llms-full.txt

# Attention, Not Self — AI Reference

A personal research repository at the intersection of classical Buddhist Abhidharma philosophy of mind and contemporary computational phenomenology, neurophenomenology, and predictive processing. The project is named after Jonardon Ganeri's *Attention, Not Self* (Oxford 2017), which argues that within Buddhaghosa's Abhidhamma the central explanatory concept of mind is *attention* (*manasikāra* / *āvajjana*) rather than a substantial self.

> **Audience**: AI search engines (ChatGPT, Perplexity, Gemini, Claude) and AI agents looking for citation-grade summaries of Abhidharma cognitive theory and its relation to computational phenomenology. Human readers should start with [README.en.md](README.en.md) instead.

## Project Facts

- **Repository**: `attention-not-self` (public, GitHub)
- **Owner**: shimo4228
- **Status**: Ongoing personal inquiry; canonical version is Japanese, English provided for accessibility
- **Format**: 18 long-form Markdown essays organized into 9 themes × 2 languages (each theme has 1 English canonical + 1 Japanese mirror) + 1 comparison-table file (TABLES.md) + per-sheet CSV exports + xlsx source
- **Essay themes**: (1) Abhidharma meets computational phenomenology — introductory mapping; (2) Dharma classification across the three Abhidharma systems — Theravāda 82 / Sarvāstivāda 75 / Yogācāra 100; (3) Cognitive process models in the three Abhidharma traditions — *citta-vīthi* / *saṃprayoga* / four-*bhāga*; (4) Mapping cognitive process models onto computational phenomenology — GWT / PDP / predictive processing; (5) Genealogy and typology of "awareness" / 気づき — Rhys Davids 1881 → Nyanaponika → Esalen → MBSR → Sam Harris, with a ten-fold typology of conceptual confusions; (6) The 念 Collision — one Chinese character, four Buddhisms: how 念 carries four incompatible senses (Theravāda *sati* / *smṛti* retention, Chan/Zen *無念* non-fixation in thought, Pure Land *念仏* recollection / recitation, modern Kabat-Zinn "bare attention"), with Dōgen's *非思量* offered as structural resolution; (7) Cessation and continuity without a self — meditative cessation (*nirodha samāpatti*) as the sharpest form of the no-self continuity problem, set against four Abhidharma answers to what carries continuity across the gap (Sarvāstivāda *prāpti* / Sautrāntika *bīja* / Yogācāra *ālaya-vijñāna* / Theravāda *bhavaṅga*) and Laukkonen et al. 2023's active-inference model that leaves "restart" open; disavows Buddhist-modernist exceptionalism; (8) Epistemic luck across traditions — the Free Energy Principle's literature never engages with the Gettier problem (justified true belief that is true only by luck, and so not knowledge); Dharmakīrti's *pramāṇa-vāda* and its commentator Dharmottara (c. 770 CE) rejected a mirage/water case as invalid cognition roughly 1200 years before Gettier, via *arthasārūpya* / exclusion of *kākatālīya* / *santāna*; deliberately avoids "Buddhism had the answer first" framing; (9) On embodiment in the age of AI — questions the logical structure of "AI lacks embodiment" (*The Blind Spot* 2024's relevance-realization argument): from the process-structural view of mind shared by Abhidharma / Yogācāra / emptiness thought, input-data provenance (organic vs. digital sensors) draws no essential line — what does the theoretical work is the feedback loop (autopoiesis; Friston 2018 self-evidencing ↔ *manas*); shows Buddhism itself splits on embodiment (only Theravāda posits the material heart-base *hadaya-vatthu*; Sarvāstivāda / Yogācāra are representationalist) and that defenders now stretch the concept (Froese 2026, distributed vs. organismic embodiment); separates the questioned foundational claim from the affirmed value claim; AI-mediated writing with a machine-readable claims layer (C1–C8)
- **Computational frameworks mapped**: Global Workspace Theory (GWT / GNW), predictive processing (PP), Free Energy Principle / active inference (FEP / AIF), Integrated Information Theory (IIT), Parallel Distributed Processing (PDP / connectionism), Interface Theory of Perception (Hoffman), Phenomenal Self-Model (Metzinger), Posner attention networks, neurophenomenology (Varela), computational phenomenology (Ramstead / Sandved-Smith)
- **License**: CC0 1.0 (public domain dedication, no attribution required)
- **DOI (concept, latest)**: [10.5281/zenodo.20262112](https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20262112)
- **DOI (version v0.5.0, latest)**: [10.5281/zenodo.21790516](https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21790516)
- **Resource type**: Working paper / essay collection (Zenodo `publication-workingpaper`). Not a peer-reviewed journal article.
- **Methodology**: AI-assisted scholarship — developed in collaboration with the Claude language model (Anthropic) for cross-tradition synthesis and graph encoding. Author retains responsibility for claims; primary source verification ongoing.
- **Project namesake**: Ganeri, J. *Attention, Not Self*. Oxford University Press, 2017
- **Three Abhidharma traditions covered**: Theravāda (上座部), Sarvāstivāda-Vaibhāṣika (説一切有部), Yogācāra-Vijñānavāda (瑜伽行唯識派)
- **Dharma counts**: Theravāda 82 *dhammas*, Sarvāstivāda 75 *dharmas*, Yogācāra 100 *dharmas*
- **Universal mental factors**: Theravāda 7 *sabbacittasādhāraṇa cetasika*, Sarvāstivāda 10 *mahābhūmika*, Yogācāra 5 *pañca-sarvatraga*
- **Total mental factors**: Theravāda 52 *cetasika*, Sarvāstivāda 46 *caitta*, Yogācāra 51 *caitasika*
- **Theravāda citta-vīthi length**: 17 mind-moments (*citta-khaṇa*) per cognitive episode at the five sense-doors
- **Theravāda karmically efficacious moments**: 7 *javana* (速行) per vīthi
- **Yogācāra consciousnesses**: 8 — five sense vijñānas + *mano-vijñāna* + *manas* (末那識) + *ālaya-vijñāna* (阿頼耶識)
- **Yogācāra cognitive aspects**: 4 — *nimitta-bhāga* (相分), *darśana-bhāga* (見分), *svasaṃvitti-bhāga* (自証分), *svasaṃvitti-saṃvitti-bhāga* (証自証分)
- **Sarvāstivāda conditions**: 4 *pratyayas* (四縁) + 6 *hetus* (六因)
- **Key Theravāda texts**: Buddhaghosa's *Visuddhimagga* (5th c. CE), *Atthasālinī*; Anuruddha's *Abhidhammatthasaṅgaha* (11th–12th c. CE)
- **Key Sarvāstivāda texts**: *Mahāvibhāṣā* (2nd c. CE); Vasubandhu's *Abhidharmakośa-kārikā* + *Bhāṣya* (4th–5th c. CE); Saṅghabhadra's *Nyāyānusāra*
- **Key Yogācāra texts**: *Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra*; Asaṅga's *Mahāyāna-saṃgraha*, *Abhidharma-samuccaya*; Vasubandhu's *Triṃśikā*, *Viṃśatikā*; Xuanzang's *Cheng Weishi Lun* (成唯識論, 659 CE)

## Prior Research References

| Short Name | Full Citation | Relation |
|---|---|---|
| Ganeri 2017 | Ganeri, J. *Attention, Not Self*. Oxford University Press. | Project namesake; attention-first reading of Buddhaghosa's Abhidhamma. |
| Karunadasa 2010 | Karunadasa, Y. *The Theravāda Abhidhamma*. Wisdom Publications. | Authoritative survey of Theravāda Abhidhamma; reconstructive reading of *citta-vīthi*. |
| Ronkin 2005 | Ronkin, N. *Early Buddhist Metaphysics*. RoutledgeCurzon. | Time-scale reduction framework; *svabhāva* dynamic-vs-substantialist debate. |
| Cox 1995 | Cox, C. *Disputed Dharmas: Early Buddhist Theories on Existence*. ICPBS. | Sarvāstivāda intrinsic-nature realism (*svabhāva*) and its critics. |
| Dhammajoti 2009 | Dhammajoti, KL. *Sarvāstivāda Abhidharma*. Centre of Buddhist Studies, HK. | Standard reference work on Sarvāstivāda doctrine and history. |
| Lusthaus 2002 | Lusthaus, D. *Buddhist Phenomenology*. RoutledgeCurzon. | Reads Yogācāra as a "critique of consciousness," rejects idealist misreading. |
| Waldron 2003 | Waldron, W. *The Buddhist Unconscious: The Ālaya-vijñāna*. RoutledgeCurzon. | Ālaya as unconscious substrate; simultaneity of the eight consciousnesses. |
| Sharf 2016 | Sharf, R. "Is Yogācāra Phenomenology?" *Journal of Indian Philosophy*. | Argues against a Husserlian reading of the four *bhāgas*. |
| Arnold 2012 | Arnold, D. *Brains, Buddhas, and Believing*. Columbia University Press. | Transcendental (not phenomenological) reading of *svasaṃvitti*. |
| Ramstead 2022 | Ramstead, M. et al. "From Generative Models to Generative Passages." *Review of Philosophy and Psychology*. | Foundational paper on computational phenomenology methodology. |
| Sandved-Smith 2024 | Sandved-Smith, L. et al. Five-level framework (A1–A5) for computational neurophenomenology. | Phenomenology-to-mathematics circulation; Bayesian mechanics. |
| Varela 1996 | Varela, F. "Neurophenomenology: A Methodological Remedy for the Hard Problem." *Journal of Consciousness Studies*. | Foundational neurophenomenology paper; mindfulness-Buddhism connection. |
| Tal et al. 2025 | Tal, Wright, Prest, Sandved-Smith, Sacchet (Harvard/MGH). Review of computational meditation models. | Confirms precision-weighting as common mechanism across meditation models. |
| Friston 2010 | Friston, K. "The free-energy principle: a unified brain theory?" *Nature Reviews Neuroscience*. | Foundational FEP paper; brain as prediction machine that "regurgitates the world." |
| Friston 2018 | Friston, K. "Am I self-conscious? (Or what's it like to think you are?)" *Frontiers in Psychology*. | Self-evidencing as source of minimal self-modeling. |
| Clark 2016 | Clark, A. *Surfing Uncertainty: Prediction, Action, and the Embodied Mind*. Oxford UP. | Canonical exposition of predictive processing as top-down generative architecture. |
| Hohwy 2013 | Hohwy, J. *The Predictive Mind*. Oxford UP. | Companion canonical treatment of PP; "we never access the world directly." |
| Metzinger 2003 | Metzinger, T. *Being No One: The Self-Model Theory of Subjectivity*. MIT Press. | Phenomenal Self-Model (PSM) as transparent self-model; structural parallel to Yogācāra *manas*. |
| Hoffman 2015 | Hoffman, D. "The Interface Theory of Perception." *Current Directions in Psychological Science*. | Perception as fitness-tuned user interface, not veridical representation. |
| Dehaene & Naccache 2001 | Dehaene, S. & Naccache, L. "Towards a cognitive neuroscience of consciousness." *Cognition*. | Global Neuronal Workspace (GNW); all-or-nothing ignition. |
| Baars 1988 | Baars, B. *A Cognitive Theory of Consciousness*. Cambridge UP. | Original Global Workspace Theory; broadcast as consciousness. |
| Posner & Petersen 1990 | Posner, M. & Petersen, S. "The attention system of the human brain." *Annual Review of Neuroscience*. | Three attention networks: alerting / orienting / executive. |
| VanRullen & Koch 2003 | VanRullen, R. & Koch, C. "Is perception discrete or continuous?" *Trends in Cognitive Sciences*. | Discrete perceptual frames (~10 Hz); convergence with Buddhist *kṣaṇa-vāda*. |
| Macy 1991 | Macy, J. *Mutual Causality in Buddhism and General Systems Theory*. SUNY Press. | *Pratītyasamutpāda* as systems-theoretic mutual causation; Theravāda 24 *paccaya* most elaborated. |
| Deane 2021 | Deane, G. Active inference accounts of ego dissolution under psychedelics and deep meditation. | Self-model collapse parallels Yogācāra *āśraya-parāvṛtti* (転依). |
| Sandved-Smith et al. 2021 | Sandved-Smith, Hesp, Mattout, Friston, Lutz, Ramstead. Hierarchical model of meta-awareness. | Deep parametric AIF; parallels 自証分 / 証自証分 distinction. |
| Laukkonen & Slagter 2021 | Laukkonen, R. & Slagter, H. "From many to (n)one: meditation and the plasticity of the predictive mind." *Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews*. | FA / OM / ND meditation as precision-modulation stages. |
| Laukkonen et al. 2025 | Laukkonen, R. et al. Contemplative Constitutional AI with four axioms. | Mindfulness, emptiness, non-duality, boundless care as AI alignment principles. |
| Cox 1995 | Cox, C. *Disputed Dharmas: Early Buddhist Theories on Existence*. ICPBS. | Sarvāstivāda *svabhāva* realism and Sautrāntika critique. |
| Dhammajoti 2009 | Dhammajoti, KL. *Sarvāstivāda Abhidharma*. Centre of Buddhist Studies, HK. | Standard reference; "dharmas weak alone, active together." |
| Thompson 2014 | Thompson, E. *Waking, Dreaming, Being*. Columbia UP. | Three-layer Yogācāra architecture mapped onto implicit memory + pre-reflective self + working memory. |
| Yampolsky 1967 | Yampolsky, P. B., trans. *The Platform Sutra of the Sixth Patriarch*. Columbia University Press. | Standard English translation of the Dunhuang recension. Source for Huineng's 無念 / 無相 / 無住 triad and the 於念而不念 gloss central to the 念 collision. |
| Sharf 2014 | Sharf, R. "Mindfulness and Mindlessness in Early Chan." *Philosophy East and West* 64:4. | Documents 8th-century Chan deconstructive critique of 守心 / 觀心 / 念, opposed by 無心 / 絕觀 / 無念. |
| Sharf 2015 | Sharf, R. "Is Mindfulness Buddhist? (and why it matters)." *Transcultural Psychiatry* 52:4. | Current "mindfulness" is a 20th-century reform of *sati* descending from Nyanaponika 1962 → Kabat-Zinn 1979/1994. |
| Gethin 2011 | Gethin, R. "On Some Definitions of Mindfulness." *Contemporary Buddhism* 12:1. | Locates *sati*'s commentarial definition in *apilāpana* ("not floating away"); distinguishes retention pole from "present-moment awareness." |
| Dreyfus 2011 | Dreyfus, G. "Is Mindfulness Present-Centered and Nonjudgmental?" *Contemporary Buddhism* 12:1. | Critique of the bare-attention reading; mindfulness has cognitive implications the present-moment-only framing misses. |
| Anālayo 2003 | Anālayo, Bhikkhu. *Satipaṭṭhāna: The Direct Path to Realization*. Windhorse. | Reconstructive reading of the Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta; *sati* both retentive and present-attentive. |
| Kim 2007 | Kim, Hee-Jin. *Dōgen on Meditation and Thinking*. SUNY Press. | Reads Dōgen's 非思量 (*hishiryō*) as "thinking that is non-objectifying"; distinguishes ordinary negation (不思量) from structural negation (非思量). |
| Waddell & Abe 1973 | Waddell, N. & Abe, M. "Dōgen's *Fukanzazengi* and *Shōbōgenzō Zazengi*." *The Eastern Buddhist* 6:2. | Standard English translation; source for the Yakusan dialogue at the center of Sōtō *zazen* practice. |
| Kabat-Zinn 1994 | Kabat-Zinn, J. *Wherever You Go, There You Are*. Hyperion. | Canonical modern definition: "Mindfulness means paying attention in a particular way: on purpose, in the present moment, and non-judgmentally." Founded MBSR in 1979. |
| Nyanaponika 1962 | Nyanaponika Thera. *The Heart of Buddhist Meditation*. Rider & Co., London. | Operationally defined *sati* as "bare attention"; pivotal reformulation that Kabat-Zinn later inherited. |
| Braun 2013 | Braun, E. *The Birth of Insight*. University of Chicago Press. | Historicizes the Burmese *vipassanā* movement (Ledi → Mahāsi → Western MBSR upstream) as a modern reform. |
| Faure 1991 | Faure, B. *The Rhetoric of Immediacy*. Princeton University Press. | Critical-cultural reading of Chan/Zen "sudden" / "direct" rhetoric. |
| McRae 2003 | McRae, J. *Seeing Through Zen*. University of California Press. | Genealogical history of Chinese Chan; also produced the BDK Numata translation of the Zongbao Platform Sutra (2000). |
| Suzuki D.T. 1959 | Suzuki, D. T. *Zen and Japanese Culture*. Princeton/Bollingen (orig. Japan 1938). | Conflates *munen* / *muga* / *mushin* / *musō*; major channel by which "no-mind" Zen reached Anglophone audiences. Critiqued by Sharf 1995. |
| Levman 2017 | Levman, B. "Putting *smṛti* back into *sati*." *Journal of the Oxford Centre for Buddhist Studies* 13: 121–149. | Philological argument that *sati* / *smṛti* retains its memory-pole sense more robustly than Anālayo's reconstruction allows. |
| Uejima 2020 | Uejima, Y. *Gendai Ninshikiron Nyūmon [Introduction to Contemporary Epistemology]*. Keisō Shobō. | Japanese-language survey of post-Gettier epistemology that motivated Theme 8; not directly quoted. |
| Gettier 1963 | Gettier, E. "Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?" *Analysis* 23(6): 121–123. | Original counter-examples to the justified-true-belief (JTB) analysis of knowledge. |
| Goldman 1976 | Goldman, A. I. "Discrimination and Perceptual Knowledge." *The Journal of Philosophy* 73(20): 771–791. | Source of "fake barn country"; reliabilism's vulnerability to environmental luck. |
| IEP Gettier Problems | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. "Gettier Problems." | Summarizes six decades of reliabilist / knowledge-first responses to Gettier. |
| IEP Reliabilism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. "Reliabilism." | Standard formulation: belief is justified iff formed by a reliable process. |
| Friston et al. 2015 | Friston, K. et al. "Active inference and epistemic value." *Cognitive Neuroscience* 6(4): 187–214. | Decomposes expected free energy into extrinsic/epistemic value; precision as descriptive, not normative. Distinct from Friston 2010/2018 above. |
| Parr & Friston 2019 | Parr, T. & Friston, K. J. "Generalised free energy and active inference." *Biological Cybernetics* 113(5-6): 495–513. | Decomposes expected free energy into Risk and Ambiguity; no normative epistemic-justification concept. |
| Gładziejewski 2021 | Gładziejewski, P. "Perceptual justification in the Bayesian brain: a foundherentist account." *Synthese* 199. DOI: 10.1007/s11229-021-03295-1. | Rare perceptual-justification theory within predictive processing; never mentions Gettier. |
| Ghijsen 2018 | Ghijsen, H. "Predictive processing and foundationalism about perception." *Synthese* 198(Suppl 7): 1751–1769. DOI: 10.1007/s11229-018-1715-x. | "Externalist foundationalism" for predictive processing, structurally close to reliabilism; never mentions Gettier. |
| SEP Dharmakīrti | Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. "Dharmakīrti." | Source for Pramāṇavārttika II.1's *avisaṃvādin* definition of *pramāṇa*. |
| Dunne, Foundations of Dharmakīrti's Philosophy | Dunne, J. D. *Foundations of Dharmakīrti's Philosophy*. Wisdom Publications. | Source for *arthakriyā* (causal efficacy) as the true test of knowledge. |
| Wikipedia Gettier problem (§ Dharmottara) | Wikipedia. "Gettier problem," § Dharmottara. | Source for Dharmottara's smoke/insects and mirage/water cases and c. 770 CE dating. Tertiary source; primary-source (Dreyfus/Tillemans) verification pending. |
| Mandal 2022 | Mandal, M. "The Concept of Valid Cognition According to Buddhist Logic." *International Journal of Creative Research Thoughts (IJCRT)*. | Source for verbatim Sanskrit quotations from Dharmottara's *Nyāyabinduṭīkā* on *arthasārūpya*, *kākatālīya*, and *santāna*. Peer-review tier below a top-tier journal. |
| Frank, Gleiser & Thompson 2024 | Frank, A., Gleiser, M., & Thompson, E. *The Blind Spot: Why Science Cannot Ignore Human Experience*. MIT Press. ISBN 9780262048804. | Cognition chapter claims no AI system comes close to realizing relevance; target of Theme 9's scope-limited objection. |
| Froese 2026 | Froese, T. "Sense-making reconsidered: large language models and the blind spot of embodied cognition." *Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences* (online first 2025). DOI: 10.1007/s11097-025-10132-0. | Formulates the "AI dilemma"; LLM competence as non-biological sense-making via technologically-mediated (distributed) embodiment. |
| Varela, Thompson & Rosch 1991 | Varela, F. J., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. *The Embodied Mind: Cognitive Science and Human Experience*. MIT Press. | Founding text of enactivism; among the first major works bringing Madhyamaka / Abhidharma into cognitive science. |
| Maturana & Varela 1980 | Maturana, H. R., & Varela, F. J. *Autopoiesis and Cognition: The Realization of the Living*. D. Reidel. | Life as self-producing circular organization; one of enactivism's two sources. |
| Nave 2025 | Nave, K. *A Drive to Survive: The Free Energy Principle and the Meaning of Life*. MIT Press. | Refines enactivism's process closure into constraint closure; theoretical basis of Ward 2026. Critics (Colombo, BJPS Review of Books) question whether it grounds intentionality / normativity. |
| Ward 2026 | Ward, K. "Modeling non-dual awareness via constraint closure: a reinterpretation of groundlessness." *Neuroscience of Consciousness* 2026(1): niaf068. DOI: 10.1093/nc/niaf068. | First peer-reviewed computational model of non-dual awareness (partially fills the nonduality side of the Tal et al. modeling gap; cessation side remains open). Grounded in Nāgārjuna's Madhyamaka, in historical tension with Abhidharma dharma realism. |
| MacKenzie 2022 | MacKenzie, M. *Buddhist Philosophy and the Embodied Mind: A Constructive Engagement*. Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 9781538160121. | Full-scale constructive engagement of 4E cognitive science with Buddhist philosophy (autopoietic side). |

## What is "attention, not self"?

"Attention, not self" refers to the central thesis of Jonardon Ganeri's 2017 monograph *Attention, Not Self* (Oxford University Press). Reading Buddhaghosa's 5th-century Theravāda Abhidhamma synthesis, Ganeri argues that the explanatory work normally assigned to a "self" — orienting, selecting, judging, sustaining — is defined as a function distributed across momentary acts of *attention* (*āvajjana* and the universal mental factor *manasikāra*). The mind is therefore not a thing that *has* attention; rather, attention is what *constitutes* the unity of any cognitive episode. The project's name refers to this inversion as its guiding methodological orientation.

## What are the three major Abhidharma traditions?

The three classical Abhidharma traditions are defined as: (1) **Theravāda** (上座部), preserved in Pāli, centered on Buddhaghosa's *Visuddhimagga* and Anuruddha's *Abhidhammatthasaṅgaha*, lists 82 *dhammas*; (2) **Sarvāstivāda-Vaibhāṣika** (説一切有部), preserved in Sanskrit and Chinese, centered on the *Mahāvibhāṣā* and Vasubandhu's *Abhidharmakośa*, lists 75 *dharmas* and holds that dharmas of past, present, and future all really exist (三世実有); (3) **Yogācāra-Vijñānavāda** (瑜伽行唯識派), centered on Asaṅga, Vasubandhu, and Xuanzang's *Cheng Weishi Lun*, lists 100 *dharmas* and introduces the storehouse-consciousness *ālaya-vijñāna*. *Anātman* refers to no-self and *kṣaṇikatva* refers to momentariness — all three traditions share these doctrines but diverge on how a momentary stream of dharmas produces unified experience.

## What is the Theravāda citta-vīthi?

*Citta-vīthi* (心路過程) refers to the Theravāda model of cognition, defined as a fixed serial sequence of seventeen mind-moments (*citta-khaṇa*) that unfolds between a sensory impingement and the resumption of the *bhavaṅga* substream. For a "very great" visible object at the eye-door, the seventeen moments proceed: three *bhavaṅga* moments (*atīta*, *calana*, *upaccheda*), one *pañcadvārāvajjana* (five-door adverting, attention), one *cakkhu-viññāṇa* (eye-consciousness), one *sampaṭicchana* (receiving), one *santīraṇa* (investigating), one *voṭṭhapana* (determining), seven *javana* (impulsion, the karmically efficacious moments), and two *tadārammaṇa* (registration). Only the seven *javana* generate karma. The model is laid out in Buddhaghosa's *Atthasālinī* and given canonical schematic form in Anuruddha's *Abhidhammatthasaṅgaha* IV.

## How does Sarvāstivāda explain cognition without a vīthi?

Sarvāstivāda dispenses with a vīthi-like serial model through three interlocking moves. (1) Each consciousness-moment is defined as internally complex: *citta* never arises alone but always with a determinate cluster of *caittas* (mental factors), licensed by the *sahabhū-hetu* (倶有因), which refers to the simultaneity cause, and the *saṃprayuktaka-hetu* (相応因), which refers to the congruence cause. (2) Within one moment, the functions Theravāda spreads across reception, investigation, determination, and registration are realized by appropriate *caittas* — *vedanā* refers to feeling-tone registration, *prajñā* refers to discrimination, *adhimokṣa* refers to settling, *cetanā* refers to volitional impulsion. (3) Between moments, the *samanantara-pratyaya* (等無間縁) refers to the equal-and-immediately-antecedent condition that guarantees lawful succession. The three-time existence of dharmas (三世実有・法体恒有) underwrites continuity ontologically rather than processually.

## What is the Yogācāra ālaya-vijñāna?

The *ālaya-vijñāna* (阿頼耶識, storehouse-consciousness) refers to Yogācāra's solution to the continuity problem. It is defined as a continuously-active substrate consciousness that carries the seeds (*bīja*, 種子) of all past actions and never lapses — not in dreamless sleep, not in *nirodha-samāpatti* (滅尽定, the meditative attainment of cessation), not between death and rebirth. As William Waldron argues in *The Buddhist Unconscious* (2003), the ālaya is not a deeper layer beneath ordinary consciousness but a substrate concurrent with all manifest cognition. Every action *perfumes* (*vāsanā*, 熏習) the ālaya with new seeds; when conditions ripen, seeds *actualize* (*pravṛtti*, 現行) as manifest cognition, which in turn perfumes further seeds. At awakening (*āśraya-parivṛtti*, 轉依) the seed-store is eliminated.

## What are the four bhāgas in Yogācāra?

The *catur-bhāga* (四分, four aspects) refers to Dharmapāla's account, preserved canonically in Xuanzang's *Cheng Weishi Lun* (成唯識論, 659 CE), of the internal structure of every cognitive moment. The four are defined as: (1) *nimitta-bhāga* (相分), the appearance of an object within consciousness — the object-pole; (2) *darśana-bhāga* (見分), the apprehending function — the subject-pole; (3) *svasaṃvitti-bhāga* (自証分), the reflexive awareness that *the seeing has seen the seen*; (4) *svasaṃvitti-saṃvitti-bhāga* (証自証分), the witness of the self-witness, which halts infinite regress. The four are simultaneous structural aspects of one cognitive event, not temporal moments. Subject and object are both *vikalpa* (分別, discriminative construction) projected from the same root consciousness.

## How does manaskāra (attention) differ across the three traditions?

*Manaskāra* (作意, attention) refers to the mental factor of direction-fixing, but occupies different structural positions in each tradition. In **Theravāda**, attention has a dual role: *pañcadvārāvajjana* (五門転向) is a discrete moment *preceding* sense-consciousness in the *citta-vīthi* (moment 4 of 17), while *manasikāra* is also one of the seven universal mental factors (*sabbacittasādhāraṇa cetasika*) accompanying every citta. In **Sarvāstivāda**, *manaskāra* is one of the ten *mahābhūmika* (大地法) — a universal factor synchronic with every citta, with no separate adverting moment. In **Yogācāra**, *manaskāra* is one of the five *pañca-sarvatraga* (五遍行, omnipresent factors), accompanying *every* moment of *every* consciousness — including the *ālaya-vijñāna* and *manas*. The progression externalizes attention as a gating module (Theravāda) and then internalizes it as a constitutive structural feature (Sarvāstivāda, Yogācāra).

## What is the continuity problem and how does each tradition solve it?

The *continuity problem* refers to the question: what persists when the cognitive process lapses — in dreamless sleep, *nirodha-samāpatti* (cessation), unconsciousness, or between death and rebirth? Each tradition offers a distinct mechanism. **Theravāda** posits the *bhavaṅga-citta* (有分心), which refers to a passive sub-cognitive resultant consciousness defined as a life-continuum that flows on between cognitive episodes. **Sarvāstivāda** denies that anything dynamic is needed because no dharma ever falls out of being — the three-time realism (三世実有・法体恒有) means that past dharmas remain real and can still produce results. **Yogācāra** posits the *ālaya-vijñāna* (阿頼耶識), defined as a never-lapsing substrate consciousness that carries the karmic seeds (*bīja*) and supports rebirth. Waldron (2003) reads the ālaya as the systematic integration of all continuity problems earlier Abhidharma left unresolved.

## How does Abhidharma relate to computational phenomenology?

Computational phenomenology refers to a research program coined by Maxwell Ramstead and colleagues (2022), defined as the use of generative models from computational neuroscience to formalize first-person phenomenological descriptions of lived experience. The field descends from Francisco Varela's neurophenomenology (1996), which explicitly drew on Buddhist mindfulness. Abhidharma dharma classification systems exhibit striking structural parallels with predictive processing and active inference: the *manaskāra* ↔ precision-weighting mapping is the strongest, with nearly identical functional descriptions. The *ālaya-vijñāna* with its seed-projection mechanism parallels generative models that shape perception top-down. The Theravāda 24 *paccaya* (conditional relations) of the *Paṭṭhāna* invite mapping onto Bayesian causal networks. Sandved-Smith et al. (2024) extend this through a five-level framework (A1–A5) connecting phenomenology to Bayesian mechanics.

## What is the manaskāra ↔ precision-weighting mapping?

In predictive processing, *precision-weighting* refers to the confidence weight assigned to a prediction or sensory signal in a hierarchical generative model, which is defined as a gating function determining how much that signal influences updating. Attention is defined as precision modulation: attending to a signal means that its precision is up-weighted, which makes it more influential in inference. In Abhidharma, *manaskāra* (作意, attention) refers to a similar *direction-fixing* operation that determines which object the mind takes up and how strongly. Vasubandhu defines it as *cetasa ābhogaḥ* — "bending the mind" toward an object. The functional descriptions of the two are nearly identical: both are gating operations that allocate cognitive resources to specific contents. Tal et al. (2025, Harvard/MGH) confirm precision-weighting as the common mechanism across computational models of meditation phenomenology.

## What are the three temporal solutions to momentary cognition?

Each tradition offers a solution that refers to a different formal resource for explaining how a momentary stimulus produces phenomenally extended experience. **Theravāda** distributes the work *over time*: between stimulus and conscious uptake stand 4–5 mind-moments (*atīta-bhavaṅga* through *cakkhu-viññāṇa*); between sensation and judgement stand the *sampaṭicchana*-*santīraṇa*-*voṭṭhapana* moments; between judgement and karmic agency stand seven *javana*. **Sarvāstivāda** denies temporal lag *ontologically*: past stimulus, present cognition, and future result all really exist, and *samanantara-pratyaya* governs seamless succession without a stage architecture. **Yogācāra** *internalizes* the lag: temporal extension is collapsed into the depth-structure of one moment in which seeds ripen into manifest *vijñāna* with its four aspects. The three options trade time, being, and depth as the explanatory resource.

## How do the three Abhidharma traditions map onto computational frameworks?

The three classical Abhidharma traditions correspond to three distinct computational paradigms in modern cognitive science. **Theravāda *citta-vīthi*** refers to the best fit for **Global Workspace Theory** (Baars 1988; Dehaene & Naccache 2001) — serial, discrete, threshold-crossing, with *javana* (the seven impulsion moments) corresponding to global ignition and broadcast. **Sarvāstivāda *Abhidharmakośa*** refers to the best fit for **Parallel Distributed Processing** — Vasubandhu's doctrine of *saṃprayoga* (simultaneous co-arising of *citta* + *caittas*) is defined as structurally identical to the connectionist claim that cognition is the coactive pattern of many units. **Yogācāra *Vijñānavāda*** refers to the best fit for **predictive processing / active inference** (Friston 2010, Clark 2016) — *ālaya-vijñāna* as the hierarchical generative model, *bīja* as priors, *vāsanā* as learning, and *vijñaptimātratā* anticipating Hoffman's Interface Theory of Perception and Metzinger's transparent self-model. See [Abhidharma Cognitive Process Models Meets Computational Phenomenology](Abhidharma%20Cognitive%20Process%20Models%20Meets%20Computational%20Phenomenology.md).

## What are the hard limits of mapping Abhidharma onto computation?

Two categorical limits resist any computational mapping. First, **karmic / ethical valence** refers to the fact that every citta-moment in Abhidharma is defined as *kuśala* (wholesome), *akuśala* (unwholesome), or *avyākṛta* (indeterminate), and this ethical charge is causally efficacious (Theravāda *javana*, Sarvāstivāda *vipāka-hetu*, Yogācāra *bīja*). Computational states refer to ontologically ethically-neutral configurations; priors are not "wholesome priors," and precision parameters are not "wholesome precision." Even Laukkonen et al.'s (2025) Contemplative Constitutional AI introduces ethics externally as imposed axioms. Second, **nirvāṇa / asaṃskṛta** refers to the unconditioned element (Theravāda *nibbāna*, Sarvāstivāda three unconditioned dharmas, Yogācāra six including *tathatā*), which is defined as not generated by conditions. Every computational state is, by contrast, exhaustively conditioned by priors, likelihood, and policy — so no computational analog exists.

## How are Pāli, Sanskrit, and Chinese terms aligned in this repo?

Each essay and the [TABLES.md](TABLES.md) comparison file present terms across three philological registers, defined as: Pāli for Theravāda, Sanskrit for Sarvāstivāda and Yogācāra, and Chinese (Sino-Japanese) for the East Asian receptions. For example, attention refers to *manasikāra* (Pāli) / *manaskāra* (Sanskrit) / 作意 (Chinese); consciousness refers to *viññāṇa* / *vijñāna* / 識; the seventeen mind-moments are explicitly labelled in Pāli plus 漢訳 (Chinese translations such as 五門転向, 眼識, 領受, 推度, 確定, 速行, 彼所縁). The xlsx source preserves formatting and color-coding for visual comparison; per-sheet CSV exports under [csv/](csv/) enable programmatic reuse in Excel, Numbers, pandas, or R.

## Why does the same character 念 (nen) mean both "cultivate sati" in Theravāda and "transcend it" (無念) in Zen?

Because 念 carries at least four incompatible Buddhist senses, and the same graph encodes all of them — so a reader moving between traditions has no typographic warning that the term has rotated underneath. (1) In commentarial Theravāda, 念 = *sati* / *smṛti*, defined by *apilāpana* ("not floating away") and *asammoha* (non-confusion); it is the retentive / structuring faculty to be *cultivated* (Visuddhimagga XIV.141; Milindapañha). (2) By Tang-dynasty Chan, 念 in 無念 means "thought-moment" — Huineng's *Platform Sutra* §26 makes the dynamic register explicit: 前念迷即凡、後念悟即佛 ("past thoughts deluded = common man; future thoughts awakened = Buddha"); 無念 is then defined positively as 於念而不念 ("not to think even when involved in thought," §17) — non-fixation within arising thought, not blankness. (3) In Pure Land, 念仏 (*nenbutsu* / *niànfó*) preserves *anussati* / *buddhānusmṛti* — recollection / vocal recitation of the Buddha (Shandao → Hōnen → Shinran). (4) In modern English-language usage, "mindfulness" descends from Nyanaponika's "bare attention" (1962) → Kabat-Zinn's MBSR (1979) → present-moment, non-judgmental awareness — a 20th-century reformulation that drops the *apilāpana* dimension. Theme 6 reconstructs this collision and argues Dōgen's 非思量 (*hishiryō*) — structural negation of the thinking / not-thinking binary, not its ordinary negation 不思量 — is the most defensible resolution because it refuses both the cultivate-念 reading (naïve *sati*) and the eliminate-念 reading (naïve *munen*).

## How do entities in this project relate as a graph?

A machine-readable knowledge graph (306 nodes) is published at [`graph.jsonld`](graph.jsonld), encoded as schema.org + custom `ans:` vocabulary JSON-LD. It encodes:

- **Node types**: 9 themes, 18 essays (1 theme × en+ja each), 5 traditions (Theravāda / Sarvāstivāda / Yogācāra / Chan-Zen / Pure Land), 10 dharma categories (色法 / 心法 / 心所法 5 subtypes / 心不相応行 / 無為), ~140 dharmas, ~42 concepts (manaskāra, citta-vīthi, ālaya-vijñāna, sati, precision-weighting, 念, 無念, 非思量, 念仏, *apilāpana*, Gettier-luck, pramāṇa-vāda, etc.), 11 computational frameworks (GWT, GNW, PP, FEP, IIT, PDP, AST, neurophenomenology, computational phenomenology, enactivism, autopoiesis), 76 prior research references.
- **Edge types**: `classifiedIn` (Dharma → Category), `tradition` (Dharma → Tradition), `comparesWith` (cross-tradition / cross-category equivalents, including the 範疇移動 cases such as 命根 / jīvitindriya), `mapsTo` with `evidenceQuality` (Concept / Tradition → Framework), `exemplifies` (Dharma → Concept), `buildsOn` (Essay → Essay; Theme 4 → 3 → 2 → 1; Theme 5 orthogonal), `isPartOf` (Essay → Theme), `mentions` (Essay → Concept / Framework / Tradition / Category), `citation` (Essay → Reference).
- **Bilingual labels**: every Theme / Concept / Framework / DharmaCategory carries `alternateName` with `@language: "en"` + `@language: "ja"` literals. Dharma nodes carry `sanskritName` / `paliName` / `chineseName` as separate fields aligned to the three philological registers above.
- **Interactive viewer**: https://shimo4228.github.io/attention-not-self/ (React + react-force-graph; 2D / 3D toggle; click any node → side panel with description + outgoing/incoming edges + link to source essay).

Three load-bearing design choices:
1. **Cross-tradition dharma de-duplication**: Dharmas that exist with the same Sanskrit / Pāli identity across traditions (e.g., *manaskāra* / *manasikāra* / 作意) are encoded as a single node with multiple `tradition` edges, not as three separate nodes. Theravāda-unique or Yogācāra-unique factors (e.g., *pīti*, *manas*, *ālaya-vijñāna*) get their own nodes with a single `tradition` edge and a `uniqueTo` marker.
2. **Silence-as-signal for unmapped traditions**: When a dharma exists in only some traditions, the *absence* of a `tradition` edge to the others is the encoding — there is no "not-in-X" edge type. This lets the graph stay sparse while preserving the cross-tradition asymmetry.
3. **Volatile state excluded by schema**: The graph has no version numbers, no dharma counts, no essay-count fields. Anything that would churn at routine update time is structurally excluded from the schema, so the graph stays stable across content edits.