Plural Abhidharma: Plurality via Buddhist Psychology

By Kaimi of Kaimialana

Recently, I consider myself of a Buddhist mindset. I say Buddhist mindset and not a Buddhist proper, because I have never formally belonged to any formal sangha, nor have I received the five mindfulness trainings, or taken the three refuges. As I explore Siddhartha's teachings more I may find myself ready for the above things. For now, I am content to examine these teachings privately through Buddhist writings and commentary as I grow as an individual.

My own perspective on these teachings and my use of them stems from my place as a member of a plural system, a collective of people sharing a single body. I first thought that my readings would cause me to understand that our existence as people is an illusion that must be cut through to reach cessation of suffering. Now I do not believe this is necessary. This essay is an investigation of plurality and especially plural systems, through the eyes of Buddhist psychology, Abhidharma.

In Abhidharma, a person consists of the five aggregates (skandas): form, feelings, perceptions, mental formations, and consciousness. These five parts inter-are with each other, that is, they are interdependent upon each other for their arising. Form refers to the body and the sensory system of the body. Feelings refers to our emotions and emotional states. Perceptions include noticing, naming and conceptualizing. Mental formations are formations of the mind composed of other elements, including objects of the mind (flowers, the sky, you and me); these also include feelings and perceptions, but those formations are kept separate due to their importance. The last aggregate is consciousness, which refers to the storehouse where all the seeds of mental formations are stored, including feelings and perceptions, in dormancy.

There are said to be 51 categories of mental formations in the store consciousness. These lay dormant like seeds until they are watered by the interaction of form, or other already arisen mental formations. This causes them to arise in the mind consciousness. All seeds are present in any person, unwholesome seeds of anger or jealousy, neutral seeds like sleepiness, which can be either wholesome or unwholesome, and wholesome seeds such as joy, compassion, love, and the seed of Buddha nature. Any person has the capacity to have these seeds watered in themselves, and water these seeds in others.

It is at first difficult to see how this model can be applied to plural systems. To have the independence of many people within a single form, same as the independence between two people with apparently separate forms, there needs to be some sort of internal separation. Imagine that a garden is made of many plots, infinite numbers of them, but maybe only one of them contains seeds. The seeds in one plot arise as plants, and perhaps there is some transfer of seeds between the first plot and an adjacent empty plot. As more and more seeds are transferred, the separation of the two grows stronger, as the two plots feel differences in soil nutrients, in angle of sunlight, in genetics. Individuation grows between the two plots, and through the mental formation interacting with slightly different elements, they contain separate identities. In a plural system, some sort of separation has been made between “plots” which develop separate sets of seeds. However, in each set is every seed needed for a complete person, seeds of anger and joy, and even seeds of Buddha nature.

This is an over simplification of what may be the manifestation of this model in plural systems, as all seeds of all conscious beings, indeed, all universal existence and nonexistence is interbeing, not truly separate. Of course, this interbeing is true between two singlets with separate forms as well as between two members of a plural system that share the same body; there is no difference in that sense. If there is no difference, if all members of a plural system contain the complete complement of seeds of consciousness, contain the seed of Buddha nature and the capacity for enlightenment, then we can say they are as much people as any singlet, and should be recognized as such with great compassion.

There are several other issues I would like to address now, and I shall do so individually.

First, there is an issue of fragments. Also called parts, these are things found in many plural systems. They are fragments or parts of what would be considered a complete person. A complete person has the capacity for joy as well as anger, and certainly has the capacity for enlightenment. However, a fragment may consist only of a few seeds of consciousness, arising over and over in the same manner, no matter how they are watered. They may be violent with no capacity for caring, or a repetition of a certain event or memory that has separated into its own seed bed and arises over and over These may currently lack that ability for enlightenment that all conscious beings hold. However, it is possible that these are just “young plots”, that their seeds are not yet fully planted. Unless a fragment is dangerous, one should seek deep understanding and compassion of their situation, in the hope they will become true, fully developed people, conscious with the capacity for all mental formations.

There is also an issue of inner worlds and inner bodies. Due to the interbeing of the five aggregates, form does not necessarily have to be a cause of consciousness. If consciousness develops, form will develop along with. Either can be the cause of the other. In this sense, the development of consciousness of a person in a plural system will manifest as form, either by interaction with the physical body that is experienced in this world, or the creation of a physical body with full sensory abilities in a co-arising inner world. Depending on if you view inner worlds as gateways or as mindscapes, mental formations, the inner body of a plural member is either the manifested form from the consciousness of a member or a surrogate form due to the occupation of physical body by another person.

Some may believe there is an issue of soulbonds within this model, but soulbonds are simply members of a plural system that have become manifest by the mental formations of another member. They are people in their own right, as long as they possess the capacity of a complete person. Medians too may have a issue in this model, but perhaps they are simply plural systems with a greater understanding of their interbeing, and a smaller separation between their consciousnesses.

There is an interesting final note to this essay. Due to the closeness of members in a plural system, these have the capacity to act together as their own Sangha, a community of people living together in mindfulness and love, contained within one physical form. Due to this closeness, and blurring between mental formations of members, any growth can easily affect all system members. If one member were to independently reach complete and total cessation of suffering, all others would soon follow. This is of course, a Buddhist perspective on multiplicity, my own personal ideas on adapting Abiddharma to plural systems. I will not ask people to study Buddhist thought as I have, instead, I will ask that you all look with compassion and love on your headmates, and treasure the time you have together, seek to help them return unwholesome seeds that cause suffering to dormancy, and help water wholesome seeds within them and yourselves.