Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
@pegembara said:
Does not exist APART from objects of consciousness.
One can only be conscious of "something".
But see Note 9 here: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.049.than.html
I realise there isn't a consensus on the significance of "consciousness without surface", but I wonder if it is connected to the global awareness which develops with mindfulness practice. It's like with strong mindfulness there is an higher awareness of the various sense-bases working, the various types of consciousness and their objects, the whole process.
To me "consciousness without surface" or "arahant consciousness" is an open awareness where there is no stickiness. The knowing doesn't stick anywhere(unestablished). A bell sound is just a bell sound, red is just red minus the mental commentary(Who is ringing, Should I stop?) Somewhat like a touch and letting go thing. But this is still dependent on functioning of the senses - not APART.
In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized.
"Where consciousness does not land or grow, name-&-form does not alight. Where name-&-form does not alight, there is no growth of fabrications. Where there is no growth of fabrications, there is no production of renewed becoming in the future. Where there is no production of renewed becoming in the future, there is no future birth, aging, & death. That, I tell you, has no sorrow, affliction, or despair."
@Jeffrey said:at First you have to know about what the self is not. And in the Mahayana that topic is Wisdom of Emptiness. I don't think you can understand the texts about the Buddhanature as well if you haven't already become familiarized with what the self is not and the teachings describing the wisdom of emptiness. In the sense that you would already be familiar with what the 2nd turning teachings said so in light of that you would not mistake what is being said about Buddha nature.
Does sunyata ( emptiness ) mean that Buddha nature is also dependent on conditions? Is Buddha nature a "thing" or state which is exempt from emptiness, or is Buddha nature actually the experience of emptiness? Or something else?
The impression I have is that there isn't a consensus about Buddha nature, different schools have different ideas about it.
@pegembara said:>
To me "consciousness without surface" or "arahant consciousness" is an open awareness where there is no stickiness. The knowing doesn't stick anywhere(unestablished). A bell sound is just a bell sound, red is just red minus the mental commentary(Who is ringing, Should I stop?) Somewhat like a touch and letting go thing. But this is still dependent on functioning of the senses - not APART.
That's one interpretation, but it is rather ambiguous, like the Udana passage I referenced earlier in the discussion. It also depends on the interpretation of dependent origination that is being used. I'm not sure the Bahiya passage is relevant here, that is about the end of conceiving ( see MN1 ), and not specifically about consciousness.
It's tricky because there is a lot of ambiguity in the suttas, and therefore a lot of room for interpretation. At one end of the spectrum is a secular interpretation, at the other end a traditional interpretation which has a lot in common with Hinduism.
@Jeffrey said:> And also the views purpose is to try to understand the true nature of your experience. The purpose of the view is not to just understand these views, but rather understand your experience experientially. So Spiny I liked the question you had how to distinguish experientially from Atman/Brahman.
Yes, it's like people have "spiritual" experiences and then make assumptions about them, depending on their tradition or belief. It can be very subjective, particularly because the experiences are often difficult to put into words.
For example, I used to do "silent worship" with the Quakers. They would talk about their experience in terms of the "God within", I would talk about it as inner stillness or spaciousness, ie not assuming that "God" was involved.
So if Atman/Brahman was real and a Buddhist experienced it, they wouldn't talk about their experience in those terms because they don't believe in such things. It's very subjective.
That sounds rather like Atman, true self, something "beneath" the aggregates.
The "True Self" or Buddhanature doctrine, as we're told the Buddha articulated it on his deathbed, does sound a bit like Atman.
It's sounds like it, but it can't be! Because if it was, it could not rightly be called Buddha nature to begin with!
So what exactly is Buddha nature in your view? Is it something inherent which comes to the fore when the craving and aversion subside, and we see more clearly? Is it something distinct from the aggregates?
Would you talk about Buddha nature as "true self"? And, if so, how would you distinguish this experientially from Atman/Brahman?
If we want Buddha nature to mean 'something pure, blissful', then everything else must be brushed aside as part of a dualistic world. This would make nondualism the common ground between Buddhism and Hinduism.
SpinyNorman regarding if the Buddha nature is exempt from conditioning or exempt from emptiness you would really have to read about the Buddha nature from people who teach about both emptiness and the Buddha nature to see for yourself what they are saying. Or view videos.
It approaches 'sin' in a deeper way than most understand or contemplate and is closer to the mystical Christian's approach ... The similar Islamic mystical term is heedlessness or forgetting. The remedy is the 'remembering' in which Allah unfolds ...
Sin can be understood as a condition of acceptance of dukkha or sleep. 'Grace' is awakening by travelling the path of the Perfect Being, which is Buddha Christ for Christians. Most Christians are just interested in the Bardo states, a clarity of mind that happens at death. Mystics are made of sterner resolve of closer clarity before death ...
Grace or resonance with Buddha Nature or awakening are all based on an understanding that a more awake, greater attunement, revelation is possible. That free state is the purpose of dharma. Not just the acceptance of sin/dukkha/flawed being/snoozing but transcendence ...
As the Boddhisattva and toddler says:
'Don't be naughty' or words to that directive ...
John 8:11
The impression I have is that there isn't a consensus about Buddha nature, different schools have different ideas about it.
@SpinyNorman, Yes there are different views but enough is agreed upon that I think you could get your basic FAQs answered. A lot of the schools are historical and they do not exist anymore so you read their view to get what they said and then think about it. And currently there are schools in TB and then other schools outside TB. I haven't studied Buddha nature just the views on emptiness, but I have heard some teasers such as one comes to mind that might give you an idea:
Emptiness. Beyond Thought. Clear Light of Mind.
And then where the schools of thought come in they might be talking about those three and maybe talking about one or another or emphasizing one. And some view can be described coursely and easy to understand while some view is maybe 'beyond scripture' like in Zen tradition so it is not obvious and easy to understand as logical perhaps because it is a subtle point with the word 'subtle' meaning hard to get the idea.
But you really have to understand that these have to be unpacked to understand. You cannot just say "ok beyond thought... check" "I am now vajrayana master!"
And as you have said they apply to experience ie 'experiential'
That sounds rather like Atman, true self, something "beneath" the aggregates.
The "True Self" or Buddhanature doctrine, as we're told the Buddha articulated it on his deathbed, does sound a bit like Atman.
It's sounds like it, but it can't be! Because if it was, it could not rightly be called Buddha nature to begin with!
So what exactly is Buddha nature in your view? Is it something inherent which comes to the fore when the craving and aversion subside, and we see more clearly? Is it something distinct from the aggregates?
Would you talk about Buddha nature as "true self"? And, if so, how would you distinguish this experientially from Atman/Brahman?
If we want Buddha nature to mean 'something pure, blissful', then everything else must be brushed aside as part of a dualistic world. This would make nondualism the common ground between Buddhism and Hinduism.
Yes, I think non-dualism is a common theme in the Dharmic traditions.
@techie said:
Wouldn't this mean anger (and by extension other negative states too) are part of our nature? Wouldn't that make our original nature sinful, as the Christians believe? Where is the buddha nature in any of this?
I am not attached to my anger. My anger and body and karma/situation are attached to me. What is this 'me'? For many of us it is personal rather than transcendent/empty/Buddha Mature.
The Buddha Mature Nature is absence of qualities/flavourings/stuff, we could therefore liken it to a Clear or Pure Light shining through a precious but flawed jewel .... @Jeffrey has mentioned this in his post ...
@Jeffrey said:
SpinyNorman regarding if the Buddha nature is exempt from conditioning or exempt from emptiness you would really have to read about the Buddha nature from people who teach about both emptiness and the Buddha nature to see for yourself what they are saying. Or view videos.
It's OK, I was just curious. It's interesting the way that different schools developed different ideas.
Comments
To me "consciousness without surface" or "arahant consciousness" is an open awareness where there is no stickiness. The knowing doesn't stick anywhere(unestablished). A bell sound is just a bell sound, red is just red minus the mental commentary(Who is ringing, Should I stop?) Somewhat like a touch and letting go thing. But this is still dependent on functioning of the senses - not APART.
"Where consciousness does not land or grow, name-&-form does not alight. Where name-&-form does not alight, there is no growth of fabrications. Where there is no growth of fabrications, there is no production of renewed becoming in the future. Where there is no production of renewed becoming in the future, there is no future birth, aging, & death. That, I tell you, has no sorrow, affliction, or despair."
Does sunyata ( emptiness ) mean that Buddha nature is also dependent on conditions? Is Buddha nature a "thing" or state which is exempt from emptiness, or is Buddha nature actually the experience of emptiness? Or something else?
The impression I have is that there isn't a consensus about Buddha nature, different schools have different ideas about it.
That's one interpretation, but it is rather ambiguous, like the Udana passage I referenced earlier in the discussion. It also depends on the interpretation of dependent origination that is being used. I'm not sure the Bahiya passage is relevant here, that is about the end of conceiving ( see MN1 ), and not specifically about consciousness.
It's tricky because there is a lot of ambiguity in the suttas, and therefore a lot of room for interpretation. At one end of the spectrum is a secular interpretation, at the other end a traditional interpretation which has a lot in common with Hinduism.
Yes, it's like people have "spiritual" experiences and then make assumptions about them, depending on their tradition or belief. It can be very subjective, particularly because the experiences are often difficult to put into words.
For example, I used to do "silent worship" with the Quakers. They would talk about their experience in terms of the "God within", I would talk about it as inner stillness or spaciousness, ie not assuming that "God" was involved.
So if Atman/Brahman was real and a Buddhist experienced it, they wouldn't talk about their experience in those terms because they don't believe in such things. It's very subjective.
That a politician's answer.
If we want Buddha nature to mean 'something pure, blissful', then everything else must be brushed aside as part of a dualistic world. This would make nondualism the common ground between Buddhism and Hinduism.
SpinyNorman regarding if the Buddha nature is exempt from conditioning or exempt from emptiness you would really have to read about the Buddha nature from people who teach about both emptiness and the Buddha nature to see for yourself what they are saying. Or view videos.
I rather liked @Dakini answers.
It approaches 'sin' in a deeper way than most understand or contemplate and is closer to the mystical Christian's approach ... The similar Islamic mystical term is heedlessness or forgetting. The remedy is the 'remembering' in which Allah unfolds ...
Sin can be understood as a condition of acceptance of dukkha or sleep. 'Grace' is awakening by travelling the path of the Perfect Being, which is Buddha Christ for Christians. Most Christians are just interested in the Bardo states, a clarity of mind that happens at death. Mystics are made of sterner resolve of closer clarity before death ...
Grace or resonance with Buddha Nature or awakening are all based on an understanding that a more awake, greater attunement, revelation is possible. That free state is the purpose of dharma. Not just the acceptance of sin/dukkha/flawed being/snoozing but transcendence ...
As the Boddhisattva and toddler says:
'Don't be naughty' or words to that directive ...
John 8:11
@SpinyNorman, Yes there are different views but enough is agreed upon that I think you could get your basic FAQs answered. A lot of the schools are historical and they do not exist anymore so you read their view to get what they said and then think about it. And currently there are schools in TB and then other schools outside TB. I haven't studied Buddha nature just the views on emptiness, but I have heard some teasers such as one comes to mind that might give you an idea:
Emptiness. Beyond Thought. Clear Light of Mind.
And then where the schools of thought come in they might be talking about those three and maybe talking about one or another or emphasizing one. And some view can be described coursely and easy to understand while some view is maybe 'beyond scripture' like in Zen tradition so it is not obvious and easy to understand as logical perhaps because it is a subtle point with the word 'subtle' meaning hard to get the idea.
But you really have to understand that these have to be unpacked to understand. You cannot just say "ok beyond thought... check" "I am now vajrayana master!"
And as you have said they apply to experience ie 'experiential'
Yes, I think non-dualism is a common theme in the Dharmic traditions.
I am not attached to my anger. My anger and body and karma/situation are attached to me. What is this 'me'? For many of us it is personal rather than transcendent/empty/Buddha Mature.
The Buddha Mature Nature is absence of qualities/flavourings/stuff, we could therefore liken it to a Clear or Pure Light shining through a precious but flawed jewel .... @Jeffrey has mentioned this in his post ...
It's OK, I was just curious. It's interesting the way that different schools developed different ideas.