i have one question

An Eternal Now SG

Yes and not only is it in a state of impermanence, there is no separate distinct entity apart from the phenomena. For example when seeing a bird, there is no seer behind seeing, the seeing IS the scene/sight. When hearing music, there is no hearer, there is simply music. Everything is self-aware where it is without a separate experiencer or self. Everything is just the display of Dharmakaya or Buddha-Nature, being vivid luminosity/awareness and emptiness inseparable.

About enlightenment, it's not exactly a state -- it's a realisation of what has always been the case, thus ending all ignorance and suffering that arises out of delusion. For example we should not mistaken no-self as being a state where 'self' is annihilated, rather realising no-self means we realise that all along, there never was a separate self within nor apart from phenomena. To say that 'self' is annihilated is wrong because it implies there was a 'self' in the first place to 'get annihilated', and so this is false view, since no 'self' could be found to begin with that could 'exist' or 'annihilate'. Hence enlightenment is 'realisation' and not a 'state'.

Here's an excerpt from a Buddhist glossary:

Two emptinesses (二空) include (1) emptiness of self, the ātman, the soul, in a person composed of the five aggregates, constantly changing with causes and conditions; and (2) emptiness of selves in all dharmas—each of the five aggregates, each of the twelve fields, and each of the eighteen spheres, as well as everything else with no independent existence. No-self in any dharma implies no-self in a person, but the latter is separated out in the first category. Realization of the emptiness of self in a person will lead to attainment of Arhatship or Pratyekabuddhahood. Bodhisattvas who have realized both emptinesses ascend to the First Ground on their Way to Buddhahood.

Juiyong SG

About enlightenment, it's not exactly a state -- it's a realisation of what has always been the case, thus ending all ignorance and suffering that arises out of delusion. For example we should not mistaken no-self as being a state where 'self' is annihilated, rather realising no-self means we realise that all along, there never was a separate self within nor apart from phenomena. To say that 'self' is annihilated is wrong because it implies there was a 'self' in the first place to 'get annihilated', and so this is false view, since no 'self' could be found from the beginning that could 'exist' or 'annihilate'.

Here's an excerpt from a Buddhist glossary:

Thanks. Back to your post on the following "Though it is true that in an Arhant without vows to continue the Bodhisattva path he will experience cessation of the mind continuum for a prolonged period of time (in Mahayana we consider that Arhats will eventually return to continue his path to Buddhahood)..."

So are we saying that the practice of the Arhat way is incorrect given that it differs from that of the Bodhisattva's path? Will it not eventually lead to the state of realization and entering into Nirvana? if so, and if time is just a matter of relative long or short, it does not matter which path is being follow?

Thanks for making the effort to reply and helping understand the Buddhist thinking process.

HiAy3Captain SG

An Eternal Now SG

What I meant is this: Arhats, when they are alive, already experience Nirvana. Nirvana means Cessation. It is the end of clinging to the aggregates, the ceasing of viewing the aggregates as self or pertaining to a self. That ceasing is what is called the not-born and not-conditioned, because once attachment vanished it cannot arise again.

However, while alive, the Arhats will still experience sensory awareness and be able to think and function as a normal human being like us (albeit without ignorance and mental suffering) and are also capable of ageing, sickness and physical pain, etc. That has to do with the normal bodily function of a human being.

However, what happens after physical death for an Arhat is, the relative cessation of the mind continuum in Nirvana. This is because the causes for uncontrolled rebirth has been ended, and that liberated sage is no longer trapped in the cycle of samsaric rebirth. Being liberated he no longer needs to get reborn due to karma, and so there is no more conditions for his birth. For most Theravadins this is the end goal. For Mahayanist, we believe that the Arhats will eventually return to continue their journey to Buddhahood.

For a Mahayanist, the Bodhisattva, even though he might be liberated from uncontrolled rebirth, due to their vows will still return again to save other sentient beings and continue his practice to Buddhahood.

disappear SG

Even Alaya consciousness must not be seen as an entity.

It is a momentary stream of consciousness.

i realise this thread is related to what i've posted in the other "no-self" thread.

the question which i've wanted to ask is about the "true mind" or "buddha nature". according to what i've read in surangama or whatever, the alaya consciousness is very close to the "true mind". and also, this "true mind" is treated as something permanent. maybe it is due to limited understanding and delusion, but isnt there something got to be permanent when we pass from life to life? like what i've said in the other thread, its like a same "you" experiencing it and no one can take that place.

An Eternal Now SG

i realise this thread is related to what i've posted in the other "no-self" thread.

No, true mind is not an entity and should not be mistaken as an entity that passes on to the next lifetime. True mind is simply the luminous and empty nature of mind, and all appearances are mind. It is permanent in the same way as 'emptiness' is the permanent nature of all phenomena, 'impermanence' is the 'permanent' nature of all phenomena. 'Impermanence' is not a thing: it's simply the nature of all phenomena. Similarly 'luminosity', 'emptiness' is not a thing, it is rather the nature of all phenomena. Luminosity means vivid awareness, emptiness is the ungraspability, unlocatability of anything.

Hence we must not be mistaken that there is an entity called 'mind' which is permanent, taking rebirth.

Rather there is only a continuation of a process, the process continues due to cause and effect, i.e. a previous karmic cause results in a NEW birth, which is nevertheless the continuation of the process since that birth is due to the ripening of a previously planted karmic seed.

So there is no fixed entity called Self, as Thusness said before:

disappear SG

Hence we must not be mistaken that there is an entity called 'mind' which is permanent, taking rebirth.

So there is no fixed entity called Self, as Thusness said before:

thanks, but this is too difficult for me, even concept wise. and neither do i see the point for me to get confused trying to understand this. but i want to ask u is: entity aside, isnt 'true mind' permanent? it has always been in our possession? ok, i understand the limit of the language but u get the idea?

that being able to have the realisation in bold under deep meditation is certainly noteworthy, whether theres anything wrong with it i dont dare to say, but that doesnt mean the person has totally comprehended his buddha nature, right?

An Eternal Now SG

True mind is the permanent nature of everything.

But before we talk about true mind, lets use a simpler concept like impermanence.

Is all phenomena impermanent? Yes.

Has any phenomena ever stopped being impermanent? No.

Therefore: impermanence is the permanent nature of all phenomena, not in the sense there is a thing called 'impermanence' that is eternal, but rather, it is permanent in the sense that impermanence is simply the nature of reality and is 'always so'.

Similarly, it is said luminosity and emptiness is the unchanging nature of mind.

Have you ever stopped being aware? No. (only corpses are unaware)

Isn't hearing, seeing, etc, always occuring? Yes.

Hence: luminosity is an unchanging nature of mind.

Has whatever you seen, felt, experienced, have any independent existence apart from causes and conditions, i.e., can the sound of the drum occur without the person hitting, the drumstick, the drum, the ears, etc etc? No.

Has the nature of dependent origination/emptiness ever stopped being so? No. It's simply the nature of all that is.

Hence: emptiness is the unchanging essence of mind.

Emptiness (interdependent arising), Luminosity (awareness) is the unchanging nature of mind.

Does that mean there is some entity called 'Mind'? No. Emptiness and luminosity is simply the nature of reality at all times in the same way 'impermanence' is the nature of all appearances.

Seeing is not separate from scenery, hearing is not separate from sound. When hearing, there is just sound. When seeing, just forms, sceneries, etc.

There is no separate seer involved.

There is no 'impermanence' apart from apperances, and there is no 'emptiness and luminosity' apart form appearances.

disappear SG

i dont understand and do not find this helpful for myself, but thanks anyway. maybe it would be for others.

An Eternal Now SG

True Mind should not be understood as an unchanging self experiencing changes or experiencing rebirth. True Mind is simply whatever we experience -- scenery, sound, taste, everything is True Mind. There is no 'True Mind' moving from lifetime to lifetime and taking rebirth -- since that would be separating the experiencer from the experience, and no such separation can be found.

True Mind must not be misunderstood as the Atman of Hinduism.

Buddhism Plain and Simple page 115, by Zen Teacher Steve Hagen:

With the two types of views there are two kinds of minds. As human beings, we all have what we could call ordinary minds - the mind that you've always assumed you've had. It's a calculating mind, a discriminating mind, a fragmented mind. It's the mind of ordinary consciousness, the mind of self and other. We generally think of it as "my mind."

But there's another mind that is unborn, ungrown, and unconditioned. Unlike "your mind," it is unbound, for there is nothing beyond it. To this Mind, there is no "other mind."

This Mind is nothing other than the Whole. It's simply thus, the fabric of the world itself - the ongoing arising and falling away that are matter, energy and events.

Speaking of this Mind, the great Chinese Zen master Huang Po said,

All buddhas and ordinary people are just One Mind... This Mind is beyond all measurements, names, oppositions: this very being is It; as soon as you stir your mind you turn away from It.

This Mind is self-evident - it's always switched on, so to speak. We can - and, in fact, we do - see It in every moment. If we would refrain from stirring our minds (rest our frontal lobes, as my Zen teacher used to say) and let our conceptualising die down, like the ripples on a pond after the stirring wind has ceased, we would realise - we would know Mind directly.

disappear SG

thanks. i also dont understand :p

however i just wanna comment:

seriously the bold thing underlined, i simply feel theres something still amiss with the explanation, i just dunno what. EDIT: u can compared that definition and read the explainings about the true mind in the beginning part of the surangama sutra and see if got any difference or deviations.

An Eternal Now SG

Don't worry about the explanation...

First of all what you meant by 'True Mind'?

disappear SG

i dont know, as u can see im quite blur and confused.

so i just wanna to give example. for instance, those who remember their past lives. those people will say they remember who "i" was and what "i" did. so obviously theres something still the same and unchanging, and no one can take their place. one carries out their actions and bears their own result of their own karma(theres collective karma but thats a different story), and no one can take the place of their own suffering on their behalf. even if the true mind should not be mistaken as a separate entity and a 'self', something's still there which is still very individual and got very much to do with ourselves. even if a huge part of this is not real, theres still got to be something unchanging with it that, like the surangama sutra say, "cannot be returned to any causes" and conditions. so is this the true mind?

An Eternal Now SG

What you are talking about is Alaya consciousnesss, not True Mind. Yes, alaya consciousness is an individual stream of consciousness. But Alaya Consciousness is not an entity, not permanent, it is empty, dependently originated, and momentary (that means there is a continuity of that process but is not a unchanging self). Something I wrote about a year ago (slightly edited):

Alayavijnana actually designates an impure consciousness, and is the source of samsara through the seeds it contains of affliction and action. It is designated from the point of view of containing the traces of action and affliction. When these traces are exhausted, the basis for the designation "alaya" is exhausted. Or rather, transformed.

Transformed to what? It transforms into the great round mirror wisdom, through insight into non-duality. Thusness said in an old post to Longchen at Non-dual and karmic patterns, "it is a wisdom that transformed totally the wrong view of phenomena as out there or in here to all as the manifestation of our pristine awareness due its emptiness nature. It is the experience of Dharmakaya." Dharmakaya = 法身

So not to mistake 法身 dualistically as if it is a separate self, such ideas are false. 法身 is talking about a Non-Dual reality in which the 'Self' experiencing the 'World' is seen as false, there is only One Reality/One Mind, and it is inseparable from the world in its entirety... usually we think we are the experiencer of the world... but in reality there is no self, experiencer, etc. There is experiencing, knowing, seeing, hearing, but there is no localized sense of knowing standing apart from what is known. There's just the entire phenomenological world, which is self-aware.

This is the meaning of 青青翠竹，尽是法身；郁郁黄花，无非般若

From http://www.kheper.net/topics/Buddhism/Yogacara_glossary.html

Alaya-vijnana, or "store consciousness" -- one of the central technical terms of Yogacara (Vijnanavada, Vijnaptimatra) philosophy of Mahayana Buddhism. Early Buddhists taught about existence of six-fold consciousness, that is the conciousness of five types of perception (visual, audial, etc.) and of "mind" (manovijnana). The Yogacarins analysing the source of consciousness added two more kinds of consciousness. They are: klistamanovijnana, or manas, that is the ego-centre of an empirical personality, and alaya-vijnana which is the source of other kinds of consciousness. Alaya-vijnana is above subject-object opposition but it is not a kind of absolute mind: alaya-vijnana is momentary and non-substantial. Every sentient being with the corresponding to this being "objective" world can be reduced to its "own" alaya-vijnana. Therefore, classical Yogacara states the existence of many alayas.

The Alaya-vijnana is a receptacle and container of the so-called "seeds" (bija), or elementary units of past experiences. These bijas project themselves as an illusionary world of empirical subjects and corresponding objects. All other seven types of consciousness are but transformations (parinama) of alaya-vijnana. In the course of its yogic practice a Yogacarin must empty
alaya-vijnana of its contents. Thus the Yogacarin puts an end to the tendency of external projections of alaya-vijnana changing it into non-dual (advaya) wisdom (jnana) of Enlightened mind.

An Eternal Now SG

Since there is no unchanging self behind everything as such, there is only a continuation of a momentary process, with no fixed entity. Even alaya is a momentary, everchanging process that continues from lifetime to lifetime but not a fixed entity. As explained in my friend's 'Self1, Self2, Self3' analogy.

disappear SG

ok. thanks for explaining. concept-wise, im that little bit clearer, even though i dont have any bit of true understanding for this.

An Eternal Now SG

On the issue of Mind and Self/No-Self there's a very good article by Ajahn Amaro who is talking from deep personal experience. He also explained the first chapter of Shurangama Sutra there. It's not a long article at all but very clear.

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2008/01/ajahn-amaro-on-non-duality-and.html

Xprobe SG

since there is noself in buddhism, so what's the entity have been cycling and re- cycling again and again in samsara?

noself is THE reason why you recycle again and again, if there could be a "self", this "self" can control whether it wishes to recycle at all or not

« Previous Page