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.
What is difference between consciousness and awareness
What is difference between consciousness and awareness
0
Comments
Awareness means you know you are in the present.
If it's a distinction you seek.
YMMV.
The first would be the view of some Advaita followers. The latter is being taught by some Buddhist teachers, however, this is not the definition of it in the early scriptures, however.
The reason I prefer the original scriptures description is because, there is no 'The Non-dual Awareness' as a single reality. Awareness/Consciousness is simply the self-luminous cognizance (The six consciousnesses) which arises dependent on the six sense organs and six sense objects.
These manifestations are already non-dual by nature, but there is no inherent, independent 'substance' underlying all things. These manifestations are self-luminous in essence.
If we say that there is a single underlying Awareness, then even though we might discover the non-duality of subject and object, Awareness is still seen as something inherent with substance.
But if we comprehend Awareness as simply these six modes of cognizance, then there is nothing inherent about it. Manifestations of cognizance arise via dependent origination. Awareness/Consciousness is empty by nature.
If anything, I'd call Awareness the wisdom that comprehends the nature of all consciousnesses thereby transmuting them into wisdom. (as per the explanation of Awareness transmuting dualistic consciousness into wisdom)
Important to note there is that there is no Awareness apart from the six consciousnesses. The six consciousnesses comprehended well, is awareness, otherwise it is ignorance.
There is no teaching in Buddhism higher than dependent origination. Whatever originates in dependence is empty. The view of Dzogchen, according to ChNN (Chogyal Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche) in his rdzogs chen skor dri len is the same as Prasanga Madhyamaka, with one difference only - Madhyamaka view is a result of intellectual analysis, Dzogchen view is not. Philosophically, however, they are the same. The view of Madhyamaka does not go beyond the view of dependent origination, since the Madhyamaka view is dependent origination. He also cites Sakya Pandita "If there were something beyond freedom from extremes, that would be an extreme."
Further, there is no rigpa to speak of that exists separate from the earth, water, fire, air, space and consciousness that make up the universe and sentient beings. Rigpa is merely a different way of talking about these six things. In their pure state (their actual state) we talk about the radiance of the five wisdoms of rig pa. In their impure state we talk about how the five elements arise from consciousness. One coin, two sides. And it is completely empty from beginning to end, and top to bottom, free from all extremes and not established in anyway.
Dzogchen teachings also describe the process of how sentient being continue in an afflicted state (suffering), what is the cause of that afflicted state (suffering), that fact that afflicted state can cease (the cessation of suffering) and the correct path to end that suffering (the truth of the path). Dzogchen teachings describe the four noble truths in terms of dependent origination also.
Ergo, Dzogchen also does not go beyond Buddha's teaching of dependent origination which Nagarjuna describes in the following fashion:
I bow to him, the greatest of the teachers,
the Sambuddha, by whom dependent origination --
not ceasing, not arising
not annihilated, not permanent,
not going, not coming,
not diverse, not single,
was taught as peace
in order to pacify proliferation.
Some references to explain the difference:
Awareness (see "In Buddhism...")
Consciousness; also see consciousness in reference to the twelve nidanas (scroll down to "Vijnana").
care to share why you feel this is relevant, @xabir...?
Further, there is no rigpa to speak of that exists separate from the earth, water, fire, air, space and consciousness that make up the universe and sentient beings. Rigpa is merely a different way of talking about these six things. In their pure state (their actual state) we talk about the radiance of the five wisdoms of rig pa. In their impure state we talk about how the five elements arise from consciousness. One coin, two sides. And it is completely empty from beginning to end, and top to bottom, free from all extremes and not established in anyway.
with metta
Yet undeniably, there is a clarity that is manifest.
Clarity is just... in seeing just the seen... in hearing just the heard. (no seer or hearer)
we see a 'thing or being'
we hear a 'thing'
we taste a 'thing' etc.
when one stays with the experience (seeing, hearing, etc.) can be called one is with awareness
In Buddhism, I am not aware of any word that accords with 'awareness'.
There is 'mano' or 'knowing'; 'sati' or 'recollection'; and 'manasikara' or 'attention'.
please enlighten me people.
what is more real?
Awareness itself is just the conglomerate of phenomena... it is empty.
Awareness is your mind knows it is abiding in the Tao.
Consciousness is just the "mirror" of the mind that reflects the objects of the senses so your mind can know/experience them
:mullet:
_/|\_
Abu
The mind can be conscious of/while stealing or killing but this is not Buddhist mindfulness.
Buddhist mindfulness is to bring to & keep in mind the Dhamma/path factors.
Consciousness is simply sense awareness functioning via the sense organs.
Mindfulness channels or directs the use/placement of consciousness but mindfulness is not consciousness.
Regards
Mindfulness is something I need to work on!
Thankyou very much kowtaaia
A student asks:
I know you are very busy, but I was very puzzled about no-self as discussed in book 3 of the Discovering the Heart of Buddhism course. What I cannot understand is that if the self is non-existent, what motivates people to do things, such as this course?
Lama Shenpen responds:
Do I actually say that the self is non-existent? I didn’t mean to. What the Buddha always taught was that what was impermanent, unsatisfactory and not as we wanted it could not be the self. The self, in this context, is the one who wants happiness. None of the things we grasp at as self provide that happiness so our whole idea of our self causes us suffering.
Who is the us that discovers that? It is the the ungrasped self, the true self, the self that is not impermanent, not suffering, that is as we want it to be. It is the Buddha Nature. When we discover that we realise that this is what we always wanted but we sought for it in the wrong place and in the wrong way. We found aspects of it that we tried to grasp at and own but they just became unsatisfactory as soon as we grasped them. In fact we tried to grasp them only to find we had grasped at thin air, but instead of just ceasing to grasp we got terrified and grasped more and more. Then we became more and more confused and still were left with just thin air. It is only when the fundamental awareness of our being turns towards that thin air and recognises its experience of itself for what it is that it can relax the grasping reaction and let that truth be.
You could call that the end of ego grasping and the life of the true self - or true nature - the ultimate reality of what we are. It is not something we can know by the grasping mind. It is not something to believe in as a concept. It is reality that discovers itself!
So it itself is motivated to discover itself and do this course!
The student continues:
Christians put a lot of faith in the soul, which they believe is a separate unchanging entity. Surely, if there was nothing there, one of them would have noticed by now.
Lama Shenpen responds:
You get all kinds of Christians like you get all kinds of Buddhist. Some have strong conceptual beliefs that they just trot out and say they believe in - they dont want to think too much about whether their beliefs are true or not. They just want something to cling on to that confirms them in their idea of themselves.
Some Buddhists are like that too.
Other Christians are connecting deeply to their hearts and discovering what is genuine and true in their experience - and they find what anyone finds who does that. So they talk about their experience in much the same terms as we would.
As for soul - well it just depends what one means by it doesnt it?
If you believe awareness is conditional you would need an infinite regression of faculties in order to establish that. So actually whatever reality there is just is. It is non-conceptual otherwise it leads to absurd infinite regression.
In an email from my teacher Shenpen Hookham:
"If awareness can only be conditioned then the Buddha's awareness is conditioned in which case the Buddha is conditioned and impermanent, suffering and not self and so not a fit Refuge - as you say he is as unreliable as all other conditioned things. This is the Rangtong/Shentong debate in a nutshell. The consequences of thinking of the Buddha's awareness as conditioned hardly bear contemplating. As you point out below, it is against the basic premises of all the Buddha taught. All conditioned things are impermanent. I guess the key argument for those who claim the Buddha is impermenant is that you can have conditioned things that are not defiled (anasrava). This last is an interesting term. All asrava things are suffering. Asrava means with outflow. Anasrava means without outflow."
"Jeffrey: 'I was in a public chatroom where a scheduled presentation of an independent practitioner...a self-described occultist was presenting material on emptiness. He was presenting texts including Da Lai Lama writings. And explaining them.
A couple of points. The first question I had was WHO perceives emptiness. His response was that discriminatory awareness does. So I asked if the perception of an empty self is different from the discriminatroy awareness. Or are they separate. He said yes and he knew that because meditators had reported that they could perceive two separate things, the emptiness of self and also the discriminatory awareness. He explained that 'things' were separate from the discriminatory awareness.'
Shenpen: 'We dont believe things just because meditators report it. This is hearsay (note the Buddha's advice to the Kalamas and to Canki in the Kalama and Canki sutras). At most what a meditator says gives us some provisional guidance. But to say we know because someone else says so is to not be truthful. Furthermore are we to believe every meditator? That makes no sense. They do not all report the same experiences or interpret their experiences in the same way. Can meditators make mistaken observations? Obviously they can. So although we can be respectful of meditators, we need to do our best to check out their wisdom and character before putting provisional trust in any particular meditators reports.'
....
Jeffrey: 'Well I told him to go on becaues there was a whole room of people and I didn't want to derail him. But I wasn't quite satisfied. And later I struck on what my question was. WHO perceives the difference between discriminatory awareness and empty self?'
Shenpen: 'So I am still not quite clear if this is accurate. You are right to be asking this. He has got himself into a infinite regression hasnt he? We would say that there is another way of knowing that is not conditioned and this is our way out of the regress from the conceptual point of view but then how do we get to that other way of knowing (abhijna). We have to find a reliable teacher who can point it out to us in our own experience.'
.....
Jeffrey: 'Second later on he stated that when we see the emptiness of existence of self (a laundry list of ways we might conceive this sort of templates) that that actually removes ignorance. I got into a discussion of whether that discriminatory awareness itself is conditional. He said it was. So I pointed out from the dammapada that if it is conditional then the discriminatory awareness itself would be unsatisfactory. I felt that the reason the idea of a self was negated was simply because it was a conditional (conceptual) idea and therefore it was unsatisfactory.'
Shenpen: 'Yes - that is sound'
.......
Jeffrey : 'He was of the opinion that right cognition is satisfactory and stained cognition is unsatisfactory. But both are condtional. I said I thought all conditional would be stained becaues of idea of a subject and object.'
Shenpen : 'Yes.......that is the bit I mention above in regard to asrava. He is obviously hanging his case on the line that all asrava things are suffering - so he is trying to argue (and I think this is Gelugpa again) that its being able to see that the subject and object are both empty (self empty and therefore conditioned).
It is a huge fault in their system as far as I can see. It makes no sense in such a system to talk of purifying the heart since the heart is simply conditioned. It takes the heart oui of Buddhism...........oh dear!'
At Savatthi. "Monks, any desire-passion with regard to eye-consciousness is a defilement of the mind. Any desire-passion with regard to ear-consciousness... nose-consciousness... tongue-consciousness... body-consciousness... intellect-consciousness is a defilement of the mind. When, with regard to these six bases, the defilements of -AWARENESS- are abandoned, then the mind is inclined to renunciation. The mind fostered by renunciation feels malleable for the direct knowing of those qualities worth realizing."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn27/sn27.001-010.than.html
the English word 'awareness' probably has too broad a meaning in English to be found in Pali
the Pali word in SN 27.3 is 'cetaso', which means 'mind' or 'mental'
for example, Bhikkhu Bodhi translates this verse as 'mental corruption'
the inaccurate translator Thanissaro uses the word 'awareness' throughout his translations, such as 'awareness release' rather than 'liberation of mind'
the mind is more than mere awareness so when the mind is liberated via insight all of its faculties are liberated
regards
time to bash head against the wall.
I was trained in this 3 aspects:
1. The experience
2. The realization
3. and the View
I will start with 'experience'. There are different experiences in relation to 'no self':
1. Impersonality.
This is the case when practitioners experienced that everything is an expression of a universal cosmic intelligence. There is therefore no sense of a personal doer... rather, it feels like I and everything is being lived by a higher power, being expressed by a higher cosmic intelligence. But this is still dualistic – there is still this sense of separation between a 'cosmic intelligence' and the 'world of experience', so it is still dualistic.
2. Non-dual into One Mind.
Where subject and object division collapsed into a single seamless experience of one Naked Awareness.
3. No-Mind
Where even the naked Awareness is totally forgotten and dissolved into simply scenery, sound, arising thoughts and passing scent.
4. Sunyata
My experience here is still at the beginning phase. It is when the 'self' is completely transcended into dependent originated activity. The play of dharma.
Next is the 'Realization'. Having an experience is not the same as having a realization... for example, you may have a temporary experience where the sense of separation between experiencer and experience suddenly and temporarily dissolves or there is the sense that subject and object has merged... temporarily. This is not yet the realization of non-duality... the realization that separation has been false right from the beginning... there never was separation.
It should be noted that having non-dual samadhis are *not* enlightenment... why? The realization that there never was separation to begin with, hasn't arisen. Therefore you can only have temporary glimpses and experiences of non-dual... where the latent dualistic tendencies continue to surface... and not have seamless, effortless seeing.
And even after seeing through this separation, you may have the realization of non-dual but still fall into substantial non-duality, or One Mind. Why? This is because though we have overcome the bond of duality, our view of reality is still seeing it as 'inherent'. Our view or framework has it that reality must have an inherent essence or substance to it, something permanent, independent, ultimate. So though everything is experienced without separation, the mind still can't overcome the idea of a source. The mind kept coming back to a 'source' and is unable to break-through and find the constant need to rest in an ultimate reality in which everything is a part of... a Mind, an Awareness, a Self.... what this results is a subtle tendency to cling, to sink back to a ground, a source, and so transience cannot be fully appreciated for what it is. It is an important phase however, as for the first time phenomena are no longer seen as 'happening IN Awareness' but 'happening AS Awareness' – Awareness is its object of perception, Awareness is expressing itself as every moment of manifest perception.
However, there is still a constant referencing back to the One Awareness. Until you see that the idea itself is merely a thought, and everything is merely thoughts, sights, sounds, disjoint, disperse, insubstantial. There, a change of view takes place... experience remains non-dual but without the view of 'everything is inside me/everything is an expression of ME' but 'there is just thoughts, sight, sound, taste' – just manifestation. At this point you realize no self in the sense of Anatta – just sight, sound, thoughts, with no one behind or linking them. After anatta, you can then proceed to experience and realize how every experience, every manifestation is the interaction of the entire universe... the total exertion of the universe, the totality of causes and conditions, gives rise to this moment of manifestation.
When the emptiness of everything is realized, everything turns out to be unconditioned. But it is not an unconditioned substance.
As Acharya Mahayogi Shridhar Rana Rinpoche states,
"Although interdependence is itself conditioned, in reality it is unborn and empty; its true nature is unconditioned. But this is not an unconditioned reality like Brahma but an unconditioned truth i.e. the fact that all things are in reality empty, unborn, uncreated."
Because in Buddhism we discovers everything to be empty without an inherent, independent self-existence, we are free from clinging to anything including a One Awareness.
The experience of ordinary sights and sounds ARE unconditioned... due to its emptiness.
As Nagarjuna states:
"
38. When eye and form assume their right relation,
Appearances appear without a blur.
Since these neither arise nor cease,
They are the dharmadhatu, though they are imagined to be otherwise.
..."
http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/search/label/Nagarjuna
p.s. described more in my e-journal/e-book, http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2010/12/my-e-booke-journal.html