Clarifying the All-Basis (Kunzhi) and the Ground (Gzhi)

Clarifying the All-Basis (Kunzhi) and the Ground (Gzhi)

Within Buddhist traditions, two terms create subtle confusion: kunzhi (kun gzhi, “all-basis”) and gzhi (“ground”). Both words appear across diverse schools of thought: Yogācāra, Madhyamaka, and particularly Dzogchen. Each tradition nuances these terms differently, with shifts so delicate that misunderstanding them can lead a practitioner into unnecessary conceptual knots.

For Dzogchen practitioners, especially those who are serious about cultivating the view (lta ba), understanding these distinctions is more than a matter of intellectual curiosity. Clarifying the difference between kunzhi and gzhi helps prevent the reification of a ground, the subtle clinging to an absolute foundation, or the clumsy blending of Yogācāra concepts into a tradition where they do not cleanly fit. It is also a way to appreciate the astonishing precision of the Dzogchen teachings, which describe the ground of all experience in a manner that avoids both eternalism and nihilism, both metaphysical claims and reductive physicalism.

The purpose of this essay is to illuminate the terrain:

• How Yogācāra understands the all-basis (ālaya).

• How Madhyamaka critiques and reframes the notion of a basis.

• How Dzogchen re-articulates gzhi in a way that cannot be reduced to either Yogācāra or Madhyamaka, even while it resonates with both.

• Finally, how practitioners can embody these distinctions in their contemplative path.

I. The Yogācāra All-Basis (Kunzhi / Ālaya)

1. The Foundational Framework

The Yogācāra school introduced one of the most influential models of consciousness in Buddhist intellectual history: the eight consciousnesses. Among these, the ālaya is translated into Tibetan as kun gzhi, “the all-basis”.

The ālaya is neither a metaphysical self nor a permanent essence. It is a functional basis:

• A repository where karmic seeds (bīja) are stored.

• A continuous underlying flow of mental activity.

• The ground that sustains saṁsāric experience.

Yogācāra describes the ālaya-vijñāna as the condition for the six sensory consciousnesses and the mental consciousness (manovijñāna). It is also closely tied to the manas, the subtle, self-referential mental factor that misconstrues this ongoing stream as an enduring “I.”

Thus, the kunzhi of Yogācāra is fundamentally saṁsāric: a conditioned continuum that perpetuates dualistic perception.

2. The All-Basis as a Storehouse

The metaphor most often associated with the ālaya is that of a storehouse. It holds the latent tendencies of past actions, the seeds that ripen as experiences. These seeds give rise to the appearances of the world, the body, and cognition itself. In this way, Yogācāra presents a coherent causal model for saṁsāric experience.

However, this storehouse consciousness is:

• Impermanent,

• Conditioned,

• Empty of intrinsic nature,

• And subject to purification.

Upon awakening, the ālaya is said to be transformed (āśrayaparāvṛtti). In some Yogācāra interpretations, the purified basis becomes ālaya-jñāna, the “pristine wisdom of the basis.” But this transformation does not mean that the ālaya was just wisdom all along. Rather, something fundamentally changes. The saṁsāric all-basis is relinquished: the awakened wisdom emerges.

This becomes a crucial distinction when comparing with Dzogchen, where the ground is primordially pure and not transformed into something else.

3. The Kunzhi is Not the True Ground

From a Dzogchen perspective, the Yogācāra kunzhi is profoundly important but ultimately limited. It accounts for saṁsāric experience, yet:

• It does not characterise the primordial nature of mind.

• It is not synonymous with dharmakāya.

• It is not the basis of liberation.

• It cannot serve as the ultimate ground.

While the kunzhi or ālaya is indispensable in Buddhist psychology, it plays no final role in the Dzogchen account of ultimate reality.

II. Madhyamaka and the Critique of Foundations

1. Madhyamaka as a Deconstructive Lens

Madhyamaka philosophy, especially in its Prāsaṅgika form, scrutinises any claim to an ultimate basis. According to Nāgārjuna and his heirs, the very idea of an “ultimate ground” is riddled with conceptual pitfalls. If one posits a ground that truly exists, one risks eternalism. If one denies the continuity of mind altogether, one risks nihilism. The Madhyamaka solution is radical:

Nothing whatsoever possesses an intrinsic existence-essence: neither appearance nor awareness, neither saṁsāra nor nirvāṇa.

In this sense, Madhyamaka does not affirm any basis (gzhi) that stands as the foundation of reality. Instead, it insists that the freedom of all phenomena lies in their lack of essence.

2. What Madhyamaka Rejects

Madhyamaka critiques the Yogācāra ālaya on several fronts:

• It warns against reifying the storehouse consciousness into something metaphysically real.

• It examines whether seeds and their fruition can be meaningfully posited without implying intrinsic nature.

• It challenges the subtle selfhood that might arise by positing an underlying, continuous substratum.

To Madhyamaka thinkers like Candrakīrti, the ālaya is useful on a conventional level but problematic if viewed as an ultimate truth.

Thus:

• Yogācāra posits the all-basis as conventionally real.

• Madhyamaka dismantles even the hint of an ultimate foundation.

This terrain sets the stage for understanding how Dzogchen navigates both the usefulness of a ground and the emptiness that prevents its reification.

III. Dzogchen and the Gzhi (Ground)

1. The Gzhi Is Not a Thing

In Dzogchen, the gzhi occupies a unique space. It is neither the Yogācāra ālaya nor the kind of metaphysical ground that Madhyamaka critiques. It is not an entity, not a substrate, not awareness as “something” existing in its own right. Rather, it is the primordial condition of reality: not as a foundation that exists separately from appearances or awareness.

The gzhi is characterised by three qualities:

1.    Ka dag: primordial purity, the emptiness aspect.

2.    Lhun grub: spontaneous presence, the expressive aspect.

3.    Thugs rje: compassionate responsiveness, the inseparable dynamism of awareness.

However, these are not “attributes” of a thing. They are inseparable dimensions of how reality displays itself when recognised.

2. The Gzhi Is Beyond Transformation

Unlike the Yogācāra kunzhi, the gzhi:

• does not accumulate karma,

• does not hold seeds,

• is not transformed at awakening,

• and does not shift from saṁsāric to nirvāṇic.

Rather, ignorance merely obscures recognition of it.

In classic Dzogchen metaphors:

• Clouds do not change the nature of the sky.

• Waves do not alter the nature of water.

• Reflections do not modify the nature of a mirror.

The Ground remains what it is, unperturbed by the movements of experience.

3. The Gzhi Is Not the All-Basis (Kunzhi)

Dzogchen texts consistently warn practitioners not to confuse the two. In particular, they note:

• The kunzhi is conditioned, the gzhi is unconditioned.

• The kunzhi is the base of saṁsāra, the gzhi is the basic space of reality.

• The kunzhi ceases at awakening, the gzhi is recognized at awakening.

This distinction prevents practitioners from subtly clinging to a foundational consciousness and mistaking it for the primordial state.

4. “Not One, Not Two”: Dzogchen and Madhyamaka

Dzogchen agrees with Madhyamaka that the ground has no intrinsic existence. There is no “thing” called the ground. Yet Dzogchen differs in its phenomenological emphasis:

• Whereas Madhyamaka focuses on negation,

• Dzogchen emphasizes direct experience of the luminous, empty nature of awareness.

Importantly, Dzogchen does not contradict Madhyamaka but completes the picture by describing the way emptiness is inseparable from cognisance.

It is not a different ultimate truth but a different lens on the same ultimate.

IV. The Experiential Implications

1. Why These Distinctions Matter for Practitioners

For practitioners, confusing kunzhi and gzhi can lead to several subtle errors:

a) Reifying Awareness

Mistaking the ground for a substantial awareness leads to eternalism:
“There is a metaphysical consciousness behind all experience.”

Dzogchen uses precise language to prevent this misunderstanding.

b) Collapsing into the All-Basis

Some meditators find a profound, vast, peaceful state at the base of thought. This can be mistaken for the primordial ground. But such a state is:

• temporary,

• conditioned,

• and dependent on meditation.

This is the kunzhi—the subtle foundation of samsa saṁsāra—not the gzhi.

c) Intellectualising Emptiness

Conversely, if one holds to a Madhyamaka-style negation without the luminous aspect, one may fall into a dry, abstract emptiness that has no warmth, immediacy, or presence.

Dzogchen’s view prevents this by uniting emptiness and knowing.

2. Recognizing the Gzhi

Recognition of the gzhi cannot occur through conceptual reasoning. Yet understanding the conceptual distinctions creates space for direct recognition.

The gzhi is recognized in moments when:

• Awareness relaxes naturally,

• Thoughts self-liberate,

• Dualistic tension dissolves,

• And one rests in the uncontrived presence of rigpa.

This recognition reveals that:

• Awareness does not need to be improved.

• Saṁsāra never tainted the Ground.

• Liberation is a matter of uncovering, not altering.

3. The Role of Clarity and Luminosity

The Dzogchen Ground is described as luminosity (gsal ba): It is not a substance the vivid clarity by which experience manifests. This luminosity is inseparable from emptiness. Without luminosity, emptiness would be unrecognisable. Without emptiness, luminosity would become a metaphysical essence.

This union is described as ka dag lhun grub: primordial purity that is inseparable from spontaneous presence.

The Ground is not in awareness. The Ground is the nature of awareness.

4. Toward Direct Recognition

Understanding the difference between kunzhi and gzhi is not an academic exercise. It is a way to refine one’s view so that recognition becomes unimpeded by conceptual confusion. For the Dzogchen practitioner, the goal is not to identify the ground intellectually, but to experience the natural state directly.

When the Ground is recognised,

• The all-basis dissolves like frost in sunlight.

• The dualistic mind relaxes effortlessly.

• Awareness reveals its own nature without contrivance.