

Furthermore, Tzongkapa (1999) thoroughly rejects the monads of Dharmakirti. In his Essence of Eloquence, Tzongkapa distinguishes two types of misconceptions: innate and non-innate. Innate misconceptions are those that have resided in the mental continuum from beginningless time, and non-innate misconceptions are those due to improper learning during this life (i.e., from false religions or philosophies). One of the non-innate misconceptions that he points out is the idea that "directionally partless minute particles exist" and that "objects of apprehension composed of directionally partless minute particles exist." (p 339) 

We also find great teachers like Santaraksita (1987), said to be one of the founders of the Yogacara-Svatantrika-Madhyamika school (an eclectic combination of Mind-Only and Middle Way), writing against the inherent existence of partless particles using the same argument:

"[Particles] either abide in contact, 
Circling, or without interstice.
What is the nature of the central particle
That faces an [other] particle?
If you say that which faces other particles
Is the same [side of the central particle],
How would earth, water, and so forth
Become extensive?
If the side facing another particle
Is asserted to be other [than other sides]
How could a particle
Be a partless unit?" (p 367)

How can Santaraksita combine Mind-Only with Svantantrika while rejecting partless particles? He did so like Vasubandhu, by suggesting that monads are a conventional truth. Monads are rejected in his school as having inherent existence, because the Mind-Only School sees all external phenomena as being unreal mental projections. Only the mind has reality (which is where the school gets its name - Cittamatra literally means mind only. 

Vasubandhu, after becoming a Mahayanist, actually criticized the monadic ideas of his former Hinayana school. What Vasubandhu (1999) actually says in his Twenty Stanzas is as follows: 

"The object is [experienced]
Neither as a single entity,
Nor as many discrete atoms,
Nor as an aggregate of them,
Because not a single atom is obtained [in experience at all].

One atom joined at once to six other atoms
Must have six parts.
On the other hand, if they are said
To occupy the same plane,
Then their aggregate would mean
Nothing more than a single atom" (pp 175-176)

Kochumuttom (1999) calls this Vasubandhu's rejection of the "theory of atomic realism." He concludes, "Vasubandhu's thesis [is] that the objects insofar as they are experienced, are subjective forms of consciousness, and therefore comparable to objects experienced in dreams" (p 180). According to Vasubandhu, monads are purely theoretical in that we do not actually experience them as such, either singly or as aggregates. 

Dharmakirti was a student of Dignaga, who was himself a student of Vasubandhu and it is Dignaga who is credited with providing "the standard formulation of Buddhist logic and epistemology in India and Tibet." (Dreyfus, 1997, p 15). But it is from Dharmakirti that we learn the significance of monads in the Mind-Only School:

"Dharmakirit's thinking concerning external objects follows the same line of Dagnaga's. He does not seem to distinguish an aggregate from a collection. For him, atoms remain what they are whether they are aggregated or not. How then does Dharmakirti account for our impression of extension in external objects? Like Dignaga, he does so by maintaining that this impression does not reflect the way things exist but the way we perceive them. A material object is perceived through the intermediary of its representation or aspect (Sanskrit: akara, Tibetan: rnam pa). Each of its atoms causes a perception that has such representation to arise so that we see such an extended object. Thus, the impression of extension is a result of the aspected perception, not a reflection of the way atoms exist." (Dreyfus, 1997, p 102).

Dharmapala, a Mind-Only proponent of the conventional existence of monads, wrote (in Tillemans, 1990) "The universal character (samanyalaksana) of the collection of the atoms is a designation and is not substantial. The individual particular characters [of the atoms] are not objects of the physical senses ... If they do not lose their original characters when they cooperate together, then they can not cooperate [to form a visible whole]. If [however] they do lose their original characters, then they cannot be atoms." (p 139) Here we see the Mind-Only school use of logic to repudiate the idea of external existing atoms. External objects, including atoms/monads are mental projections, and not inherently real substantial objects. Thus they cannot be "objects of the physical senses" even though they have that appearance. This was also clearly stated by Asanga (2001) himself when he wrote, 

"Furthermore, it is said that a mass of matter (rupasamudaya) is composed of atoms. Here the atom (paramanu) should be understood as not having a physical body (nihsarira). The atom is determined (vyavasthana) by means of ultimate analysis (paryantaprabhedatah) by the intellect (buddhya), with a view to the dispelling (vibhavana) of the idea of cluster (pindasamjna), and with a view to the penetration of the non-reality of the substance (dravyaparinispattipravesa) of matter." (p 91)

>From the above, we can conclude that (1) the Tibetan Theravadin schools accept monads as partless particles that collect together to form real external entities that comprise physical object, (2) the Mind-Only School allows for the conventional existence of monads, teaches that these partless particles do not exist as they appear to, which is to say that they are not physical, and explains three-dimensional extension as the way in which our consciousness interprets monadic aggregates, and (3) The Middle-Way School does not even allow a conventional existence for monads, they are said to have only an imputational nature in that their existence is merely imputed by the mind.

The Non-Physical Monad

"THE HOUR HAD NOT YET STRUCK; THE RAY HAD NOT YET FLASHED INTO THE GERM; THE MATRIPADMA HAD NOT YET SWOLLEN. HER HEART HAD NOT YET OPENED FOR THE ONE RAY TO ENTER, THENCE TO FALL, AS THREE INTO FOUR, INTO THE LAP OF MAYA." (Blavatsky, H. P., trans., Stanzas of Dyzan, II, vs 3)


Blavatsky writes that "the Divine Ray (the Atman) proceeds directly from the One" (SD, Vol I, p 222) so that atma is a "divine ray" within this mayavic universe. Throughout her writings she calls atma-buddhi, the "divine monad" but, curiously, she also says that 

"as the spiritual Monad is One, Universal, Boundless and Impartite, whose rays, nevertheless, form what we, in our ignorance, call the "Individual Monads" of men ... The "Monad" is the combination of the last two "principles" in man, the 6th and the 7th" (SD, Vol I. pp 177-178)

The above suggests that while the Monad, the inner spirituality of each and every living being, is atma-buddhi, a "ray," there is a "spiritual Monad" above that from which the "ray" descends to fall "into the lap of maya" as the Stanzas of Dyzan have it. Echoing this idea, she says that "The 'Seven Principles' are, of course, the manifestation of one indivisible spirit." (CW, Vol XIV, p 386) G de Purucker (1974) calls this "one indivisible spirit" paramatman (diagram, p 435) which he shows overshadowing the seven principles.

One of the central texts of the Mind-Only School, the Uttaratantra, dictated by Arya Maitreya (2000) to Asanga, says,

The perfect buddhakaya is all-embracing,
Suchness cannot be differentiated,
And all beings have the disposition.
Thus they always have Buddha nature. (p 23)

According to this teaching, our Buddha Nature, the essence of our buddhakaya or spiritual body, the "suchness" that cannot be differentiated, is likely equivalent to the "monadic essence" mentioned throughout Theosophical literature and is, apparently, a relatively pure monad that cannot be divided up in any conceivable way. Thus, this monad would have an ultimate, not conventional, existence.

As we have seen, Mahayana Buddhism either refutes monads as physical particles altogether or allows for their conventional existence, and suggests that they are not truly physical particles because all physical particles have parts. As we have seen, Theosophy agrees that monadic partless particles are not physical and have no special extension. G. de Purucker (1974) defines three types of atoms: 

"Thus we have anu, the atom; jivanu, the life-atom; paramanu, the supreme atom or atomic monad. The paramanu or atomic monad lasts through the whole cosmic manvantara without diminution of power or cessation of consciousness. The life-atom or jivanu lasts only for a certain period of time within the cosmic manvantara. Like our physical body, the anu is even more transitory and fugitive." (pp 274-275)

Thus all three, the atom, the life-atom, and the atomic monad are temporary and thus conventional. The paramanu, the partless particle described in Tibetan Buddhism, is long-lasting but nonetheless temporary. According to G de Purucker (1974), "Thus we have the analogies: Paramanu, jivanu, anu; monad, reimbodying ego, body; or, in the Christian scheme, spirit, soul, body." (p 275) The divine monad is in active mayavic expression while paramanu remains in a potential or latent state, otherwise they are identical. 

Blavatsky tells us that "Nothing is permanent except the one hidden absolute existence which contains in itself the noumena of all realities." (SD, Vol I, p 39) and also "Spirit is matter on the seventh plane; matter is Spirit - on the lowest point of its cyclic activity; and both - are MAYA." (SD, Vol I, p 633) This strongly suggests that she places the entire seven cosmic planes of manifestation, which includes the seven principles and all monads, within maya. 

The uniting of spirit and matter, as aspects of the same thing, suggests that the duality of monads as partless particles has to do with spirit and matter being two aspects of the same monadic essence. In this sense, a spiritual monad or "god" can be viewed as the spiritual counterpart of a material atom, while a life-atom is its living or self-animated counterpart, and that these are three aspects of the same thing during manifestation. In this way, evolutionary progression can be viewed as cyclic pilgrimages in which monads self-express into material forms followed by their return through the stage of life-atoms (living beings) all the way to full divine monads or gods.

Both Theosophy and Tibetan Buddhism accept the doctrine of maya and the idea that physical atoms can be viewed as conventional manifestations of monads, but not monads themselves. Tibetan Buddhism also agrees with Theosophy in positing an absolute Monad having monadic essence, a fundamental non-dual indivisible nature, with the permanency of ultimate existence.

References

Arya Maitreya, The Uttaratantra, written down by Arya Asanga, in Fuchs, Rosemarie (trans), Buddha Nature: The Mahayana Uttaratantra Shastra, (Snow Lion, 2000).

Asanga, Abidharmasamuccaya, in Rahula, Walpola (trans), Abhidharmasamuccaya: The Compendium of the Higher Teaching (Philosophy) by Asanga, (Asian Humanities Press, 2001).

Chang, Garma, C. C., The Buddhist Teaching of Totality: The philosophy of Hwa Yen Buddhism, (Pennsylvania State University Press, 1971).

de Purucker, G., Dialogues of G de P, Vol II, (Theosophical University Press, 1948).

de Purucker, G., Studies in Occult Philosophy, (Theosophical University Press, 1949, orig pub in 1945).

de Purucker, G. Occult Glossary, (Theosophical University Press, 1972).

de Purucker, G., Fountain Source of Occultism, (Theosophical University Press, 1974).

Dreyfus, G. B. J., Recognizing Reality: Dharmakirti's Philosophy and its Tibetan Interpretations, (State University of New York Press, 1997)

Hopkins, Jeffery, Meditation on Emptiness, (Wisdom, 1996, orig pub in 1983).

Jang-Gya, Presentation of Tenets, in Lopez, Donald. S. Jr. A Study of Svatantrika, (Snow Lion, 1987)

Leibniz, Discourse on Metaphysics. Correspondence with Arnamuld. Monadology, Montogomery, Geo. R. (trans), (Open Court, 1931).

Long, J. A., Expanding Horizons, (Theosophical University Press, 1965).

MKhas grub rje, in Cabezon, J. I., (trans) A Dose of Emptiness: An Annotated Translation of the sTong thun chen mo of mKhas grub dGe legs dpal bzang, (State University of New York Press, 1992).

Rangjung Dorje, the Third Karmapa, Transcending Ego: Distinguishing Consciousness from Wisdom, Peter Roberts (trans), Thrangu Rinpoche (commentary), (Sri Satguru Publications, 2001).

Santaraksita, Ornament for the Middle Way, in Lopez, Donald. S. Jr., A Study of Svatantrika, (Snow Lion, 1987)

Sellon, E. B., The Pilgrim and the Pilgrimage, (Olcott Institute of the Theosophical Society in America and The Theosophical Publishing House, 1996).

Taye, Jamgon Kongtrul Lodro, trans. by International Translation Committee of Kunkhyab Choling, Myriad Worlds: Buddhist Cosmology in Abidharma, Kalachakra, and Dzog-chen, (Snow Lion, 1995).

Tillemans, Tom, J. F., Materials for the Study of Aryadeva, Dharmapala and Candrakirti: The Catuhsataka of Aryadeva, Chapters XII and XIII, with the Commentaries of Dharmapala and Candrakirti, (Arbeitskreis fur Tibetische und Buddhistische Studien Universitat Wien, 1990)

Tzongkapa, Essence of Eloquence, in Hopkins, Jeffery, Emptiness in the Mind-Only School of Buddhism: Dynamic Ressponses to Dzong-ka-ba's The Essence of Eloquence: 1, (University of California Press, 1999)

Vasubandhu, A Treatise in Twenty Stanzas (Vimsatika), in Kochumuttom, Thomas. A. A., Buddhist Doctrine of Experience: A new translation and interpretation of the works of Vasubandu the Yogacarin, (Motilal Banarsidass (Delhi), 1999, orig published in 1982).




--