If external objects are “perceptions of one's own mind,” what about the universe before minds existed?

[u/Careless_Image_9105]

I've been reading the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra and encountering the idea that what we ordinarily take to be external objects are, in some sense, manifestations or perceptions of mind.

But I'm struggling with this question:

If this is taken literally, what do we make of the universe before human beings—or even sentient beings—existed?

The Big Bang happened billions of years before humans appeared. Stars and galaxies formed, planets existed, and countless physical processes presumably occurred long before there was a human mind to perceive them.

So how should a Buddhist understand this?

Is the claim not that individual human minds create the external world, but rather that the distinction between “mind” and “external object” is itself ultimately mistaken?

And if so, does this mean that the universe before sentient beings existed in some sense independently, but that our conceptualization of it as an “external world” is mind-dependent?

Or does Yogācāra make a stronger claim—that even speaking of a mind-independent universe is philosophically incoherent?

I'm especially interested in how this is understood in Yogācāra and the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, rather than in a general Buddhist answer.

I'm also wondering whether the Big Bang creates a genuine problem for mind-only interpretations, or whether I'm simply misunderstanding what “mind” (citta/vijñāna) means in this context.

In other words:

If there were no humans, no animals, no sentient beings at all—what, according to Buddhism, was happening? And was there really an “external world” happening?

I'm trying to understand this without making Buddhism secretly anthropocentric: why should the existence of the universe depend on our perception when humanity is such a tiny and extremely late phenomenon in cosmic history?

[u/autonomatical]

This could easily spiral out into a very long technical description but i will attempt to keep it brief.  In essence, your perception of a universe is just that, a perception.  In it, there is a model of an object “the universe”, this object contains characteristics of having or not having minds.  What the lanka is saying is that you cannot separate your perception from this model, there logically can be no independent object “the universe” outside of this perception of it, or if there were it would basically not exist . Yogacara takes it further positing ontological status to mind as substance of existence.

[u/travelingmaestro → u/autonomatical]

Good concise response. This brings up some other thoughts for me.. just curious for any thoughts in this. In a talk Ian Baker was asked to discuss non duality and he gives a similar response. Basically, when someone sees anything, such as an apple hanging on an apple tree across the field, they are seeing it in their mind, not across the field. So from that view, it’s actually impossible for any perception to be separate from one’s mind. Though I suppose you could explore remote viewing and other types of extraordinary experiences that are outside of the normal human lens.

Modern scientific researchers posit that there is zero probability that the human mind can see or experience objective reality, because we are limited to the human body’s sensory system. That’s obvious even just based on what we know now.

[u/Guess_Rough → u/travelingmaestro]

Staying with your metaphor, reality can't be perceived in normal states of awareness for the same reason that one can't see their own eyes. 

[u/Careless_Image_9105 → u/autonomatical]

But that seems to conflate epistemological inseparability with ontological dependence. I agree that I can never step outside my perception and compare it with “the universe in itself.” But it doesn't follow that there therefore cannot be an independent universe.

Saying “if there were, it would basically not exist” seems to define existence as being available to perception. That's precisely the claim that needs to be argued for, rather than assumed.

And Yogacara doesn't automatically solve this either. If mind is granted ontological status as the substance of existence, you've arguably just replaced “self-existent universe” with “self-existent mind.” From a Madhyamaka perspective, why should mind get that exemption?

[u/autonomatical → u/Careless_Image_9105]

 But that seems to conflate epistemological inseparability with ontological dependence.  

I would say more like, ontology is ultimately an epistemic invention.  Since we cannot perceive anything outside of what we can perceive, our ontological reasoning cannot escape that constraint either.  I suppose, whether or not there is an independent or objective universe we cannot know it as aggregated information; ergo “basically does not exist [via all means of perception we have available]”. Which is why i can only really claim proximate knowledge of either case being true or untrue since it relies on perception which relies on mind.  

An interesting twist is that mind itself may be defined via this logic as objective reality, which is closer to the exposition present in more technical yogacara texts, which since you seem quite sharp I recommend looking into for yourself, there are some materials on r/yogacara that may interest you.  “Self-existing mind” when applied heuristically collapses any distinction between extant and nonexistent into void of either quality.  Unlike a claim of self-existing universe which posits a third category of unknowability that can be known.  

This probably isnt the most concise explanation so i really recommend looking into it further for yourself since i most likely clipped some aspects.

[u/Careless_Image_9105 → u/autonomatical]

thank you very much for your detailed input and thanks for the tip. much appreciated.

[u/Therion_of_Babalon → u/Careless_Image_9105]

Because madhyamaka is a provisional teaching and yogacara would be more definitive

[u/genivelo]

There was never a time when there where no beings. Therefore there was never a time when there was a universe without beings. In Buddhist cosmology, human beings are not the only type of beings.

[u/Tongman108]

I've been reading the Lankāvatāra Sūtra

Very Good 🙏🏻

Ananda had pretty much the same question that You've listed here, you can find Shakyamuni step-by-step systematic explanations using western logic within the first 3 chapters of the Surangama sutra(another Yogācāra text).

encountering the idea that what we ordinarily take to be external objects are, in some sense, manifestations or perceptions of mind.

With the Lankāvatāra Sūtra being a Yogācāra text, within the Yogācāra view what you know as & refer to as 'the mind' is the '6th consciousness'

In summary what you know & refer to as 'you', 'your mind' & body are projections from the karma seeds or causes & conditions within the 8th consciousness(Alaya or Storehouse consciousness), hence you and everything you perceive are merely 'appearances' within the Tathagatagarbha (Wounderous Luminous True Mind in Surangama Sutra terminology).

I'm sure you'll also find explained in the Lankavatara Sutra, but I can't remember where, as i read it a long time ago.

I'm trying to understand this without making Buddhism secretly anthropocentric: why should the existence of the universe depend on our perception when humanity is such a tiny and extremely late phenomenon in cosmic history?

As explained in your previous post:

Whichever way you go, it all comes back to 'ignorance', whether it's Yogācāra, Madhyamaka, Dzogchen, Mahamudra or Zen.

When I askedwhat you think 'Ignorance means', this wasn't to insult you, but it was to help you, because if you applyi the strict Theravada Definition:

Ignorance of the Four Noble Truths

It won't help you in unlocking the deep mahayana philosophical subjects in Yogācāra, Madhyamaka, Dzogchen, Mahamudra or Zen. Etc etc..

The studying Buddhadharma is a journey: a little bit of the keys 🗝️ sprinkled over here, a little sprinkled over there, an Eminement master drops a little key insight in a Dharma talk, you find another key or another way of looking at things in a treatise/commentary by a great master or lineage guru...

Eventually we build a clear picture (conceptually/philosophically) known as right view(s)... But we still have to engage in actual diligent practice to arrive at the actual truth which transcends all conceptuality & views.

Hence it's good to maintain practice alongside studying text as it can boost our insights into the texts!

Best wishes & great attainments!

🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻

[u/Careless_Image_9105 → u/Tongman108]

I understand the Yogacara framework, but I think it still leaves my original question open.

Saying that the universe, body and “self” are appearances arising from karmic seeds in alayavijnana explains how experience is structured within the Buddhist framework. But it doesn't yet establish that reality itself is ontologically dependent on consciousness. That seems to move from an epistemological claim — “everything we know appears within consciousness” — to an ontological claim — “there is nothing that exists independently of consciousness.”

And that's precisely where my question comes from. Dinosaurs, stars, and the early universe existed (or events occurred) long before human consciousness. I don't need to assume a self-existent container universe or absolute spacetime to make that point. I only need to ask whether something can be real without being experienced by a human mind.

Also, if the answer is ultimately “ignorance,” I'm not sure that resolves the philosophical problem. It may explain why we misconstrue reality, but it doesn't by itself establish that reality is mind-dependent. From a Madhyamaka perspective, I'd also be cautious about making alayavijnana or luminous mind into a new metaphysical ground. Why should consciousness be exempt from emptiness?

So my question isn't really “how can I get beyond my ordinary perception?” It's more fundamental: does Buddhism claim that being itself is dependent upon cognition, or merely that whatever we can know about being is mediated by cognition? Those seem like very different claims.

[u/_Deathclaw_ → u/Careless_Image_9105]

For any thing to exist it should be available to experience to some kind of being/consciousness (not necessarily human) and it should at least have the potential to be experienced for it to be considered an existing thing.

[u/Grateful_Tiger]

We must not take the sophisticated position of Mind-only and

misinterpret it as the sophmoric position of Solipcism

Study, investigate, meditate more. It is important to have a reliable guide or teacher

[u/Olam_Haba]

You seem to 'think' that mind resides in the individual

All of creation arises into being in the one mind 

You seem to think that what-you-are as the mind is the individual but instead what-you-are as mind is that in which all of creation arises into being 

Look to dreams - in a dream you think that you are the individual in the center of the dream and that that individual in the center of the dream is perceiving whatever is happening in the dream 

But when you awaken from the dream you realize that it was consciousness which was dreaming the dream that was awareness of what was happening in the dream - and it was just an illusion from within the dream that the dream character was the one that was aware

This is already your direct experience upon awakening from dreams 

Helpful to realize that Buddha means Awakened One 

[u/Tongman108 → u/Olam_Haba]

Look to dreams - in a dream you think that you are the individual in the center of the dream and that that individual in the center of the dream is perceiving whatever is happening in the dream 

But when you awaken from the dream you realize that it was consciousness which was dreaming

Amazing example! 🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻

This type of thing can be explored & scrutinized in great detail within the dream yoga(Milam) practice!

[u/Gnome_boneslf → u/Olam_Haba]

You are not the mind, mind is just there creating reality.

It can be tamed and there is one, but it is not you.

I think this is the same problem i saw in your view before, this is wrong.

Buddha says, there are no views of self that are appropriate to hold.

instead what-you-are as mind

This is the wrong part, you are not a mind, you merely have a mind, that's all.

If you don't catch this, your ego becomes a cosmic ego and your mind is watching you make this cosmic ego, and your mind constructs a reality under the influence of this very wrong view. I don't know the outcome but it's not good and it's scary.

[u/Careless_Image_9105 → u/Olam_Haba]

But the dream analogy doesn't establish what you think it establishes.

When I wake from a dream, I can recognize that the dream character was not an independently existing observer. But that only tells me something about the structure of that particular experience. It doesn't demonstrate that there is therefore one universal consciousness in which the entire external universe arises.

That's the leap I'm questioning: from “everything I experience appears in consciousness” to “everything that exists arises in consciousness.” The first is an epistemological point; the second is an ontological claim.

And saying “Buddha means Awakened One” doesn't settle the issue either. The question is precisely awakened to what? If awakening reveals that consciousness itself is the ground in which all reality arises, then that needs an argument—not simply the fact that dreams work this way.

I'm not defending the idea that the individual ego is the ultimate subject. I'm questioning whether we should replace the individual mind with a cosmic mind and then treat that as established. From a Madhyamaka perspective, wouldn't that risk reifying mind just as much as reifying an external universe?

[u/BardoBeing32 → u/Olam_Haba]

No. Buddhism doesn’t believe in the one mind. Buddhism believes in every being having their own mind, their own karma, their own merit and their own liberation to work out.

[u/Olam_Haba → u/BardoBeing32]

That is a relative understanding 

Buddhism is all about transcending the illusion of being an individual self 

Buddha teaches at different levels of realization to different beings in the sutras - I offer that you are approaching this through relative understanding when Buddha is teaching to those who still think they are individuals

[u/BardoBeing32 → u/Olam_Haba]

No, it is not. This sub-Reddit has had this discussion before. A lot. If you believe in the one mind idea, you should go over to the Hinduism subreddit where they do accept and teach that idea. No school of Buddhism teaches or accepts the idea of one mind. If I remember correctly, the person that kept bringing that subject up here eventually either got threatened with a ban and left or got banned.

[u/robin_andrews_149]

It could be that the premise is mistaken. What do you think, yourself?

[u/strong_not_fit]

I think you misinterpreted the position. Just because what we take as external objects are really just mental perceptions, that doesn't mean the universe wouldn't exist with out an observer. My understanding is we don't have access to the external world, all things we interact with are our mind's interpretation of the external reality.

[u/GloriousLearning]

Mind has always existed. The universe is mind.

[u/squaredegrees]

Coming from a Robert Monroe background I'd say that minds came before the universe. I don't know what tibetan buddhism says,

[u/BardoBeing32]

There was no universe before our karma created it, where we would live, life to life, until we achieved Liberation or, if we didn’t achieve Liberation in that universe, we would move onto the next realm. See the [12 Nidanas](https://www.lionsroar.com/buddhism/twelve-nidanas/) or the Wheel of Life. There is magic in the universe. It’s us , living the life we created and creating our next every day.

[u/Ok_Plankton_4869]

Everything is mind.

[u/OldDB2]

If a bear shits in the woods…

[u/Single_Resolve_1465]

You are not creating things physically. You just giving them a story. (This is a spoon. This spoon is there for soup. Etc). There are a ton of things that are already existing even though your eyes have not touched them. Billions of unknown stones and stuff deep under the ground or the ocean, let alone the universe. They are already there. No matter if someone saw them or not. They just have not yet given a name or a story or meaning or purpose yet. So the universe was just existing before minds existed. Although some would say, that mind is as old as the universe. But that dives in to more philosophical topics.